Another
Crack in the Wall of Silence
Armenian Genocide Subject of Chicago Workshop
by Vincent Lima
Some of the most prominent scholars of Turkish history and society gathered
from March 17 to 19 at the University of Chicago for a workshop on the
Armenian Genocide. The workshop represented an important if tentative step
forward in the effort to end the exclusion of the Genocide from the
mainstream of Turkish historiography. It was organized by the
distinguished historian and political scientist Ronald Grigor Suny.
The central project was best articulated toward the end of the workshop by
Professor Geoff Eley of the University of Michigan, a historian of the
Third Reich. Professor Eley noted that until some twenty years ago,
historians of Nazism generally avoided dealing with the Holocaust, but
today the Holocaust is seen as the central event of mid-twentieth century
German history. Likewise English history used to be silent about the Irish
famine; the breaking of that silence has had important consequences for
political life and culture in England.
Professor Eley saw the Chicago workshop as an important step in the
direction of a similar integration of the Armenian Genocide as a central
event in the formation of the Turkish state.
Through coercion and rewards, the Turkish state is obviously trying hard to
keep the Armenian Genocide out of Turkish historiography, to maintain what
is sometimes called "a wall of silence." Although Professor Eley's
examples do not address the role of the state, they do represent the
desired outcome. The examples also show that the dismantling of national
myths has become an important project for historians. It should come as no
surprise, then, that a growing number of students of Turkish history are
addressing the Armenian Genocide.
BACKGROUND
The first important cracks in the wall of silence came with the work of
Taner Akcam and of Fikret Adanir. Dr. Akcam, a sociologist based in
Germany, wrote a book about the Armenian Genocide and argued that Turkish
society must face its demons to heal itself. (The argument, it should be
noted, is primarily an appeal to self-interest.)
Professor Adanir, who holds the chair in Ottoman history at Bochum
University, Germany, included the Armenian Genocide in his textbook on
Ottoman and Turkish history. At a conference on the Armenian Genocide held
at the Sorbonne in April 1998, Professor Adanir spoke movingly of his
journey from denial to acknowledgement of the Genocide.
The fundamental move from individual acts of courage to an organized
engagement of the two fields of Turkish history and Armenian Genocide
studies came in an exchange in the journal "Armenian Forum." Ara Sarafian
and the author of this report, as editors of the journal, invited two
prominent historians of the Ottoman Empire to respond to an article on the
Armenian Genocide.
Thus, Engin Akarli, holder of an endowed chair in history at Brown
University, and Selim Deringil, a professor of history at Bogazici
University in Istanbul, joined Genocide scholar Dr. Vahakn Dadrian in
responding to an article by Professor Suny. The "Armenian Forum" encounter
succeeded in raising new issues and casting new light on both the Armenian
Genocide and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It was a major blow to
the wall of silence.
It made every bit of sense, then, to build on that initiative--and that is
what the Chicago workshop has done.
PARTICIPANTS
Professors Akarli and Deringil presented papers at the Chicago workshop, as
did Dr. Akcam (now affiliated with Stiftung zu Förderung von Wissenschaft
und Kultur, Hamburg).
Other senior scholars of Turkish studies who presented papers were
Professors Caglar Keyder (Bogazici University), Halil Berktay (Sabanci
University), and Müge Goçek (University of Michigan).
Scholars of Turkish studies who presented papers also included Professor
Holly Shissler (University of Chicago), Seteney Shami (Social Science
Research Council), Hakan Özoglu (University of Chicago), and Marc Baer
(University of Chicago).
From the Armenian studies field, Dr. Gerard J. Libaridian, Professor Suny,
and Aram Arkun (Zohrab Center, New York) presented papers. Professor
Kevork Bardakjian (University of Michigan) also made a presentation.
Discussants included Professor Eley, Professor Cornell Fleischer
(University of Chicago), Professor Robert Melson (Purdue University), and
Professor Rashid Khalidi (University of Chicago).
The workshop was organized by Ronald Suny and a committee consisting of
Professor Goçek, Professor Bardakjian, Professor Stephanie Platz
(University of Michigan), and Ken Church (University of Michigan).
KEY POINTS
The workshop, regrettably, was closed-door. Thus it would be unfair to
report in great detail who said what. A conference report is being
prepared by the organizers, however, and many of the papers will appear in
print before long.
It is possible, nonetheless, to discuss some general themes. The main
points that were explored were historiographic. In other words, they
related to how historians do their craft rather than to the actual findings
they present.
(1) Contextualization and normalization
Genocide cannot be considered the normal, natural, or understandable
response to any crisis. Thus one problem that historians have to face is
how to explain without justifying, comprehend without forgiving.
Professors Keyder and Berktay were among the participants who expressed
concern that an effort to "contextualize" can end up "normalizing"
extraordinary events. The workshop did not find answers to this
fundamental problem, but the participants were obviously committed to
avoiding "normalization."
(2) Essentialization
Everyone spoke against "essentializing," i.e., taking a phenomenon out of
the context of time, place, and circumstances and treating it as if its
characteristics hold universally. An example is speaking of Islam as if
every Muslim can be expected to act in similar ways whether in
seventh-century Arabia or twenty-first century Spain.
The same goes for looking at history as if nations have always existed and
always commanded the primary loyalty of members of national groups. They
have not. It is important to avoid projecting backward and imagining that
people have always thought of themselves as Armenians and Turks, that these
words have always meant the same things to people, and that people have had
the same hostilities, loyalties, and motives across time.
Of course, thinking of people today as "Turkish scholars" or "Armenian
historians" is also a way of essentializing--and wrong. To say "Turkish
historian" is to subsume in the same category the person who has been
jailed and persecuted for speaking out and the filthy bastard who lies and
falsifies and kills memory. It implies an expectation that every Turk is
on some level a representative of Turkey and obliged to make excuses for
his or her compatriots and ancestors--or to take pride in them. To believe
that, incidentally, is to believe that the demand for Turkish recognition
of the Armenian Genocide is doomed to failure.
(3) National Myths and the Genocide
The founding myth of the Turkish state denies not only the Armenian
Genocide but the very existence of non-Turks in Asia Minor. The official
history establishment in Turkey tries to reproduce the national myth. The
job of honest scholars is to question and correct and debunk. A question
with which the participants grappled is how to move from academic tracts to
popular consciousness. Here, again, the workshop had no answers; but the
participants did have a commitment to move beyond the ivory tower.
Professor Keyder made the point that people have a vested interest in
adhering to the nationalist myth; it is not only a question of identity but
also of the dubious inheritance of material goods.
Another important point in this regard was made by Professor Akarli:
confronted with irrefutable facts, people sometimes make excuses. Present
the Turkish public with overwhelming evidence of the mass destruction of
Armenians and the response could well be, "Someone was going to be squeezed
out of Asia Minor and if 'we' hadn't pushed them out, they would have
pushed 'us' out." This possibility (which has always been part of the
official line) must be addressed in the effort to incorporate the Armenian
Genocide into Turkish national consciousness.
A corollary of this point is that confronting the denial of the Armenian
Genocide has become central to diaspora-Armenian identity. An unhealthy
situation holds in which, Dr. Libaridian noted, some people have a vested
interest in the continuation of denial.
Other issues that were discussed were less historiographical and more
historical. Here, in fairness to participants, it is probably best to let
their papers speak for themselves when published.
Some highlights: Professor Shissler made a credible case that Young Turk
leaders were not all that certain about the extent of their territorial
ambitions; Professor Keyder made a fascinating argument on the question of
popular participation in the Genocide; and Professor Berktay brilliantly
analyzed popular literature (rather than the work of remote theorists like
Gökalp) as agent of nationalist mobilization.
Also, Professor Deringil showed how documents can be misused and
misconstrued without the falsification of archives. Özoglu tracked the
transformation of Kurdish society. Arkun presented one of the most
painstakingly researched pieces, dealing with the aftermath of the Genocide
in Northern Cilicia. His presentation was a reminder of the need for
nitty-gritty research to support all the analysis that goes on in
discussions of the Genocide.
EVALUATION
The workshop was excellent and Professor Suny and his committee are to be
congratulated for an important contribution to scholarship and society.
In the interests of keeping the project on track, I will allow myself a few
words of constructive criticism. The organizers appeared to view the
workshop as a revolutionary step, an unprecedented first, tentative meeting
of "Turkish and Armenian scholars." Unlike, say, the exchange in "Armenian
Forum," the workshop was not organized around questions to be
explored--whatever the nationality of the scholars; rather it was organized
to raise questions for future research.
A consequence of this misunderstanding was that the workshop did not fully
live up to its potential.
Scholars in the field have been meeting and reading each other's work for
years and know each other. For them, this was not a fragile first step.
The fact is that every major scholar there was already on record as having
condemned Turkish nationalist historiography. Every one (except to my
knowledge Professors Deringil and Goçek) was on record as having spoken
openly about the Armenian Genocide. Thus it should have come as no
surprise that the conversation moved quickly to a condemnation of Turkish
nationalist mythmaking and a condemnation of the denial of the Genocide.
To those unaware of the background, the workshop seemed at that moment like
a big success--one that ought not be squandered. And thus there was more
timidity than appropriate gusto in exploring the questions that arose.
It would be unfair to criticize the organizers without saying something
about Armenian Genocide scholars who were invited and refused to attend.
Of course, no one has to engage in a debate as to whether there was a
genocide. But looking at the names on the roster, the missing scholars
should have known perfectly well that such a debate was not going to occur.
And so I am at a loss as to how they justify their absence.[1] They would
also do well to explain their silence while their colleague, Ron Suny, was
being savaged in the press for engaging in scholarship.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The next steps need to be focused around specific questions. The most
important theme that arose was that of history and memory. I would like to
see textbook analysis (which some people, including at least one of the
participants in the Chicago round, have worked on); more on popular culture
(Professor Berktay's work on Turkish literature was mentioned above;
Professor Goçek dealt with contemporary Turkish-Armenian literature; I
would like to see a more representative sample of works placed carefully in
the broader context of Armenian as well as Turkish literature); the matter
of "dubious inheritance" needs further exploration--and there are scholars
in Turkey engaged in such exploration.
The wall of silence is far from destroyed. But the Chicago workshop made a
big crack in that wall, and for that we must be grateful.
Vincent Lima is editor of
"Armenian Forum: A Journal of Contemporary Affairs."
He may be reached at vlima@gomidas.org