|
|
News On The WORKSHOP FOR ARMENIAN/TURKISH
SCHOLARSHIP (The first draft of this Report was reviewed, edited and approved by the two other organizers of WATS, Professors Muge Gocek and Ronald Suny. The revised version was made available to and discussed by the participants of WATS V, held at NYU in May, 2006. The author takes full responsibility, nonetheless, for the contents of this final version.) I. INTRODUCTION This report is an attempt to assess the road traveled by the Workshop for Armenian/Turkish Scholarship (WATS) since its first gathering in 2000. In essence, the success of this endeavor calls for a review of its activities and options for the future. Now that we have completed the fifth meeting, we need to ask the question: Where do we go from here? WATS was conceived by Professors Ronald Suny (at the time at the WATS has been an attempt to see if the issue of Turkish Armenian relations and its most critical moment, events during World War I, could be taken out of the politically charged atmosphere and reworked as a problem with a historical context that required input from other fields, such as sociology, anthropology, and political science as well as comparative studies. While fully cognizant of the politics engendered by battles for and against genocide recognition, the organizers were aware of how both scholarship and advocacy had been damaged by the entanglement of multiple goals—scholarship, advocacy and reconciliation. It was a matter of finding the theoretical framework and intellectual tools that would allow the full exploration of events long ago that continue to reverberate to our day. The goal of the Workshop was to transcend paradigms based on the “Armenian” and “Turkish” positions, and create a field of inquiry sustained by scholarly rigor, intellectual honesty and interaction between scholars who respected each other’s intents and positions, regardless of their ethnic origin. The format adopted, namely that of a workshop, as well as the themes proposed and the list of participants invited to each gathering were consequences of the above considerations. The workshop format relieved presentations from the pressures of addressing large audiences that are often more interested in hearing scholars repeat their set positions. The format avoided the grand standing and/or extreme cautiousness that limited the scope of inquiries or resulted in intellectual intimidation. As opposed to conferences, the workshop format also allowed time for discussions; it provided the right setting for scholars to venture non-conventional opinions and conclusions in a non-political environment. Finally, it enabled the organizers to limit the list of invitees to scholars whose scholarship and intellectual rigor and self respect would make a dialog possible on a level and with temperaments that allowed inquisitiveness and historical contextualizing rather than a sense of having the whole truth and holding on to it exclusively at all costs. Above all, these were scholars who were willing and ready to listen to each other, and assess each other’s inquiries and interventions on the basis of mutual respect. WATS started by rejecting the view that scholarly dialogue can be based on the negotiating of history as if conducting a rug purchase in a bazaar. Rather than impose artificial “middle” or “balanced” positions, WATS instead sought to enrich our understanding through research and discussion and expand our understanding in a way that a more complex and nuanced portrayal of the past will inevitably bring closer and bridge the gap between the two histories that have been written or promoted as not only contradictory but also as separate, almost as if unrelated, narratives. WATS participants concur that this is a slow and at times tedious process, certainly, but that is also a more productive one. This is also an open process, where participation is not based on a litmus test of using or not-using the term “genocide” and without a predetermined outcome. The process would evolve in whatever ways research and discourse led. The tentative initial step in 2000 encountered, even
before the gathering took place, apprehension and politically motivated
attacks from both Armenian and Turkish circles. WATS I at the WATS is an informal process and does not constitute an
organization, not even a formal group. Organizers facilitate, consult,
discuss and plan, leaving the workshop process itself at the center of
activities; it is self-ruling, deriving its strength and legitimacy from its
constituency and its sound principles. The advantages of the absence of an
organizational structure are offset by the absence of administrative support
to the core group. This is a problem especially since each of the meetings
has had a different venue, including one in With the growing number of scholars involved in the process and an increasing recognition, WATS has also had to resist the temptation to adopt formal resolutions or positions that might have the unintended consequence of being drawn into politics and advocacy and, consequently, closing doors. The organizers have resisted attempts to engage in political or advocacy activities in the name of WATS, while assuming the position that individually the scholars, whether organizers or participants, are free to act in their own name. WATS was conceived and has functioned without any ties to
the governments of II. ACCOMPLISHMENTS A. MEETINGS
WATS I ( WATS II ( WATS III ( WATS IV ( WATS V (
B. PAPERS
a. Focusing on the Turkish dimension: 3 b. Focusing on the Armenian dimension: 5 c. Others: 4 d. General: 2
a. Focusing on the Turkish dimension: 10 b. Focusing on the Armenian dimension: 8 c. Others: 6 d. General: 11
a. Focusing on the Turkish dimension: 5 b. Focusing on the Armenian dimension: 9 c. Others: 6
III. QUALITATIVE IMPACT 1. This Workshop, due to the vision of those who conceived and organized it and to its solid intellectual and structural underpinnings, has been the single most successful endeavor to bring down the wall that separated scholars on this matter. A history of WATS would have to consider the role of a number of individuals, factors and events that created the preconditions for the inception and success of WATS. The two most important among these are a) the independence of Armenia and the policies adopted by the first government that attempted to de- politicize Genocide recognition and to open dialogue with the Turkish government.; and b) the significant changes in Turkish society during the past 20 years, the efforts to join the European Community, and the emergence of a civil society prepared to challenge the state defined/imposed view of history. Yet, a number of other undertakings were discontinued
either at their inception or failed in the end. One can think of TARC, the
Yerevan State University/Ankara University agreements, the WATS succeeded because it was able to place the term
genocide back into history and scientific discourse and it refused to engage
in the genocide recognition battles, which comprise sore points both for 2. WATS has invited, encouraged and provided a forum for micro-studies which, despite their critical importance for the study of the subject, would have found no other fora where they could be presented, challenged, and made part of the larger investigation process. 3. WATS has caused a shift in the “politics” of scholarship on the subject and redefined the field. From being considered on the fringes of the spectrum, it has become the “center.” Now it is those who oppose this approach that are considered extreme or marginal. 4. The papers prepared for WATS or presented at its
meetings have raised a number of questions which had never been asked before
and, in some cases, answered them. More importantly, these papers and the
ensuing discussions have started to integrate the two histories, just as the
lives of peoples were in the 5. It is possible that a virtual community has been created with the workshop listserv that can now discuss and tackle issues based on the principles of intellectual integrity and mutual respect. On an increasing number of issues debated in that forum differences of opinion and approach have little to do with a writer’s ethnic background. The listserv, of course, has absorbed much more of the tension and controversies than the Workshop could or was initially intended for. 6. WATS has had an indirect influence in the convening of the Istanbul Conference in September 2005. Many of the organizers of the conference were associated with the Workshop. One can assume that the language and tone established at the Workshop played a significant role in the conception of that first in kind conference that shattered many taboos. IV. AUXILIARY ACTIVITIES 1. The WATS listserv, originally intended for communication
between the participants, underwent an explosion after WATS IV in This explosion of numbers and uses has also created problems. Some have been annoyed by the sheer volume of emails; others have written messages in a style that is contrary to the principles of the Workshop. Additionally, while we have been able to keep advocacy issues away from the Workshop itself, it has been difficult to do the same with the listserv, which has engaged more individuals and individuals who are not, strictly, speaking scholars. The complex politics of genocide recognition has inevitable changed the character of the listserv. Professor Gocek, who manages the listserv, has done her best to set some rules and guidelines. Nonetheless, we will need to rethink the use of the listserv. 2. The new WATS website (armturkworkshop.org), may alleviate some of the problems related to the listserv. It will have a chat room, thus the discussions will move to the website and the use of the listserv can be limited to its original intent. The website will also have information on past meetings and, hopefully, papers presented at such meetings, should the presenters submit them. Thus the research promoted by WATS will be accessible to audiences wider than the participants. Here too we will need to develop policies and guidelines. 3. A select group of papers presented during the past five meetings will be collected in a volume to be published sometime next year, edited by professors Suny and Gocek. It was suggested during WATS V that the volume be translated and published also in Turkish and Armenian. 4. As an indication of the progress achieved in creating
the mature intellectual environment and a common language to address the
common past, WATS has initiated a mini-project, the joint writing of the
history of a town in The Akn/Egin Project will test our assumptions and possibly serve as a model for similar studies later and, possibly, for an ambitious project to write the history of Turkish/Armenian relations as a joint project. 5. As a result of a special effort by the organizers, the number of younger scholars participating in WATS meetings had increased. Six of the eleven papers presented at WATS V were by graduate students. In recognition of its many achievements the Workshop was awarded the MESA Academic Freedom Prize in 2005. V. POINTS OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMNT
It is true, however, that the Workshop organizers have not engaged those who are not scholars as well as those whose scholarship they consider conditioned by politics and whose positions are not amenable to discussion. In other words, the organizers have left out what they consider the extreme positions: those who, against all evidence, deny that anything calamitous and out of the ordinary took place during the War and even worse, on the “Turkish” side; and, on the other, those who consider the case closed and discussion futile, and display a racist and/or anti-historical approach on the “Armenian” side. Admittedly, the distinction calls for judgment and sometimes it is difficult to draw clear lines. On occasion Turkish officials have suggested that certain historians who agree with the official position of that government that denies a genocide took place be also included in the Workshop proceedings. Others too have suggested that the Workshop should include the full spectrum of positions on the subject. At first sight this may be sound like a legitimate expectation. Yet there are a number of issues to be considered. First, it is worth repeating that this is not a workshop consumed by the use or non-use of the term “genocide.” The whole idea is to move away from that problem to make possible research and discussion of the history of the period. Second, including one extreme position would also mean to include the other. Under the circumstances, the Workshop meetings would turn into shouting matches, simply put. As I recently communicated to a Turkish official, there are many forums where these scholars occupying the extreme, anti-historical positions express themselves; it is even possible, I suggested, to create another workshop where those whose only concern is the affirmation or denial of the genocide can meet and focus on that particular battle.
These are general characterizations and require further refinement and specificity for the purpose of guiding the organizers and participants toward projects that will focus on areas of new research and analysis. VI. AREAS THAT REQUIRE FURTHER RESEARCH While even areas relatively well researched require further research and analysis, the workshop organizers and participants have indicated the following as areas that require particular attention:
VII. ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED IN RELATION TO THE FUTURE DIRECTION OF WATS A. Administrative/structural
B. Substantive
C. Scholarly and other contacts
The organizers will be meeting in August to discuss these issues. Prepared on behalf
of the organizers by Gerard Libaridian May 10, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|