Intercultural Dialogue and Hospitable Tolerance - II

This is the continuation of : http://hfurkank.blogspot.com.tr/2015/06/intercultural-dialogue-and-hospitable.html
__________________________________________________________

As for integration, it can be pictured as a partnership, with the host and the migrant cultures or individuals meeting in the middle of a bridge, where they take time to understand the journey each one has taken.

The Global Commission on International Migration depicts integration as a long-term and multi-dimensional process. Both migrants and non-migrants need to be committed to the process and respect each other, and also be prepared for the naturally occurring changes in the perceptions and cultural structures of each society as a result of integration.

In other words, integration can be likened to the creation of a ‘Salad Bowl’ in a host country. The Salad Bowl concept suggests that the integration of the many cultures in the host country should mix like a salad. In this model, many cultures are juxtaposed - just like a salad -, but they do not merge into a homogenous culture. Each culture preserves its tradition and its distinguishing qualities.

The ‘Salad Bowl’ can also be used as a simile for a multiculturalist policy which refers to ideologies or policies that promote diversity or its institutionalization. In this sense, The Salad Bowl forms a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.” According to the International Organization for Migration, a multicultural society aims to allow diversity, equal rights and equal opportunities to migrants, at the same time allowing them to keep a cultural affiliation to their country of origin.

Multiculturalism is seen by its supporters as a fairer system that allows people to truly express who they are within a society, that is more tolerant and that adapts better to social issues. But still, as stated above, this is a debatable point.

Critics of multiculturalism often debate whether the multicultural ideal of kindly co-existing cultures that interrelate and influence one another, and yet remain distinct, is, paradoxical, sustainable or even desirable.

Harvard Professor of Political Science Robert D. Putnam, who has conducted a study on the matter which lasted for nearly a decade, suggests that multiculturalism has a negative influence on national trust. There are also concrete instances that show us that multiculturalism may have a negative influence on the society. For example, in Britain many Muslim groups don’t feel they are being represented by state law, and create isolated marginal minorities, practicing Islamic Sharia. Additionally, tensions may occur if the immigrant groups’ or persons’ value systems and traditional or religious practices are in direct opposition to those of the host community. In such incidents, the host community may demand that the immigrants should obey to the way of living in the host country, not to the one in the immigrants’ country of origin. This approach is also acceptable to an extent. The newcomers cannot expect to live by the same social norms they have had in their country of origin. They have to respect the domestic law, and as long as they are within the country, act accordingly. Otherwise chaos would be inevitable.

Intercultural Dialogue and Hospitable Tolerance - I

"Intercultural Dialogue and Hospitable Tolerance" is an essay I wrote on immigration. I will be publishing the essay by breaking it into parts and by blogging it part by part.

______________

In the beginning, there was immigration. The first people, Adam and Eve, were thrown out of the Garden of Eden. The father of monotheism, Abraham, emigrated from Canaan and went to Mesopotamia, to his hometown Ur after hearing the commands: “Lehk Lehka”, meaning “Leave!” Later, his grandson, Joseph, immigrated to Egypt. This has continued for centuries. People have not only immigrated to nearby countries, but they have crossed deserts, oceans and all kinds of other obstacles that one can care to imagine.

Today, immigration is a very complex phenomenon which can be described as, according to the Collins Online Dictionary, “the movement of non-native persons into a country in order to settle there.” According to my analyses, the orientation that occurs followed by immigration can be studied in 3 stages: Initially the cultural shock stage, and then the adjustment stage, followed by the dialogue stage. The examination of these stages will be made in the subsequent sections of the essay.

As of 2006, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) has estimated the number of foreign migrants worldwide to be more than 200 million. This immigration often results in friction between host and immigrant communities. Such friction makes the phenomenon of migration a very difficult and substantial subject to study.

One of the obstacles faced in studying this phenomenon is answering the questions: “How are immigrants to adapt? By assimilation or by integration? Should the community act like a ‘Melting Pot’, or like a ‘Salad Bowl’?” To have a better understanding of this complex phenomenon, and to be able to answer these questions, it is necessary to examine the concepts of assimilation and integration.

To begin with, assimilation can be briefly described as the process by which a subaltern group's native language and culture are lost under pressure to assimilate with those of a dominant cultural group. The International Organization for Migration states that assimilation expects migrants to adjust entirely to the values and the rights system of the host society disregarding the values and practices of their countries of origin and so, it can be said that it is a one-sided process. This method is legitimate, but only to an extent. The newcomers should adapt to the host way of living, but not the extent where they cannot even practice their harmless traditions.

The method of assimilation can be consubstantiated with the metaphor ‘Melting Pot’. The melting pot is a commonly used metaphor for a heterogeneous society becoming more homogeneous and so forming a harmonious whole with a common culture. Different elements melt and forge a new alloy. In this metaphor, the different elements are the groups or individuals with distinctive cultures.

Assimilationists tend to believe that their nation reached its present state of development because it was successful in forging a national identity. They argue that separating their citizens by ethnicity or religion and giving them special privileges may harm the very groups that they tend to protect, as this will cause a reaction in the majority of the community.

One of the dangers of this method is that the migrants may react against the demand of giving up their value systems, by retreating into their own cultures, and refusing to interact with the host community, forming marginal groups which may lead to chaos in the long-term. Also, it is a matter of discussion, how ethic assimilation actually is. The Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan projected such an opinion in his visit to Germany stating that “Assimilation is a crime against humanity”.

The French government has tried to use this methodology, but they have failed. The Muslim veil was prohibited in schools, and so many second or third generation immigrants refused the old style assimilation method. This trend is proven by the riots in French suburbs in 2005 and the protests against the 2011 law banning the Muslim veil.

To read on, click here.

Evolution of Turkish - 1

The Evolution of Turkish - 1

Every nation has its own turning points. Points which deflect the nation from its ongoing path. The Turkish nation has had 2 great turning point of this sort. The First breaking point was towards the end of the 10^th century, when the Turks adopted Islam and entered a pot of civilizations heavily influenced by Arabic and Farsi cultures.

They abandoned the equestrian nomadic culture and entered the Middle Eastern Culture. This shift inherently affected the Turkish culture, and by doing so, the Turkish language. This interplay was so intense that the Turks changed the alphabet they used, from the old Orkhon Alphabet to the Farsi alphabet.

Hacivat and Karagöz

Following this revolutionary alteration, two different utilizations of the language emerged. One of the utilizations was used by the gentry, and was intensely affected by Arabic and Farsi, whereas the other utilization was used by the proletariat and preserved the relics of the nomadic culture.

The gap between the utilizations increased regularly over time, as an outcome of the cultural interaction in the region. The shadow-play, Hacıvat  ve Karagöz is an embodied instance of this divergence. In this play, the disconnect between the mentioned parties is the source of humor. Hacıvat is a member of the gentry, and speaks Ottoman Turkish (The Turkish heavily influenced by Arabic and Farsi), whereas Karagöz is from the proletariat. During the play, and Karagöz becomes befuddled and gets the wrong end of the stick by mistaking an Ottoman word, with a Turkish one which, of course, has a totally opposite meaning.

Toward the 19^th century, with the Servetifünun Movement the gap reached an unimaginative level. Namık Kemal, a Turkish intellectual of the century, wrote, “Even of literates in Istanbul, perhaps one in 10 is incapable of understanding a normally phrased note.” So, simply the language was over the heads of the people.

This problem had to be solved, and so towards the 20th century, different cultural movements emerged to unify Turkish. I will be explaining these cultural movements and the Turkish Language Revolution in my subsequent blogs.

I suggest that you read the links below. They are complementary to my writings..

http://www.turkishculture.org/literature-124.htm

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-202858-was-the-turkish-language-reform-a-success-or-a-catastrophe.html

Do not hesitate to ask me questions, by writing comments below

For chapter 2, click here.

Evolution of Turkish - 2

This is the 2nd Chapter of "The Evolution of Turkish" For Chapter I, check : http://hfurkank.blogspot.com.tr/2015/06/evolution-of-turkish-1.html

_________________________________________________________________

In January 1908, the Turkish Association was found.  Everyone agreed on amending the language, but the method was the source of controversy. There were 3 types of members in the Association. The Simplifiers, wished to replace the sophisticated Ottoman words with simpler ones used in daily speech. The Turkicizers suggested that new words should be created only by the usage of Turkish suffixes, not Arabic or Persian suffixes. They also believed that the Arabic and Persian words in use should be counted as Turkish. The Purifiers wished to replace every word with pure Turkish, using words from Central Asian Turkic languages.

These methodologies had great influence on the general entelectual spirit of the time. By the end of WWI, the Turkish intellectuals refused to describe themselves as Ottomans, and they avoided using the old Ottoman language.

This estrangement from Ottoman language continued till the foundation of the Turkish Republic. After this, Atatürk carried on the language revolution and changed the alphabet, from the Old Persian alphabet to the international Latin alphabet.

Atatürk, introducing the new alphabet.

At this point, I would like to recall the first paragraph of the previous chapter. I stated that every nation has its breaking points, points which deflect the nation from its ongoing path. I also stated that the Turkish Nation has had 2 breaking points in history, and that the first breaking point was the adoption of Islam. Having said that, I can, without hesitation, state that the second breaking point of the nation is the revolutions Atatürk made.

With these revolutions, both the alphabet and the content of the dictionaries completely changed. Considering that people contemplate through the agency of words, this change altered the way the society actually started to think, and so a new era for the Turks started.

The language revolution was a mixture of all three schools, the Simplifiers, Purifiers and the Turkicizers. The authorities tried to extract all the Arabic and Persian words from the language, which was an attempt as radical as trying to extract the Greek and Latin words from English.

They were successful in extracting these words at first. But then, the remaining words weren’t enough to express complex situations, and the language needed relevant words to cure this problem, and so it fronted French, and adopted thousands of words from the French vocabulary.

The Turkish nation had a new language now. This change was done in a very short time period, and so it had a shock effect. After this effect vanished, the societyhad a new method of thinking and questioning style, for it begun to think in western words.

Were these revolutions a success or a catastrophe for the Turkish nation? Was Turkish impoverished by these attempts? What happened to Turkish after these incidents? What is the state of the Modern Turkish today?

I will be answering these questions in the next Chapter.

Sincerely…