Asbed BEDROSSIAN (GROONG): We have a sense of
a brewing controversy related to a conference on Turkish studies in Georgia
this month. We understand
that you will be participating in that conference; indeed you will be the first keynote
speaker. Can you tell us something about that conference?
Jirair LIBARIDIAN:
Sure. This is the fourth conference of the University of Utah Turkish Studies
Project. They have held others in different parts of the
world before. This one will take place with the partnership of Tbilisi State
University, in Tbilisi, early June. The theme of the conference is quite
intriguing: "The Caucasus at Imperial
Twilight: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Nation-Building (1870s-1920s)." There will be
some 80 papers presented by known and upcoming scholars.
I was invited to
participate in these series for the first time; after much
thought, deliberation and consultation with some colleagues, I accepted the
invitation.
Q:
Why did you need so much
thought and deliberation to make your decision?
A:
First, I was not very
familiar with the main organizer, Professor Hakan Yavuz of Utah
University. I
knew of his position on the Armenian Genocide; he is, what we call in the
field, a denialist. The conference will not focus on the Genocide, although that
historical event and circumstances surrounding it will have to be considered. I
had to decide whether I could accommodate what I have to say on the subject of
end of empires as they relate to the Armenian Genocide. I decided that I
did have something significant to say.
Second, I had
some discussions with colleagues who reacted rather strongly
to the possibility of my participation or, later, my decision to participate. I
had to look at their arguments against my participation or, for that matter, the
participation of any Armenian scholar carefully. Some of our colleagues argue
that there is a direct link
between the Turkish state and its denialist strategy and Professor Yavuz.
Q:
Is there such a link?
A:
There does not seem to be,
nothing direct or evident. But at the end that does not matter. The question is
that, even if we assume that there is some kind of Turkish state interest or
involvement in this conference, the forum is a forum, and it is a big one. We
should be there, regardless. We should be there especially if there is a connection
to the Turkish state. We should not leave the field open and without our
presence. After all, if we do not talk to denialists and address the next
generation of scholars, we will end up talking only to those who recognize the
Genocide or are inclined to do so.
If it is the
Turkish state we are confronting, then we have to think of the
appropriate strategy to respond.
At the end,
though, we have to consider that Professor Hakan Yavuz is an
academic, like many of us, and teaches at a credible university, like many of us.
He has his views and perspectives. Professor Yavuz has published
extensively and it is wrong to judge him strictly on the basis of his position on the
Genocide. There is a large number of academics who approach the issues of
concern to us from a very different perspective, a perspective that ends up denying
the Genocide.
As we have
discovered in other cases, the characterization of Ittihad ve
Terakki Party policies toward Armenians as genocide is a journey. That journey is
both intellectual and emotional. For some that journey is a short one. For
others it may never come.
Q: Who are the colleagues you refer to who have argued against your participation in this conference?
A:
There is no need, at this
point, to name names. If need be, I will do so in the future and consider the
elements of their faulty logic individually and collectively.
Q:
What has been their argument?
A:
Essentially that the
participation of Armenian scholars would provide a legitimacy to the conference and,
by extension, to the denialist position that Armenian scholars should not
provide.
Q: That seems to make sense, doesn't it?
A:
It makes sense, of course, but
it makes sense within a certain, limited logic. It may not be so obvious if we
free ourselves from the reflexive reaction to events, reflexive reactions that
we may be confusing with strategies.
I may be within
a minority to think that our issue is one of (a) benefitting
from existing possibilities or (b) creating new ones. In this sense it is
possible to think of a number of scenarios on the significance of my participation
and then come to a different conclusion than our colleagues who find my
participation or the participation of other Armenian scholars, now of the younger
generation, abhorrent.
My participation
in that conference is based on a different logic than the
one used by our discontented colleagues.
Q:
What are these other strategies
you refer to?
A:
There are some that I have
thought of, but that I think should be left to a different forum. I think Armenian
scholars from Armenia and the Diaspora should have and do have something to say
at a major conference in the region. Especially on a theme that is so
relevant to what happened to Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during the waning
years of that state.
That was the
first level of response. Such conferences will come and go. But
there is a larger issue here, and that is, how do we decide what is right
and what is wrong in such instances. And who decides? And on what basis?
It is essential
for all our colleagues to understand that no one single
person, scholar or otherwise, or group of persons or scholars have the right to
determine what is the right strategy without proper consultations and thorough
examination of possible strategies.
At the next
level, then, what we need to develop is a process of
thorough examination of these issues and strategies.
Q: What are you suggesting concretely?
A:
No more than what I suggested
to two of my colleagues who have been in contact with me on this issue,
trying to persuade me to not to accept the invitation to this conference.
For some
colleagues to expect that I or any other self-respecting scholar would
decline to attend a conference because by their logic acceptance would harm the
“Armenian” position indicates that they give themselves the sole right to
determine what is the best way to proceed on such matters.
I suggested to
both of my interlocutors that to resolve this issue, or at the
least to understand each other, a workshop be convened where the logics of
varying strategies could be examined in consultation. That means there is no
hierarchy or orthodoxy. That means we think together first, before we determine
that one's own thinking must be adopted by others, just because its assumptions
are taken for granted.
At the end, we
need to ask a simple question: when did reflexive and
conventional answers provide answers to issues in our history?
It is possible
some people feel uncomfortable talking to denialists or
confronting the Turkish state. But personal or scholarly discomfort
should be the last factor on the basis of which one should make decisions on
such issues. As for legitimation of the individual position of the main organizer
regarding the Genocide, it would be useful to remember that the most important
university in our neighboring Georgia is the cosponsor of the conference and
the president of the largest professional association of Middle Eastern
specialists, the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) is another scheduled
keynote speaker. The question is whether an “Armenian boycott” is the best way to deal
with this situation. Because at the end this is what is being suggested. As if
previous boycotts have worked.
At the end, we
have to consider whether we are approaching this conference
as an academic or political event. In fact it is both, and more. That is
why a thorough discussion is what we need. Meanwhile, there is no reason for me to
accept someone else's orthodoxy. I have seen and battled too much to now
accept any orthodoxy.
“Groong /
Armenian News Network,” May 15, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment