Siyaset Bilimi Doktora Programı öğrencimiz Doğu Durgun 14-16 Nisan 2016 tarihleri arasında New York’ta Columbia Üniversitesi’nde gerçekleştirilen ASN (Association for Studies of Nationalities) Yıllık Toplantısına katılmıştır. Sunum özeti aşağıdadır.
Refusing for the Nation: A comparative-historical perspective on conscientious objection in Turkey and Israel
This paper questions the similarities and differences between the cases of conscientious objection in Turkey and in Israel. Conscientious objection follows different paths in both countries which have similar citizenship regimes. Whereas total objection has been introduced by mostly anarchist, antinationalist and antimilitarist individuals in Turkey, selective objections were put forth by commanders, reserve and on-duty soldiers in Israel. In other words, Turkey meets with selective objection by the attempts of mostly self-declared Kurdish activists, or their allies while Israeli selective objection comes from the ‘cheerised sons and daughters of the State,’ as well as from self-declared Palestinian Druzes. This presentation makes an account of the structure of the citizenship regimes and agencies of the objectors in order to assess the similarities and differences between two countries. Based on the critical discourse analysis of 56 in-depth interviews with self-declared objectors in Turkey and Israel, and the magazines, interviews and articles written by the objectors and their allies, I argue that the ways in which objectors relate to their ethnicities and nationalities are crucial to understand which discourses and practices, e.g., just-unjust war, legitimate defense/self defense, violence/nationalism of the oppressed/oppressor, are appropriated by the objectors.
Siyaset Bilimi Doktora öğrencilerimizden Gülnur Kocapınar Yıldırım, Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi'nden Yüksel Alper Ecevit ile ortak yazdıkları Demokratikleşme Sürecindeki Ülkelerde Yasama Adaylarının Seçimi: Kişisel Niteliklerin Parti Tercihleri üzerindeki Etkisi başlıklı makaleyi 7-10 Nisan 2016 tarihlerinde Chicago, İllinois, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nde gerçekleştirilen 74. Midwest Political Science Association Konferansı'nda sunmuştur. Bu makale aynı zamanda 30 Haziran-2 Temmuz 2016 tarihlerinde Münih, Almanya'da düzenlenecek olan 3. ECPR Standing Group on Parliaments Genel Konferansı'na da kabul edilmiştir.
Kültürel Çalışmalar yüksek lisans programı öğrencimiz Atak Ayaz, İngiltere'de 14 Mayıs 2016 tarihinde McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge Heritage Research Group, University of Cambridge tarafından düzenlenen "The Heritage of Displacement: Forced Migration in the Mediterranean through History" konferansında "Reflections in the Silver Mirror: Owning the Past and Carrying Its Burden" başlıklı bir sunum yapmıştır.
Reflections in the Silver Mirror: Owning the Past and Carrying Its Burden
In 1915, when Bedros Effendi fled Muş, his city in Eastern Anatolia, to save his and daughter’s life from the onslaught of massacres during the Armenian Genocide, he left behind their house in which there wasa silver mirror. Based on the life story of my 58-year-old interlocutor, his parents purchased this house in 1931from the state -as stated on the deed- someyears after the foundation of the Turkish Republic, with the mirror in it. Even though he keeps the land and the silver mirror in his possession, he situates himself as the caretaker/watcher, rather than the owner, as ordered by the heritage passed down by his (grand)father.
How can the anthropologist account for the discrepancy of ‘ownership’ between the state and personal, when an interlocutor positions himself as the ‘caretaker’ of his own state-defined legal property? Who defines ownership ‘in the field’ when this concept is complicated by a moral economy of redemption and helalleşmek, which can be roughly explained as settling material and nonmaterial accountsin the eyes of Allah? In what ways do helalleşmek and ownership pass intergenerationally, as in the case of the silver mirror, complicating the notions of ‘heritage’ and ‘capital’ when we consider what the term ‘ownership’ encompasses? By presenting and analyzing ethnographic research from Muş, this paper will interrogate how my interlocutor challenges the distinction between the State and the personal in terms of ownership; and will discuss the liminal nature between ownership and what is ‘owned.’
