The Conditions of Thinking About the Armenian Genocide in Turkey

On April 17, 2018, the George and Irina Schaeffer Center for the Study of Genocide, Human Rights and Conflict Prevention invited political theorist Hakan Seckinelgin to speak at AUP about his research on what is publicly remembered in Turkey about the events of 1915. Addressing students, staff and faculty in the Combes Student Life Center, Seckinelgin examined the conditions of thinking about the Armenian genocide in Turkey and how collective and public memory reproduce certain discourses in Turkish social relations.

The talk explored the existing set of ideas that people have about the Armenian genocide; how do people think about these events, and on what basis do they justify their thinking? Seckinelgin explained that, though people are free to speak about genocide, the way in which it is discussed has implications. His research used interviews, focus groups, documentary analysis and participatory observations to highlight what forms these implications take and to understand the ways in which collective memory continues to shape public debate.

He argued that, though states have a hand in creating and maintaining public ways of thinking, it is civil society that ultimately operationalizes these processes. Through emphasizing certain actions or language, a general structure is created surrounding what people remember, similar to a grammatical structure. “There are linguistic signs for this, and people detect very easily when you are not using those signs,” Seckinelgin said. Individuals are pushed to remember as part of a larger group; this normalizing process creates a common discourse around how the events of 1915 can be publicly discussed.

Following the lecture, the audience asked questions about how this framework applied in the Turkish context, including how issues of religion and gender complicate discussions even further. The event concluded by looking at whose responsibility it was to change the existing public memory. Seckinelgin argued that top-down change was necessary in order to encourage individuals to think differently.