Saturday, December 30, 2006

Taking Sides in Iraq

A very true saying goes, "not taking sides is injustice to the right side." Saddam Hussein was executed in Baghdad today, just on the eve of Eid. Probably he deserved this sentence. So we might say the output of the trial is legitimate. But the lawyers I just listened to on TV claim that his trial did not meet the international standards, and the execution was carried out too quickly to avoid any legal or violent contestation. Watching the video of the moments right before his execution, I could not help but pity him. Think what the Sunnis in Iraq and Muslims all over the world will think seeing this execution video right on the eve of Eid.

Bringing democracy is not a justification for invasion. The hope was that ensuing security and democracy would make people forget and forgive the means through which democracy was pursued, i.e. invasion. But the lack of legitimacy in the process is the greatest obstacle in the way of the desired outcome. This is not an ex-post conclusion one reaches after seeing the violence that ensued in Iraq. This is a general lesson that needs to be taken.

This is all I have to write in 2006. I wish a happy new year to everyone.

The story I'll tell now, I read long ago. It's disturbing and chauvinistic, and although it was presented as a real experiment where I read, I think it is just a made-up story. I will use it here, because it is a useful metaphor, more like a warning (to myself and any girls who might be reading this.)

Male rats and female rats were put in a box with an electric wire seperating them. After a while, a male rat attempted to jump to the other side, but was tangled in the wire and died. None of the rats moved for a while. Then, seeing that the male rats weren't doing anything, female rats started jumping over the wire one by one, falling dead one after another.

We girls are used to doing our best. We think that we can attain everything if we work hard at it. We believe in meritocracy. But relationships require mutual effort, and it won't work if it is only us who is trying to make a relationship work. Besides, if we change ourselves too much, we won't be the same person he loved in the first place. So doing your best isn't always working hard. Doing your best is realizing what works and what doesn't, putting effort in the right person, protecting and preserving yourself. (For more on this, read "He's Just not that Into You.")

Rationalism and Constructivism



Monday, December 18, 2006

Post-Emotionalism and the Third Way

I found out that what I tried to describe in the last few entries has a name, and it's called "post-emotionalism." I'm putting all the related entries under one label now.

"Certainly, there is evidence, for example, that over the past quarter of a century people in Britain have come to see personal relationships 'less in terms of social responsibilities and obligations and more in terms of personal resources and fulfilment.'...

It has been suggested that we live increasingly in an amoral, 'post-emotional' age, in which people's emotional responses have ceased to be aesthetic or authentic and their goals are informed by a self-centred form of survivalism. The consumer culture to which the inhabitants of Western societies are subject leads to a 'Disneyfication' of the emotions. Though people can express or 'perform' emotions, these are trumped by rational self-interest...

Post-emotionalism entails a hollowed-out form of compassion for others and a distinctively apolitical preoccupation with one's own interests and well-being, or those of one's most immediate family. It is ostensibly consonant with a Third Way approach to social policy that regards the welfare functions of the state no longer in terms of meeting needs, but of managing risks. " - Hartley Dean, from "The Third Way and Social Welfare: The Myth of Post-emotionalism"

Although people believe that everybody should be held responsible for the choices they make (and disapprove of the "dependency culture,") there is still recognition that people are vulnerable to risk and uncertainty. Dependency out of choice is not tolerated, but people realize that they might be dependent to others (and others may be dependent on them) out of bad luck.

[T]he majority –in spite of the prevalence of popular prejudices against welfare dependency- acknowledged that they themselves were at least potentially dependent beings (and/or that other people dependent on them); and that there are at least certain things to which all human beings are or should be entitled… From behind a Rawlsian ‘veil of ignorance’ as to the extent of the risks they face, people do by and large espouse an implicit theory of social justice (Dean, 704, 705.)

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Another very very true piece :) Again Hasmet Babaoglu! (04.12.2006)

“Arkadaşlığın bir üstü, sevgililiğin bir altı”

Hani yıllardır yazıp duruyorum ya... Aşktan söz edilmesine bayılıyoruz, içinden aşk geçen şarkılara, türkülere, şiirlere yanıp tutuşuyoruz; dahası, aşka âşık oluyoruz; hepsi tamam ama aşkın hayatımızdaki anlamı “arıza” gibi bir şey. Oysa “arıza” çıksın istemiyoruz. Kafamız bulansın, işimiz gücümüz aksasın istemiyoruz. Açıkça itiraf etmekten çekiniyoruz ama kimi zaman sevmek artık sevilmek için ödenecek bir bedel gibi algılanıyor! Ve en önemlisi şu ki altan alta asıl derdimiz aşk şarkıları eşliğinde âşık olmak falan değil. Hayır! Aşk şarkıları eşliğinde EĞLENMEK istiyoruz!Modern flört kültürü gizliden gizliye aşktan kaçtıkça, aşk da gitgide kaba saba bir delilik; hatta gazetelerin 3. sayfa haberlerine özgü bir suç türü olup çıkıyor.


Geçen gün Marie Claire dergisini karıştırırken Hollywood’un yeni gözdelerinden Kirsten Dunst’ın bir sözüyle karşılaştım. Hazcı beklentileri yüksek olan günümüz insanının aşka dair endişelerini çok net ortaya koyuyordu. “Arkadaşın bir üstü, sevgilinin bir altı olmak en ideali!” İşte modern flört kültürünün en özlü ve yalın anlatımı! Zamanında “Vampirle Görüşme” filmindeki küçük kız rolüyle gönülleri çalan ve şimdilerde “Hollywood’un en erotik bakışlı genç kadını” olarak tanınan Kirsten Dunst’ın, bu sözünün ardından söyledikleri de çok anlamlı. “Böylece kimse yara almaz, zarar görmez. Seks utanca dönüşmez, yetişkin duruş bozulmaz, aşk daha uzun sürer.” (Tabii, buradaki “aşk” sözcüğünü “ilişki” olarak anlamak gerek!) İşte aşk üzerine onca şamatanın, onca aşk filminin, onca aşk hikâyesinin gençleri getirip bıraktığı nokta! İnançsızlık mı? Korku mu? Acı çekmeye ve bunalıma dair en küçük bir ihtimalin varlığından bile uzak durma çabası mı? Yoksa hayatımızın bütün hücrelerine egemen olmaya başlayan “iyi vakit geçirme-eğlence-haz” anlayışının en son hali mi?Belki hepsi!


Yaldızlı laflarla aşkı savunup bu bakışa burun kıvırmak kolay! Önce bu hali anlamaya çalışmak ve aşkın tarihini-sosyolojisini sorgulamak gerek. Aşk insan içindi. Ama herkes için miydi acaba?İnsanlığın hiçbir büyük geleneği aşkı herkes için ve herkese göre bir şey diye anlatmamıştı. Aşk hiçbir zaman herkesin çıplak elle dokunabileceği bir ateş olarak tarif edilmemişti. Her gelenek “yanmak”tan söz etmişti. Sonra nasıl olmuşsa olmuş, romantik çağ Batı modernizminin içine bu ateşi üflemiş; içtenliğin ve cinselliğin aşka, aşkın da mutluluğa yeteceği iddiası geniş kabul görmüştü. Bugün o romantik yanlışın, o popülizmin acısı çekiliyor. Aşkın mutluluk ve huzurla aynı platformda yer aldığını sanmanın acısı şimdi şimdi çıkıyor. İlişkiler arkadaşlığın bir üstü kadar mahrem, sevgililiğin bir altı kadar canlı-renkli olsun isteniyor. Malum, arkadaşlık yeterince yakın değil fakat eğlencelidir. Sevgililik de çok yakın fakat bu yüzden “boğucu”dur. Tablo bu. Tartışmasına gelince...Bitmez.

This one is basically in line with the one below (read that one first.) There are a couple of cool points though. The first one is that "loving is seen as the price to be paid for being loved." Second, Kirsten Dunst defines the ideal relationship as being "above friends and below lovers." "Above friends," because we want it to be close and intimate, but "below lovers," because we want it to be chill, lively and fun - we don't want it to be suffocating. That way, she says, "Nobody gets hurt, sexuality doesn't turn into shame, the adult posture doesn't break down, love is sustained longer."

Lastly, to Babaoglu, the assumption "sincereness and sexuality will be enough for love, and love will be enough for happiness" was a mistake. The truth is, love is not for everyone, unlike what movies try to make us believe (besides, if our lives were that exciting, we wouldn't take refuge in stories.) And it brings neither happiness nor peace.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

A very very true piece from Turkish columnist Hasmet Babaoglu, 26.11.2006:

Aşk, iş hayatı ve modern zamanlar

“Hoşçakal sakin kafam, Hoşçakal kanaatkâr ruhum...” Bilin bakalım Shakespeare ne zaman söyletir bu sözleri Othello’ya? Ülke yönetmeye kalkışmadan biraz önce mi? Ticarete girip hesapları karıştırdığında mı? En yakın dostlarının ihanet ettiğini anladığında mı? Hayır! Hayır!


Aşk kapıyı çaldığında böyle seslenir Othello. Çünkü bilir; aşk hem çok ateşli hem çok kırılgandır. Sanıldığının aksine huzurla değil, huzursuzlukla kardeştir. Ve aşk mutluluk değildir; âşık olunanın varlığından mutlu olmaktır. Peki modern insan nasıl? Biliyoruz... Onca “kendiyle barışık olma” arayışına; parayla saadet satın alma kültürüne; Ferrarisini satıp bilge olma gevezeliğine karşın modern insanın ne kafası sakin, ne de ruhu kanaatkâr! Ne zihni durmak biliyor modern insanın, ne de ruhu doymak! O halde... Shakespeare’in ünlü kahramanı gibi hepimiz âşık mıyız?Kalplerimizdeki bu bitmek tükenmek bilmeyen kımıltı, aşk yüzünden mi? Bir bakıma, evet! Ama durun, durun...Öyle değil. Othello gibi değil yani... Modern insan âşık ama işine âşık! Şunları bir düşünün bakalım. Yoğun arzu, tutku ve bağlılık, kalp kırıklıkları, mutluluk ve mutsuzluk med cezirleri, kuşku nöbetleri, ateşli sayıklamalar... Bütün bunları modern insan nerede yaşıyor?Çalışma hayatında yaşıyor daha çok. Sevdiği tarafından terk edilmeyi kaldırabiliyor ama iki yıldır beklediği terfi gelmeyince kendini “terk edilmiş” hissedip yataklara düşüyor. Geceleri uyuyamıyor; aklı hep işinde oluyor; işiyle sevişiyor. Tatminsizlik bütün ruhunu sarıyor, bütün eylemlerini yönetiyor. Kıskançlıklar, kuşkular, hayal kırıklıkları deseniz... Neredeyse hepsi işiyle, işyerindekilerle ilgili.


O halde gerçek aşka ne kalıyor? Hadi aşkı da geçtik ama aşka benzer flörtlere; içinde bir parça aşk olsun diye adaklar adadığımız ilişkilere ne kalıyor? Pek bir şey kalmıyor. O durumda kimse kimsenin kafasını bozmasın; çok “arıza” çıkmasın isteniyor. (Oysa aşk başlıbaşına “arıza”dır, bu dünyaya başka bir dünyadan “emanet” ciddi bir uyumsuzdur; tersini söyleyen yalancıdır.) Acaba aşk şarkılarına, aşk şiirlerine vurgun fakat kendini üstünkörü flörtlerin; akılcı beraberliklerin; “seviyeli” evliliklerin sakin denizlerine bırakmayı tercih eden insanlar olmamızın nedeni bu mu? Enerjimizin başka bir alanda tükenip gitmesi mi sebep?


Aşk meşk denilen şey, kabul edelim ki çoktan işten arta kalan zamanlarımızda hoşnutluk-haz-kafa dinleme-eğlenme kaynağımız olup çıktı. Ağır rekabete dayalı iş hayatı ve başarı kültürü içimizdeki binlerce yıllık “ateşi” yavaş yavaş kendi alanına çekiyor. Şiirler direniyor bir tek! Ama dikkat edin; şiir sevgisiyle dalga geçen “akılcı”lar da çoğalıyor. Şarkılar direniyor bazen. Ama damardan şarkıları hor gören; müziği oyalanma vasıtası olarak değerlendirenlerin alaycılığı baskın çıkmaya başlıyor.


Tablo açık. Ekonomi global, aşk git gide yerel. Arzular zengin ve dizginlerinden kopmuş, aşk yoksul ve zincirlenmiş. Hayat genel, aşk istisna. Herkes yalandan bilge, aşk hâlâ deli divane. Göreceğiz bakalım, ne olacak sonu(muz)?


For those who don't speak Turkish (I love to overlook "0 comments" and pretend I actually have a readership!)... He says that we long for the true love that is described in songs and poems, but we try to avoid all the imbalances, disappointments and "defect"s it might bring to our lives. We want to remain level-headed, keep our peace of mind and stay focused to our work, and reduce love to a fun leisurely activity. Therefore we prefer "superficial flirtations, reasonable relationships, measured marriages..." Cynicism saves us from getting carried away.

The last part deserves direct translation: "Economy is global, love is local. Desires are rich and unbridled, love is poor and chained. Life is the norm, love is the exception."
Miscellaneous Thoughts

Turks, who are relieved that Orhan Pamuk's Nobel Lecture was just a personal account, must read it again. It's also very consistent with his political remarks. Take this paragraph:


You can read the whole lecture here:


I ran into a really cool photo exhibition while I was strolling along the Thames on Sunday:

And I bought two books from the book market under Waterloo Bridge. And withdrew Euros from an ATM and thought they were Pounds until the guy in the book market rejected them. It was a nice day. Now I'm home, which is also very nice. And 'nice,' although not interesting or exciting all the time, is a good, peaceful thing.



I realize that my entries have gotten pretty personal lately. I was hoping to avoid that at the beginning, because I thought personal matters were keeping me from what I really need to focus on (see below entry :) But writing is healing. Knowing someone out there might be reading is also healing. I share my weaknesses with you, only because I have faith in your good faith.

Monday, December 11, 2006

"Talent develops in quiet places, character in the full current of human life." Goethe.


“In their efforts to mediate all of the stimuli and accommodate all of the possible connections, young people continue to create new sub-selves and meta-selves-in effect, giving over bits and pieces of their persona to each new relationship just to stay engaged in all of the networks that surround them. The fear is being excluded… In an era of global connectedness, the old idea of a fixed, self-contained, autonomous consciousness is giving way to the new notion of the self as an unfolding story whose plot lines and substance are totally dependent on the various characters and events with whom one enters into a relationship.” Jeremy Rifkin, Universalizing the European Dream (think of Facebook!)


Addicted to be Linked

As far as I remember from my theology class, the road to happiness in Zen philosophy is to lose, forget yourself in whatever you are doing. I think writing is the closest I get to that. There are moments when I write that I can totally concentrate on what I'm writing, especially if I left it to the last minute (and those moments are very rewarding.) Often enough, though, even my writing experience is disrupted with expectation to be remembered, acknowledged, loved. I listen to music - I always find something in the music or lyrics that relates to my relationships. I check my E-mails. I check Facebook. I check my cell phone to see anyone wrote me. I get upset if nobody did. I get more upset if I was expecting a text or e-mail from someone. I write E-mails. I text people to figure out the details of what we will do that night. I get jealous if the person studying next to me gets a call. I'm walking around with this "overall fog" around my head that constantly distracts and confuses me, the need to stay connected and included never seizes.

I was thinking this phenomenon was borne out of my own insecurities, I sometimes feel like I used all my intellectual energy when I was a teen and now is the time to catch up with everything else. But whatever their reasons, some of my friends are also suffering from the same symptoms.

One friend told me that she used to be an introvert child, completely content in whatever she was doing, actually getting angry if anyone tried to intrude. As she grew up, she started going out and interacting with people, and now she has difficulties concentrating. Another friend said he constantly feels the need to be out and about, and whenever he has free time between two things he has to do, that's when he reads. We started questioning what might be the reason. Why do we feel horrible if we stay home and read on a Friday? My friend offered that it could be the "consumerist society" that gives the message that we have to go out and do things with people. Sometimes even our social interactions turn into a rat race.

I don't see how this constant dependency on connections will bring me success in anything. I need to learn to focus and stand on my two feet.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

"It is dangerous to spend all one's time with Beethoven, just as all privileged positions are dangerous.
Tamina had always been a bit ashamed of admitting she was happy with her husband. She was afraid of giving people a reason to hate her.
The privilege of love was not only a paradise, it was also a hell. Life in love was constant tension, fear, agitation. She is here among children to gain, at last, the rewards of calm and serenity.
Milan Kundera, the Book of Laughter and Forgetting

I can't sew it anymore

When I was younger, and I was disappointed, I would just lie in my bed and imagine that my soul is like a ghost made of white silk, or white smoke or dust, and somebody made a few cuts on it with a knife (imagine Zorro). So I would just lie there and imagine that I was sewing the cuts in my soul. So I was trying to do that again but it didn't work this time. I told myself I'm strong, I'm a fighter, I will wake up stronger tomorrow, but it doesn't work. I pitied myself and my fate. I still have this weird belief that I deserve to be happy. Why? When there's so much poverty, sickness, death, disappointment, insecurity in the world, why should I be happy? When I'm so reckless with people's hearts (I'm probably not even aware of half the hearts I break) why am I so disappointed when they hurt me?

But then, I look around and realize there's so much happiness in the world. There are happy couples. There are happy families. There are happy babies. This gives me the wrong impression that I, too, might be happy someday. But I guess I won't.

Friday, November 24, 2006

"All of us are prisoners of a rigid conception of what is important and what is not, and so we fasten our anxious gaze on the important, while from a hiding place behind our backs the unimportant wages its guerilla war, which will end in surreptitiously changing the world and pouncing on us by surprise." pg. 268.


"Jan had never shared Passer's admiration for things changing, but he liked his desire for change, seeing it as mankind's oldest desire, humanity's most conservative conservatism." pg. 294.

"When things are repeated, they lose a fraction of their meaning. Or more exactly, they lose, drop by drop, the vital strength that gives them their illusory meaning. For Jan, therefore, the border is the maximum acceptable dose of repetitions.
I am certain, on the contrary, that the border is constantly with us, irrespective of time and our stage of life, that it is omnipresent, even though circumstances might make it more or less visible...
...It takes so little, a tiny puff of air, for things to shift imperceptibly, and whatever it was that a man was ready to lay down his life for a few seconds earlier seems suddenly to be sheer nonsense.
Jan had friends who like him had left their old homeland and who devoted all their time to the struggle for its lost freedom. All of them had sometimes felt that the bond tying them to their country was just an illusion and that only enduring habit kept them prepared to die for something they did not care about. They all knew that feeling and at the same time were afraid of knowing it, they turned their heads away for fear of seeing the border and stumbling (lured by vertigo as by an abyss) across it to the other side, where the language of their tortured people makes a noise as trivial as the twittering of birds." pg. 296, 297. Milan Kundera, from the Book of Laughter and Forgetting.

The Border

I was preparing a job application yesterday. I did some research about this think-tank, found signs of meaning (coincidential likeness between them and I, what they hold important and what I hold important) and got really excited. I worked on my CV, cover letter, tried to make them perfect. Then my parents called and as I was explaining this think tank to them, they started to make jokes. It's upsetting when people take what I care about lightly. Then I start questioning the importance of what I care about. Then I went to a panel discussion EU Enlargement. I listened to the same things being discussed the upteenth time. What I saw unimportant and beside the point was really about to hijack something I cared about. And after the discussion, a Turk told me the upteenth time that if it was so easily going to be hijacked like that, then there was no point working for it, because "they" didn't have good faith. I didn't even attempt to reply the upteenth time, because I was already on the other side of the border.

(And I agreed secretly. I sometimes find these conversations annoying, because I don't comment on what he cares about. Everybody thinks they can comment on what I care about! I wish I studied something so specialized that noone would dare to comment on.)

Maybe it's not important. Maybe I think it's important, because I already invested in it - I can't be objective about its importance anymore. It must be so sad to realize that what you dedicated your life for is actually wrong, or unimportant. Maybe there is a point of no return, you can't accept the unimportance of something after you spend a certain number of years working for it. After that point, you just keep doing what you have done for years, and you try to convince a world that doesn't care that your story has a point to it. (Or, even worse, you continue advocating something that is wrong.)

Maybe that's how people don't believe in a common story anymore, because all of them proved to be wrong or unfeasible. What I know, is that I'm tired of listening to this stuff over and over again, because they lose their meaning all too quickly.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

“Hep birlikte inanacakları bir hikaye kalmayınca, hepsi tek tek kendi hikayesine inanmaya başlayacak, herkesin kendi hikayesi olacak, herkes kendi hikayesini anlatmak isteyecek. Kalabalık şehirlerin kirli sokaklarında, bir türlü çekidüzen verilemeyen çamurlu meydanlarında, milyonlarca sefil, başlarının çevresinde bir mutsuzluk halesi taşır gibi taşıdıkları kendi hikayeleriyle uykuda gezerler gibi gezinecekler.” Kara Kitap, sf. 158.

“Böylece sürekli eğlence arayan bir çocuktan nefret eder gibi hikayesiz yaşayamayan aklından nefret etti. Bir anda, dünyada işaretlerin, ipuçlarının, ikinci ve üçüncü anlamların, gizlerin, sırların yeri olmadığına karar verdi: Bütün işaretler anlamak ve bulmak isteyen kendi aklının ve hayallerinin kuruntularıydı. Her eşyanın yalnızca o eşya olarak varolduğu bir dünyada huzurla yaşayabilme isteği yükseldi içinde; o zaman ne yazılar, ne harfler, ne yüzler, ne sokak lambaları, ne Celal’in masası, ne Melih Amca’dan kalma şu dolap, ne de Rüya’nın parmak izlerini taşıyan bu makasla tükenmez kalem kendi dışındaki bir sırrın şüpheli bir işareti olacaktı. Yeşil tükenmez kalemin yalnızca bir yeşil tükenmez kalem olacağı ve kendisinin de başka birisi olmak istemeyeceği bu aleme nasıl girebilirdi acaba?” Kara Kitap, sf. 276.



I like to think that there's meaning to my story. What happened in the past leads up to what's happening now, and what's happening now will lead up to something great and meaningful in the future. When you start thinking this way, all you see is signs of meaning. (When you have a hammer, all you see is nails, as my professor says :) And I can't help but start to guess what will happen in the future. I came to this city because of a series of decisions, but also a series of coincidances. So and so people are entering my life, not earlier, not later, but now and here. Maybe we were in the same place before, but our paths didn't cross until now. There must be a reason why they cross now. This is all so magical.

But then, maybe not. I'm only seeing it because I was looking for it in the first place. I don't want my life to be ordinary, I don't want it to be meaningless. That's why I'm overlooking everything that's ordinary in it, everything that's meaningless, all the idiosyncrasies, everything that doesn't fit the story in my head. And then when the story is stillborn, I get all disappointed.

I should follow Jobs' advice instead.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

The World Is a Beautiful Place by Lawrence Ferlinghetti

The world is a beautiful place
to be born into
if you don't mind happiness
not always being
so very much fun
if you don't mind a touch of hell
now and then
just when everything is fine
because even in heaven
they don't sing
all the time

The world is a beautiful place
to be born into
if you don't mind some people dying
all the time
or maybe only starving
some of the time
which isn't half bad
if it isn't you

Oh the world is a beautiful place
to be born into
if you don't much mind
a few dead minds
in the higher places
or a bomb or two
now and then
in your upturned faces
or such other improprieties
as our Name Brand society
is prey to
with its men of distinction
and its men of extinction
and its priests
and other patrolmen

and its various segregations
and congressional investigations
and other constipations
that our fool flesh
is heir to

Yes the world is the best place of all
for a lot of such things as making the fun scene
and making the love scene
and making the sad scene
and singing low songs and having inspirations
and walking around
looking at everything
and smelling flowers
and goosing statues
and even thinking
and kissing people and
making babies and wearing pants
and waving hats and
and going swimming in rivers
on picnics
in the middle of the summer
and just generally
'living it up'
but then right in the middle of it comes the smiling

Friday, October 13, 2006

So happy, so proud that Orhan Pamuk won the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Isn't it ironic that it was Pamuk, who was tried for insulting "Turkishness" last year, brought this great honor to Turkey with his good work, his work telling about the beauty and peculiarity of his country and his era?

Of course they will continue to insult him, and insult the Europeans who awarded him. But their insults won't change their misery or his success.


Since the Beaver didn't publish this, lemme put it down here. What is Internet for, anyway? To publish things that wouldn't have been published otherwise! (I'm on my disappointed, cynical, hopeless day, sorry!)

Clash of Populists

Author of many of my favorite books, Orhan Pamuk, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature on Thursday, the first Turk to ever win the prize. Not surprisingly, the news was met with as much hostility and suspicion in his native Turkey as happiness and pride. Turkish web-site Ekşi Sözlük, a very informal version of Wikipedia, soared with critical entries shortly after the announcement, while journalists were quick to overshadow Pamuk’s success by reminding his controversial remarks.

Pamuk is famous for his novels like the Black Book, My Name is Red and Snow. His work centers on the struggle of Turks, who are deeply rooted in traditional and religious values, while aspiring to adopt a Western mind-set and habits. The context is modern-day Istanbul in the Black Book and the eastern city of Kars in Snow, while My Name is Red tells about the struggle of 16th-century Ottoman artists against Western portrait-makers.

Pamuk’s characters try to keep their lives together as they are being pulled in different directions, but they do not reach clear-cut conclusions over what is right and what is wrong. In a lecture in 2002 in Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., Pamuk himself said that he does not try to offer any golden solutions. “My light touch or my art that revolves, turns around, makes these elliptic curves around the problem may give the good reader the idea that we are always some part of the problem. Problems are not different from us. I intend [for] my books to be beautiful things between the problems and our minds — so they will distance us [from the problems,]” he said then. Apart from his overarching theme, what strike me most in his novels are his disturbingly realistic observations of human melancholy, weakness, or litost, as Milan Kundera would call it.

His subject matter was interesting enough to keep both Westerners and Turks occupied, but in February 2005, Pamuk said to Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger that “30,000 Kurds and one million Armenians were killed here. And almost nobody dares to say it, but me.” A group of nationalist lawyers sued him on the basis of the now infamous Article 301, which makes “insulting Turkishness, the Turkish Republic, parliament, government, judiciary, military and police” a crime. (There is also a clause that increases the punishment if the alleged insults are made abroad.)

Upon pressures from the European Union, the charges were dropped because of a technicality. The law is likely to stay in place for the foreseeable future, as the government does not have the guts to get rid of it in the run-up to the general elections next year.

As the controversy unfolded, some journalists and commentators labeled Pamuk’s words as an effort to win the Nobel Prize by marginalizing himself politically in his country. Now they claim that Europeans were pursuing a political agenda by giving the prize to Pamuk, at a time when freedom of speech, Armenian Genocide and Turkey’s EU prospects are on the headlines. Incidentally, the lower house of the French Parliament approved a bill, which makes the denial of Armenian Genocide of 1915 a crime, on the same day as the award announcement.

I sincerely believe that Pamuk deserved the Nobel Prize, because he is a very good writer, and his subject matter is relevant in today’s world. If boosting his chances for the prize crossed his mind when he made his remarks, and if the Swedish Academy’s decision was indeed influenced by politics, then the Turkish nationalists should blame their own stupidity for reacting in such a way that handed Pamuk the prize in a golden bowl. It is ironic that an author who was tried for “insulting Turkishness” last year becomes the first Turk to ever receive this honour.

Turkish government’s reluctance to change Article 301 just before the elections is understandable. Politicians are expected to be populists, accommodating the –sometimes- irrational sensibilities of their constituents. Some journalists and intellectuals, too, aim to cater to the growing nationalist sentiment with their hostile criticism of Pamuk.

While Turkey has its fair share of populists that do not want to hear anything they do not like, apparently France has plenty, too. Although Turkish populists and their French counterparts defend opposite views on issues like the Armenian Genocide, they employ similar methods: They try to limit the freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, French and Turkish populists’ clashing views lead to the same conclusion in one important area. In the end, both sides argue that Turkey and the EU are incompatible, and Turkey should not join the EU. I hope that they will not succeed, because I believe the so-called “clash of civilizations” is nothing but the clash of populists.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006


I know at the end of this entry you'll think "so what?" but I still want to share my discovery. I realized that what we call love or affection is as much about ourselves as the object of our affection. We are actually running after the great feeling of being admired, being loved as a whole person, with our virtues and flaws. When we realize that someone likes us, we immediately start seeing ourselves in the eyes of that person, and we start to think that we are quite lovable, after all. We almost make peace with ourselves then, we start liking ourselves. But the sweet feeling of greatness and accomplishment depends on whether we can trust that person's opinions. Only then do the qualities of the other person become relevant: Are they good-looking? Are they intelligent? Are they intellectual? If they are, then we can start loving ourselves in good faith: If he loves me, no doubt I am lovable! But if they are not, then their love doesn't prove we're as lovable as we'd like to be. Crudely put, it is really about what we would like to be worth and what the market thinks we are worth.

Once someone loves us and we love ourselves in return, we want to maintain that feeling. We want to be loved now, tomorrow, always, just to be able to love ourselves.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Studying Social Sciences

I just started studying in a school that claims to be one of the best social science institutions in the world. And again, I'm starting to wonder whether I'm doing something "sufficiently challenging." I'm sure I'll be more challenged in the days to come, and I will be the one who will decide whether I use my brain just to get by or more. I know what I'm studying is interesting and important. I know that progress in no physical science would be possible without the rules and institutions shaped by law, political science and economics, all based on philosophy. But at times, I can't help but envy those who actually learn TO DO something. I'm envious of doctors, engineers, architects, businessmen, bankers, lawyers. I couldn't (or wouldn't, too, in some of these cases) be any of that after this point.

I know what I can't (or won't) do, but I have no idea as to what I will do, and I know I'm being a spoiled brat, but I'm not the only one around here. I feel like those of us who study social sciences, and who take it seriously, are learning how TO THINK properly, but we are quite unsure where to direct our energies. We are having difficulty to focus, and we are actually in desperate need of something concrete. I am, at least. But I suppose thinking within certain logical boundaries is an asset. Hopefully I will be able to utilize it in some valuable way soon that a rational employer will be willing to pay me.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Something Sincere
Something Unpredictable

I'm listening to an interview by author Mert Özmen now, who wrote a book called "The Girl
Who Grew Up Listening to Sezen Aksu Songs." This is the second of his three-book sequel, and it's about the '80's in Turkey. The first one was about the '70's, and the last one will be about the '90's.

The '70's, as the author put it, was about revolution. It was about the conflict between far left and far right. It was about people with dreams. My parents went to high school and university at this time, so I heard a bit about it. But because it was about dreams, it wasn't real. And the dreams were broken with the '80 coup.

The '80's, however, were more individual, more personal, more real. Just because of that, they were more sincere. The author says that they were about love, not revolution. They were firmly based on real emotion. And nothing addressed this emotion as well as Sezen Aksu songs.

I think this is why I will be drawn back to Turkey whereever I go. I will miss the songs, I will miss the cheesy dramas. I will miss this feeling, it would be called corny, arabesque elsewhere, but it can be real and sincere, hopefully. Borne out of the beauty, chaos, energy, and irony of my country.

The ideal would be to be rational when it comes to business, but never lose that feeling.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Thailand (and how it's similar to Turkey)

You can read the Economist article here. The news of the military taking over while the Thai PM Thaksin Shinawatra was away at the UN General Assembly meeting was very interesting. Turkey itself has experienced three military coups before I was born and a quasi-coup in 1997 (a "National Security Council" declaration which in turn led to the "voluntary" dissolution of the coalition government and closure of its senior partner, the Islamist Welfare Party.)

The root problem in Thailand and Turkey are the same: The "enlightened" part of the population (in the minority, but backed by the military) believes that the "backward" part of the population, which is the majority, is not worthy of democracy. The elites are threatened by the choices the masses are making: They don't want to be subject to the governments, which the uneducated, poor, rural, backward masses bring to power.

The Turkish Independence War was fought and our republic was founded by soldiers. They were influenced by Europeans, especially the French (the Ottomans had long realized that they were left behind, and the Ottoman elites often traveled to Europe.) They wanted to adopt the European values fast: Laicism was one of them, which required the state to be totally free from the influence of religion. To free itself from the tentacles of religion, the state even reverted to limiting and controlling religious factors by force.

During the time of Ottoman Empire, religion was an important common ground that bound different nations together. But the national uprisings, along with World War I, left the Turks bereft of any other territory or nation to rule upon. They decided to build their young republic around a new national identity, "Turkishness." They hoped that everyone who lived in Anatolia would own this identity and stay loyal to their state.

This was a fast, top-down revolution that did not evolve naturally by the masses thinking differently over time and changing their views and habits, but instead they were dictated by new laws and force. The first twenty years of the republic was a one-party rule: During this time, new parties were allowed only for a short time, then they were suspended, because they were indeed representing an important vein in the society: Religion, ethnicity, tradition, old values and habits...

As new parties were founded, the divisions within the society surfaced, and the "modernization process" never gained the same momentum again, often suffering from backlashes. The military always remained powerful as the "defenders of the Kemalist revolutions and republic," protecting the secularist republic often from the democratic will of the population. The military took the role of a father who limited his children's freedom for their own sake.

And many urban Turks supported the military for the sake of security, seeing the uneducated, poor masses as a threat (see below post!) Many urban Thais, including my close Thai friend with whom I just spoke about the coup, think the military did the right thing by taking over the government. She said that Thaksin Shinawatra was buying the votes of the rural poor, who didn't see his corruption and cronyism. The urban elites clearly saw his flaws and wanted to oust him, but they were in the minority. The only remaining option was to step out of this democratic vicious circle by a military coup.

The military, on the other hand, is not always a benevolent savior. According to the Economist article, the class of generals who took over the government was upset that Shinawatra was giving important positions to his friends in the military. In Turkey too, the military is upset that the government, in the name of EU reforms, is limiting its role in the civil life. Now there is a new law proposal suggesting the auditing of military spending by the state's audit institution (Sayistay.) The military does not want to be accountable to the government chosen by the people, but it wants to be an independent, even superior body, who decides whether it is necessary to intervene or not. And it is the only group that has the ability to take up arms, because it has the monopoly over violence.

However difficult it is, there is a way out, but it will definitely take time. First of all, people's education and economic situation should be improved, so that they will be able to make well-judged decisions, not only based on short-term considerations and promises, but on a consistent world-view and opinions based on information.

People are not capable, or can be held responsible of obtaining the necessary information to form opinions and make a judgement. There are institutions for this purpose: Media, police, investigators, and courts. They are the ones who are obliged to investigate and surface the allegations for corruption, crime and cronyism. They are the checks and balances of democracy. (Also, laws should be changed to allow these institutions to do their job, for example, immunity of the politicians should be lifted.) Only then will the people have the necessary information to base their choices upon. As these institutions do their job well and the bad politicians are either eliminated in the elections, or in the courtroom, decent people will not be intimidated to go into politics. Then the society, in turn, will have better options to choose among.

Lastly, people should feel confident that they are able to voice their opinions and make a difference in the existing democratic system. The current threshold should be lowered for this purpose, so that people can trust the integrity of democracy in Turkey.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Turkey's Paradox

I may be drawn to Turkey when I'm far away, and I fathom serving my country some way some day, but I can't stand living here! How big a double standard is that?? I don't feel as happy and fullfilled here as I would have been anywhere else in the world. The stark difference between "have"s and "have not"s disturb me. The difference is two-fold: The difference between people's incomes, but also the difference in people's education, values, habits, mind-set. (of course, many people who can close the income gap cannot close the mind gap, that's another story.) These two differences reinforce each other in a vicious cycle, until some extraordinarily smart (or clever) person breaks the circle and steps up. This leads to a feeling of insecurity and threat.

In Turkey, a decent person with a decent education and income who minds his own business is scared, intimidated or disturbed by the following: Pick-pockets, thieves, city thugs with guns and knives, street children (and teenagers!), traffic accidents, seperatist terrorists, Islamists with their secretive groups and intentions, women with headscarves, a military coup, capricious tax regulations, capricious tax audits, a new economic crisis, and the police. I'm sure I forgot something. And in the case that one of these threats is realized, our decent man does not feel secure that the judicial system will bring sufficient and timely justice.

But people survive in this environment, do business, and enjoy their lives - and they miss it when they are away... Gotta go now, bis bald!

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Comments to FT Columnist Gideon Rachman's column of September 18, 2006: Clashing Civilisations on the Banks of the Bosphorus:

Clash of civilizations???
19 Sep 2006 01:22 PM
I think the column portrays the situation in a well-balanced way, but I would like to comment on a few points:

1. Turkey definitely needs to improve on many fronts, the mind-set and education of many of its people being the foremost. At one point Mr. Rachman points to the "Deep social forces within Turkey that determine the country's relationship with Islam..." Firstly, some values and traditions that prevail in Turkey cannot be associated with Islam alone, rather they are a result of lack of education and economic problems (as is the case in everywhere in the world that is fundamentalist in one way or another.) Secondly, this backwardness could not be eradicated since the reforms in 1920's, because the roots of these problems were not adequately addressed. One big problem is that our political elite has generally been incapable, catering to the backwardness rather than trying to change it. If left alone, I don't think these problems would be addressed for years to come, because of these "deep, conflicting social forces." But the European Union is a solid symbol for improvement. It's a solid goal, and no interest group in Turkey can openly oppose the notion of EU membership. And we should not let our national pride get in the way of seeing the obvious need for reform. We should not get angry because Europeans see the obvious and criticize us.

2. However, not all European demands and criticism is just, and they divert the attention from areas where reform is really needed. Focusing the attention solely on Cyprus and Armenian Genocide is blocking the negotiations, thereby making EU membership out of reach for us, and killing the support, energy and enthusiasm for reform. We think the Europeans are not trying in good-faith. I am not denying our responsibility for Cyprus and Armenian Genocide, but these issues should be dealt with not BEFORE, but IN PARALLEL to the other negotiation chapters. Politicians like Nikolas Sarkozy are utilizing Turkish membership as an easy source of fear for their populace. Instead, they should focus on their own economic problems to be able to face the forces of globalization better, rather than getting scared of Turkish membership that is at least 15 years off.

3. Really, the issue can be seen in two ways: Turkish membership can alleviate the division between West and East, with Turkey reforming itself and Europe showing a sincere effort to include Turkey. Or the division between West and East can be seen as an obstacle for Turkish membership, which will make the problem impossible to solve.

4. Lastly, although I do think the response of the Muslim world is too harsh, the Western world does not have the right to insult the sensitivities of Muslim people. They should think twice, again in good faith, before they make comments or draw cartoons. They should make a cost-benefit analysis. They should ask, "does my point really say anything valuable, besides a stubborn affirmation of my right to say anything I want?.. And what might be the consequences?" I know, nobody should get hurt or no company should be boycotted as a response to some person's thoughts. But the real world is not ideal, so the Western world should act responsibly.

Monday, September 18, 2006


Once I wrote somewhere that your country is your fate. Your country plays a prominent role among the cards you get, and overlooking its role in your life (and your role in the life of your country) will probably prove to be a bad strategy.

My country has been a natural focal point for my interests. Of course first I had to move far from it to identify it as an interest, kind of a natural specialty. Because when you live in your own country, you are hardly special. In fact, I wouldn't be your average, typical Turk, many would think I grew up in a protected caccoon. I come from a middle-class entrepreneur family, lived all my life in the liberal western city of Izmir, never traveled to the east of Ankara, went to a private high school and went abroad for college. However, I did live in Turkey for 18 years, went back for every possible vacation (which made the differences between Turkey and the other places more striking), and even if I don't struggle with some of the difficulties your average Turk goes through, I do observe. (Am I getting self-defensive here?!)

When you move far away, on the other hand, your country, its culture, politics and economy becomes a subject that you know more than anyone else. They become your specialty, especially if you are studying international politics or economics. This is exacerbated by the romanticism of being away, and some unrealistic idealism: You can employ your education to tackle your country's problems and become a national hero :P

So the next few posts are dedicated to Türkiye - with all its beauty and ugliness and energy and annoyances!

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Freedom and Responsibility


I think happiness only comes when you overcome challenges. Something is only valuable when you strive to get it. Happiness is measured by the distance you travel, not where you start from. The feeling of self-respect, happiness and satisfaction is as great as the effort you put in a goal, in a project, in a dream.

So one could be happy only when one's convinced that he's playing his cards well, as well as he could. One is free to play the cards as he chooses, and playing them well or not is his own responsibility alone. I don't know many card games, but we have cards from yesterday, and a few new cards are dealt every single day, and we make choices as how to make our next move.

Freedom comes with the responsibility of one's own happiness: Many people try to delay their freedom just because they are scared of carrying this responsibility. They let other people, or the circumstances decide for them, just to be able to ease the burden of freedom. If they turn out unhappy in the end, they blame those other people, those circumstances, the fate, the cards... But in fact, the decision to turn over your freedom is your decision. And your life is your own responsibility. And so is mine.


Friday, September 15, 2006

Focus! Focus!

Here's my problem: I'm lazy. And my attention span has been getting shorter progressively over the recent years. Information and thoughts just pass through my brain like indistinct clouds without leaving a trace. I'm forgetful. I don't know what I'm interested in anymore. Or I'm interested in too many things.

This blog is force myself to get informed, think and form and opinion... Hopefully it won't be another satellite in cyber space just turning into space trash. Inspired from a friend who clearly has interests and talents - and pursues them. (Jealousy thankfully counteracts laziness.)

I would hate reading about myself, -everybody has enough problems, insecurities, desires... why would anyone read about mine?? So no more blabbering - but instead - good quality blogging!