On October 21, a Turkish court acquitted best-selling author Elif Shafak for “insulting Turkishness,” citing a lack of evidence. An outspoken critic of Turkey’s official policy of denial of the massacres of 1915, Shafak faced 3 years in jail over quotes from her recent novel “Baba ve Pic.” Below is an interview conducted with Shafak earlier this year. Excerpts from this interview have appeared in an article published on ZNet in March
( http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?itemid=9906 ).

 

Khatchig Mouradian: Tell me about how you became interested in the Armenian issue. I understand that your mother was a Turkish diplomat in Europe in the ‘80s, Turkish diplomats were being targeted…

 

Elif Shafak: That’s correct. I was raised by a single mother, and I think this had a role in my worldview. We were in Madrid, Spain, at the time when ASALA [Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia] started targeting Turkish diplomats.

 

KM: So, in your mind, the word “Armenian” was associated with people trying to kill diplomats for some reason.

 

ES: Yes, the equivalent of the word “Armenian” was “a terrorist who wants to kill my mother.”

 

KM: And how did this definition of the word “Armenian” evolve as the years passed?

 

ES: I have to say, I am against all sorts of terrorist activity, whatever the motivation. So I have always remained against the activities of ASALA. However, I did not become nationalist and pro-state like most children of diplomats tend to become. Perhaps this is because I have always been “curious,” interested in asking the simplest question: Why? Why was there so much rage?

 

So, after that emotional genesis, I started to read, and the more I read about 1915 the more curious I became. But it was especially after coming to the USA that I started to fully concentrate on this subject and further my research.

 

I was always fortunate enough to have good friends who shared their family histories with me. I think oral stories and microhistories are as important as written documents when tracing back a nation’s history.

 

KM: What was your mother’s reaction when she saw you get involved in the Armenian issue?

 

ES: My mother is worried. She respects my mind and heart, and yet she is extremely worried that I will be prosecuted, harassed or taken to court because of my views. She is supportive and, at the same time, keeps telling me “to be careful.”

 

KM: You give a great deal of importance to oral histories. Much has been recorded and written about the Armenian survivors—the grandmothers and grandfathers of the current generation. What would the grandparents of the people living in Turkey today have to say? What importance does their account have in bringing about awareness in Turkey?

 

ES: I think grandmothers can play an extremely important role, which has not been fully acknowledged by either side yet. As you know, there were hundreds and thousands of Armenian girls orphaned after 1915. Many of them stayed in Turkey, where they were converted to Islam and Turkified. Many people have Armenian grandmothers but they have no idea; it is important to bring out those stories both out of respect for those women and also because they can blur the nationalist boundaries and bridge the gap.

 

Nationalist Turks who are angry at “outsider” scholars might listen when they hear the same story from their own grandmothers, from the “inside.”

 

KM: Even a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable to speak so openly in Turkey about Islamized Armenians, let alone publish books or write articles on the subject. Can you speak a bit about the changes Turkey has undergone in the past decade?

 

ES: There are very important changes underway in Turkey. Sometimes, in the West, Turkey looks more black-and-white than it really is. But the fact is, Turkey’s civil society is multifaceted and very dynamic. Especially over the past two decades, there have been fundamental transformations. The Armenian Conference in Istanbul (in 2005) was the outcome of such a process. During those days, one major newspaper had the headline: “They even uttered ‘the G word’ but the world has still not come to a stop.” Another newspaper said: “A big taboo is shattered.” After the conference, public debates have not ceased; people are discussing this subject like they never did before. The problem is that the bigger the change, the deeper the panic of those who want to preserve the status quo.

 

KM: But the current changes are often interpreted as part and parcel of a greater trend to change Turkey, so that it aligns itself with the EU. How has the prospect of EU membership facilitated this process? Would a conference like the Istanbul conference have taken place otherwise?

 

ES: Turkey’s bid to join the EU is an important process for progressive forces both within and outside the country. I am a big supporter of this process and I want Turkey to become part of the EU. The whole process will definitely reinforce democracy, human rights and minority rights in the country. It will diminish the role of the state apparatus and, most importantly, the shadow of the military in the political arena.

 

KM: What allows an accomplished academic/writer to venture into a realm that is taboo in her country? I mean, you receive hate mail and threats. Many intellectuals would rather conform to the status quo, or at least try to change it gradually. What made you become so committed to go against the flow?

 

ES: I am a storyteller. If I cannot “feel” other people’s pain and grief, I better quit what I am doing. So there is an emotional aspect for me, in that I have always felt connected to those pushed to the margins and silenced rather than those at the center. This is the pattern in each and every one of my novels; I deal with Turkish society’s underbelly.

 

I also have to say that, for me, 1915 is not an isolated case in itself. In other words, the recognition of 1915 is connected to my love for democracy and human rights. I follow the Eastern thinker Ibn Khaldoun in his premise that societies have a life cycle—they are born, they pass a childhood phase, they become older, etc. Turkish society will never be able to become mature if it cannot come to grips with its past. Collective amnesia generates new sorts of atrocities and violations. I think memory is a responsibility. It is the outcome of my conscience as much as an intellectual choice.

 

KM: Your latest novel, The Bastard of Istanbul, deals with the Armenian issue. What are the main messages you want to convey through that novel to the reader?

 

ES: the novel is highly critical of the sexist and nationalist fabric of Turkish society. It is the story of four generations of women in Istanbul. At some point their stories converge with the story of an Armenian woman, and thereby an Armenian-American family. I have used this family in San Francisco and the family in Istanbul as mirrors. Basically, the novel testifies to the struggle of amnesia and memory. It deals with painful pasts, both at the individual and collective level.

 

KM: I am sure you encounter many Armenians who ask you questions; it is a cathartic experience for an Armenian to speak to a person of Turkish origin who can show understanding of the pain suffered by their grandparents. How do you usually respond?

 

ES: I am always surprised by the tone of “gratitude” that I encounter in the e-mails and letters I receive from Armenians in the Diaspora. I have received deeply inspiring, moving feedback. Sometimes they start by saying, “I have never wanted to thank a Turk before…” Or I receive e-mails where the subject is, “Never written to a Turk before…”

 

More and more Armenians have started to attend my readings and lectures, and almost always there is slight tension with the Turks in the room, but also very interesting debates are taking place. For me what really matters is to open the channels of dialogue. I truly believe we have so much to learn from one another.

 

But there is one more thing I’d like to add. Sometimes, Armenians come to me and say: “You criticize all sorts of nationalism, but Armenian nationalism is different than Turkish nationalism.” I respect the differences. However, for me, all sorts of nationalist ideologies end up in the same place. I do not believe that the solution to one form of nationalism is another nationalism. In other words, I do not believe that Turkish nationalism can be counterbalanced by Armenian nationalism or vice versa. I think what we truly need is a cosmopolitan, multicultural democratic approach that eventually challenges all sorts of nationalist and religious boundaries.

 

KM: I would like us to speak a bit about the issue of identity. How is Turkish identity perceived in Turkey, and how should that be challenged?

 

ES: “Turkishness” is said to be a supra-identity that covers all sorts of ethnicities and minorities. The Kemalists claimed that as long as you say aloud that you are a Turk, it is enough. Hence, Turkish nationalism is very different than, for instance, German nationalism, where race is more important. In Turkey, the French model is closer. We had a policy of cultural assimilation. We Turkified the culture, we Turkified the people and we Turkified the language.

 

I am one of the few authors who openly refuses to accept the Turkificiation of the language. I do not use “pure” Turkish; I bring back the words that the Kemalist reformists took out of our language, which is why they are very angry and bitter towards my novels. They accuse me of betraying the national projects. Of course, culture building was such an important task for the Turkish reformist elite.

 

KM: And as you often cite, a lot was lost during this process of Turkification. Would you agree that embracing the past, with it “bruises” and “beauties,” would give Turkey its cosmopolitan image?

 

ES: Embracing the past both with its beauties and bruises will give us a sense of continuity, first of all. Today we are a nation built on rupture. How can you have a solid foundation when there is a rupture? Many Kemalists wanted to start history in 1923, the day they came to power. When there is continuity, knowledge can flow from one generation to another. You can become more mature and derive lessons from your mistakes.

 

Turkey’s transition to a modern nation-state has been a transition from a multiethnic, multilingual past to a supposedly homogeneous nation-state. Now it is time to enter a third stage: recognizing the losses and starting to appreciate cosmopolitanism again.

 

KM: Nationalists, however, would argue that facing the past, especially the bruises—for instance, recognizing the Armenian Genocide—would shake the foundations of Turkey. What’s your take on that?

 

ES: If we had been able to face the atrocities committed against the Armenian minority, it would have been more difficult for the Turkish state to commit atrocities against the Kurds. If we had been able to openly discuss the violations against human rights after each coup d’etat, it would have been more difficult to repeat those. A society based on amnesia cannot have a mature democracy.

 

KM: Some call Noam Chomsky “America’s most useful citizen.” However, he is often considered a person who is anti-U.S., when, in fact, he speaks for a better U.S. and a better world. In your own experience, what do you feel when you are called an enemy of Turkey?

 

ES: The nationalist discourse in Turkey, just like the Republican discourse in the USA, thinks that if you are criticizing your government, you do not like your nation. This is a lie. Only and only if you care about something will you reflect upon it, give it further thought. I care about Turkey. It hurts me to be accused of “hating my country.” There are essays and editorials in the Turkish media attacking me and calling me a “so-called ‘Turk.’” It is so ironic. They are used to saying “so-called ‘Armenian Genocide.’” Now, they are also saying “so-called ‘Turks.’”

 

KM: As someone who has lived both in Turkey and abroad, who has studied Turkey’s past, and who is living in its present and actively working for its future, what does Turkey mean to you?

 

ES: This is a difficult question. I feel connected to so many things in Turkey, especially in Istanbul. The city, the customs of women, the enchanted world of superstitions, my grandmother’s almost magical cosmos, my mother’s humanism, and the warmth and sincerity of the people in general. All these are so dear to me. At the same time, I feel no connection whatsoever to its main ideology, its state structure and army.

 

I think there are two undercurrents in Turkey, both of which are very old. One is nationalist, exclusivist, xenophobic and reactionary. The other is cosmopolitan, Sufi, humanist, embracing. It is the second tide that I feel connected to.

 

KM: What is the Turkey that you would like to see in 2015?

 

ES: A Turkey that is part of the EU. A Turkey where women do not get killed on the basis of “family honor.” A Turkey where there is no gender discrimination, no violations against minorities. A Turkey that is not xenophobic, homophobic, and where each and every individual is treated as valuably as the reflection of the Jamal side of God, its beauty.

  

 

Khatchig Mouradian is a Lebanese-Armenian writer, translator, and journalist. He is an editor of the daily newspaper Aztag, published in Beirut. He can be contacted at [email protected]

---