Orhan Pamuk talks about Turkishness
Monday, January 4, 2010 at 12:39AM I thought quoting this interview, with the world famous Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk given to Nathan Gardels, would make a perfect addition to my Turkishness series. Other instalments can be read: (here, here and here). Pamuk views the European project favourably [unlike me] and therefore has some very interesting observations on where his country stands in matters of joining the union. On top of that in 2005-2006 Pamuk was tried for insulting Turkishness after he spoke on the tabu of Armenian genocide, his appearance in these series was therefore to be expected sooner or later. Aside from speaking about his recent book, the interview touches on a subject that is of some interest to me, namely Westernisation of modern non-western nations, best examples of which are Turkey, Russia and Japan. Countries that experienced several centuries of modernisation and associated penetration of Western ideas and lifestyle, and of course reaction of the indigenous culture to this change. The interview is certainly worth reading in full, I can only provide you with few samples as preview:
The youth of that Western-oriented class in the mid-70s were 'a la Franc,' disdaining the 'a la Turc' culture from the Anatolian provinces, though still in many ways bound by conservative convention. You write about this class with a mocking tone, suggesting, as Haruki Murakami does with reference to Japan's Westernization, that it is a culture of 'borrowed surfaces.'
What is happening is that a freer, more open, more fully democratic and egalitarian society is clashing with old-fashioned conservative modernism. To solve its problems, the old, conservative Westernized elite must yield to more free speech and more democracy for the aspirations of the whole country, not just the elites.
I was surprised to hear you say in a conversation with the Japanese Nobel laureate, Kenzaburo Oe, that you thought Japan was more Western than Turkey because it is more tolerant!
I don't much care whether rural Anatolians or Istanbul secularists take power. I'm not close to any of them. What I care about is respect for the individual.
Recently, the Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes and I were talking about your identification with Dostoevsky, who, in his time, was angry at the West and the Westernizers in his own country who looked down on ordinary Russians. You admired him for 'waging war against shallow Occidentalists, didactic writers who were always extolling the wonders of the West.'
For 35 years I have tried to avoid this categorization. Dostoevsky was both a Western and a non-Western writer. He just despised Occidentalists who despised their own people. Dostoevsky believed, like I do, that Westernization, or now globalization, is inevitable, but it must not lead to the repression of the past, of ordinary people and their culture.
I don't think Turkey can change the political path of the past eight years that easily. Erdogan enjoys power because he dangles the carrot of Europe, which paves the way for more democracy in Turkey. But, certainly, the situation between Turkey and Europe is not so sunny as it was in 2005. Then, I was more optimistic. Turkish papers talked in those days about joining Europe within 10 years! Nothing of that sort will happen. Conservatives in both Europe and Turkey have successfully, unfortunately, blocked the process. I'm sad about that.
Reader Comments (5)
Pamuk is a very gifted writer and it is interesting to read what he has to say (though I do think his new novel sounds quite pompous).
Of course, what separates Turkey from Russia and Japan is that it is a Muslim country, and this is something Pamuk seems to be sidestepping. It is a simple fact that a brutal secular dictatorship is better than most Islamist societies. I found his comments in another interview quite odd:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,380858,00.html
SPIEGEL: Do you consider yourself a Muslim?
Pamuk: I consider myself a person who comes from a Muslim culture. In any case, I would not say that I'm an atheist. So I'm a Muslim who associates historical and cultural identification with this religion. I do not believe in a personal connection to God; that's where it gets transcendental. I identify with my culture, but I am happy to be living on a tolerant, intellectual island where I can deal with Dostoyevsky and Sartre, both great influences for me.
His idea that you can be a cultural rather than a theological Muslim is one that I respect in itself, but which many Muslims would think a capital offence and non-Muslims are still lynched in Anatolia.
In this context his Sarko bashing is a bit odd. Surely he knows that Sarkozy (probably) isn't against secular, educated Turks like Pamuk joining the EU, but has very valid concerns about Islamic migration. Our newspapers don't even bother running stories about Muslim violence in France anymore.
We should note that:
1) According to opinion polls, the level of Turkish faith isn't much different from that of Poland's or conservative states in the US.
2) The AKP, as far as I can see, resembles traditional central European Christian Democratic parties.
3) Most Turkish extremism is of a nationalist, rather than religious character.
All in all, Turkish immigration is far preferable to immigration from many other places.
@Anatoly
True, but Sunni Islam in the 21st Century is not Christianity in the 21st Century.
Perhaps the point I wanted to make is that as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I can relate to how Pamuk can see ‘God’ in Ottoman architecture, Islamic call to prayer and Islamic miniatures, but do not really see how this can be compatible with the Koran.
Of course as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I also realise that ‘sola scriptura’ is not the best way to analyse religion, yet it seems to me that most Sunnis do take a pretty fundamentalist view of the Koran.
And then there’s the fact that the Koran pretty-much says that if you’ve read this book and aren’t a strict Muslim, you’ll burn in hell.
Personally, I think religion is a very complex issue and would not even compare Poland to the Midwest. I dislike politicians who wear their faith on their sleeves, especially as in practice it means listening to the voices in their heads. By contrast, Apostolic Christianity has an obedience to the Church, which you can disagree with, but which is inarguably very different, politically speaking.
There is an Islamic mystical tradition that I admire, but I suspect that modern Sunni Islam is breaking out in a new direction, not regressing as the received wisdom would have it.
But those are just my thoughts. I’d like to carry out some primary research into Islam, but don’t know how my spiritual father would feel about it.
Ps
Not especially relevant, but an interesting essay:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n18/perry-anderson/after-kemal
And another here:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n17/perry-anderson/kemalism
(I would have preferred to put these in one message, but this website doesnt' allow amendments)