| | | ETYEN MAHÇUPYAN
e.mahcupyan@todayszaman | ![]() |
| |
| | | In massacres and upheavals, the asymmetry between the perpetrator and the victim naturally speaks to our sense of justice and we expect that the perpetrator would express his regret and finally redress the damage caused. However, these “solution” processes politicize both parties and, most of the time, make them actors. In other words, followers on both sides emerge and confront each other. | |
In this case, we have to speak of the differing politics of the two sides, which are operating in symmetry to each other. The reality that the new balance implies is simple: In this new setting, regardless of the level of victimization, there is no point of reconciliation and peace independent of the attitude of the victim.
The meaning of this generalization within the context of the Armenian issue is the fact that if Turkey decides to confront its past, this would not be independent of the politics of the Armenians. From this perspective, the Armenian diaspora holds special importance because the pain, rage and persecution associated with their alienation and expulsion from their homeland can trigger an extreme level of enmity in diaspora members towards Turkey.
On the other hand, the genocide discourse has generated a sphere of power and authority because it plays a significant role and function for the diaspora to secure its internal integration and identity; and the community leadership carries on this discourse. In this way, the Armenian diaspora, which is actually a fairly pluralistic entity, is integrated with a distinctively strong discourse and represented by this discourse. It is not surprising to see that this is sustained within the diaspora because of the ability to create an elite class.
However, the Turkish state is actually pleased with this state of affairs because, thanks to the opposition this strong discourse generates, it is not hard to ensure Turkish society is unaware of the facts and use it as part of an ideological defense. In this way, 1915 has been transformed from an issue of the past and of the violation of rights into a struggle by which one party has been trying to make the other submit to its terms and conditions. In this process of escalating tension, the Armenian side has been focused on the defeat of the perpetrator even though this means that it has been unable to experience a decent grieving process.
Humiliating the perpetrator morally and defeating it politically becomes one of the ways to express and convey the pain and grievance. This becomes so obvious that it is assumed that those who hold the strongest and bitterest discourse feel the pain most extensively; and an environment where only those who struggle against the perpetrator acquire what is viewed as the proper political identity.
This development harms Armenians by manipulating their emotions and plays on the idea of victimhood and subjects them to the psychology of victimization for the sake of the consolidation of social solidarity; the expression of political pressure has taken the present and the future of the Armenians hostage. The Armenians live the present individually; however, as a community, they have to leave their common culture hostage to the past.
To this end, the greatest mistake is the transformation of the 1915 tragedy from a process of remembrance and grievance into a performance or presentation. However, two additional mistakes have been committed. First, the Turkish state was tied to the 1915 tragedy and a policy that resisted the influence of other states was pursued as a rule. This attitude makes the past of the Armenians a foreign policy tool for today's states and politicians.
More importantly, this focuses on the cold face of the perpetrator by ignoring what has been lost as a community and society as if Turkey's recognition of genocide will bring what has been lost back. However, the case is just the opposite. If it happens, the nakedness and severity of what was lost will appear before the Armenians, along with the alienation generated by politicization.
Secondly, a stereotype of a “Turk” has been created; this has led to the ignoring of change and plurality in Turkey out of a fear of losing a fixed enemy. This approach has been the root cause of the fact that the Armenian community in the diaspora has remained distant to its homeland and common culture. The fear of the humanization of the “Turk” minimized the likelihood for Armenians to have and see a human being in front of them. In this way, all connections and links that would enable Armenians to experience and overcome the grief have been destroyed.
In the end, the history and pain of the Armenians were left to a state which holds no moral considerations. To some point, all this should be understood. Of course, it would not be fair to see the victim and the perpetrator as equals. However, it is not possible to argue that a victim held captive by the perpetrator is acting soundly. |
| |
|
