Ethnic Boundaries in Turkish Politics

The Secular Kurdish Movement and Islam

Zeki Sarigil

• Publisher: NYU Press
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781479882168
• eBook ISBN: 9781479868285
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The Kurdish Movement in Turkey's growing alliance with Islam One of the fault lines of Turkish politics traditionally has been the divide between religious and secular movements. However, as Zeki Sarigil argues, the secular Kurdish movement in Turkey has increasingly become aligned with Islam. As a result, Islam has become part of the movement's political discourse, strategies and actions. Ethnic Boundaries in Turkish Politics traces the evolving relations between the leftist, secular Kurdish movement and Islam, from an apathetic and/or antagonistic attitude in the 1970s and 1980s to an increasingly Islam-friendly approach in the 1990s to an attitude of accommodation and the rise of Kurdish-Islamic synthesis in the early 2000s. Based on 104 interviews in several provinces in Turkey (primarily Ankara, Diyarbakir, Istanbul, and Tunceli) between 2011 and 2015 as well as ethnographic data, public opinion surveys and statements from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and Kurdish leaders, Sarigil shows how the secular Kurdish movement increasingly has been endorsing Islam and Islamic actors. The reasons for this Islamic opening are global, national, and local; Sarigil demonstrates that a group of strategic and ideological factors have encouraged and/or forced Kurdish leaders to redraw symbolic and social boundaries of the movement. Namely, with the end of the Cold War support for Marxist ideas collapsed, creating increasingly more favorable responses towards religion. In addition, the movement's need to expand its social basis and popularity; electoral politics; and legitimacy struggles against rival political actors were other major factors, which triggered the Kurdish movement's boundary expansion (i.e. its Islamic opening). The study also shows that the Kurdish boundary making was not without any tension or contestation. The boundary expansion by Kurdish ethnopolitical elites triggered both internal and external boundary contestations. The movement's embrace of Islam on a more widespread level has major ramifications for politics in Turkey and in the region. Ethnic Boundaries in Turkish Politics has important insight into the PKK, modern Turkish and Islamic societies and highlights the increasing role of Islam in global politics.

1

The Boundary Approach to Ethnicity and Nationalism

In analyzing the shifting attitude of the Kurdish movement toward Islam in the past decades, this study utilizes the boundary approach as a main theoretical framework. As many studies also acknowledge, boundary making is an inherent part of ethnic or national group formation and identification, as well as of ethnic and nationalist movements. For instance, Nash (1989, 10) convincingly explains, “Where there is a group [ethnic group or movement], there is some sort of boundary, and where there are boundaries, there are mechanisms to maintain them.” Similarly, Wimmer (2013, 3) suggests, “Social and symbolic boundaries emerge when actors distinguish between different ethnic categories and when they treat members of such categories differently.” Regarding ethnic or nationalist movements, Conversi (1995) indicates that nationalism entails boundary creation and boundary maintenance processes. In the same way, Eriksen (2010, 10) remarks, “Like ethnic ideologies, nationalism stresses the cultural similarity of its adherents and, by implication, it draws boundaries vis-à-vis others, who thereby become outsiders” (see also Handler 1988; Cornell and Hartmann 2007). Hence, the boundary approach is a highly relevant theoretical tool for ethnicity and nationalism studies. As the current study shows, it is also highly useful in making better sense of the causes, mechanisms, and consequences of the recent shifts and transformations in Kurdish ethnopolitics (i.e., the Islamic opening of the secular, leftist Kurdish movement in the past decades).

This chapter first presents the main assumptions and arguments of the boundary approach and then draws some specific, exploratory hypotheses about ethnic boundary-making processes, particularly about the processes of (internal and external) boundary contestation.

Ethnic Boundary-Making Theory: Assumptions and Arguments

Boundary-making theory, which is primarily concerned with boundary-making or construction processes such as the demarcation, reproduction, and transformation of the boundaries of ethnic or national categories and of ethnonationalist movements, was first presented in the late 1960s in a collection of ethnographic studies edited by Fredrik Barth (1969a).1 Challenging the idea that stable and shared intrinsic, cultural features constitute ethnicity, this seminal work offers a more subjectivist, relational, processual, and interactionist approach to ethnicity and suggests that the focus of research should be on the dynamics of intergroup interactions, encounters, boundaries, and self-categorization or self-identification processes rather than on the “cultural stuff” that ethnic or national categories contain. For Barth (1969b), groups are the products of boundary production and reproduction during interactions between insiders and outsiders (see also R. Jenkins 2015, 20). As Brubaker (2009, 29) notes, “Barth was reacting against the static objectivism of then prevailing approaches to ethnicity, which sought to ground ethnicity in stable, objectively observable patterns of shared culture.” Along the same lines, Cederman (2002, 413) suggests, “Reacting to such reified conceptions of ethnicity, Fredrik Barth (1969) shifted the attention from cultural ‘essences’ to ethnogenesis through boundary formation.… According to this type of constructivist anthropology, groups do not consist of objective cultural traits but need to be viewed through the self-categorization of [their] members.” Similarly, R. Jenkins (2015, 14) notes, “[For] Barth, boundaries are produced and reproduced during interaction across them; thus group boundaries are osmotic, in that there is always traffic across them, in each direction. This interaction also produces and reproduces the groups on either side of the boundary. Which means that it is not what is within the boundary—the well-known ‘cultural stuff’—but the boundary maintenance processes that constitute and reconstitute the group; they are in many ways the group.”

Wimmer, who provides the most advanced version of the boundary-making approach in more recent literature on ethnicity and nationalism, defines its main features as follows:

[In the boundary-making approach] ethnic distinctions result from marking and maintaining a boundary irrespective of the cultural differences observed from the outside.… Researchers would no longer study “the culture” of ethnic group A or B, but rather how the ethnic boundary between A and B [is] inscribed onto a landscape of continuous cultural transitions. Ethnicity [would be] no longer synonymous with objectively defined cultures, but rather [would refer] to the subjective ways in which actors [mark] group boundaries by pointing to the specific diacritics that [distinguish] them from ethnic others. (2013, 22–23)

Thus, focusing on the role of intergroup processes and dynamics in the social construction (production and reproduction) of ethnic boundaries and so in ethnic-group formation, this approach provides a dynamic, practical, processual, and situational understanding of ethnicity and nationhood (Brubaker 2009). Therefore, this perspective treats ethnic or national boundaries as “fluid, policed, crossable, movable” (Lamont 2014, 815; see also Wallman 1978; Lamont 2000; Eriksen 2010). Sharing the Barthian framework, Wallman (quoted in R. Jenkins 1986, 175), for instance, notes that “ethnicity is the process by which ‘their’ difference is used to enhance the sense of ‘us’ for purposes of organization or identification.… Because it takes two, ethnicity can only happen at the boundary of ‘us,’ in contact or confrontation or by contract with ‘them.’ And as the sense of ‘us’ changes, so the boundary between ‘us’ and ‘them’ shifts. Not only does the boundary shift, but the criteria which mark it change” (see also Esman 1994; Terrier 2015).

The Notion of Boundary

Before going further, some discussion on the key term of this approach (i.e., the notion of boundary) will be useful. A boundary refers to “simultaneously where something stops and something else begins, and something that indicates where something stops and something else begins” (R. Jenkins 2015, 13–14). For Conversi (1999, 564), “The point of contact between different others, the domain—imaginary or real—where in-group and out-group meet and face each other is called boundary” (see also Wallman 1978, 206). Quite importantly, Conversi (1999, 564) warns against the interchangeable use of the terms boundary and border by noting, “the latter may simply refer to a line drawn between two spaces, whereas the former may be used to stress the binding quality of what, and who, is included on this side of the fence.”2

Boundaries serve key functions in sociopolitical life. As Tilly (2005, 133) suggests, social boundaries “interrupt, divide, circumscribe, or segregate distributions of population or activity within social fields.” Likewise, Conversi also lists several functions of social boundaries. A boundary, for Conversi (1999, 565),

does not simply refer to the outward-looking practice of delimitation, but also to the inward-looking process of self-definition. A boundary can encircle, enclose, contour, and outline, as well as frame, fix, set, assign, and establish. In other words, boundaries are made to bind.… And, although a boundary may be an hindrance or a barrier, it is also a tie and a connective liaison, its metaphorical next of kin being the bridge. Boundaries circumscribe separate realms, as well as delimit and mark out distinct values, behaviours, and laws. Their restrictive and exclusive power is compensated by their inclusive character vis-à-vis what and who lies within the boundary. Boundaries are normative insofar as they have the power to restrict, prescribe, and proscribe.

As this quotation also implies, other than separating in-group members from out-group members, boundaries also divide “the meanings that are attached to the identities on either side” (Cornell and Hartmann 2007, 84). In brief, the notion of boundary in this study does not refer to territorial, physical borders but rather to ideational, symbolic, and social structures, which “enclose, mark, and signal” belonging to an ethnic category or movement (Conversi 1999, 553).3

Symbolic and Social Boundaries

The boundary approach conceives ethnicity as an intangible, imagined, cognitive boundary with two main aspects or dimensions: symbolic and social (Lamont and Molnár 2002; Alba 2005, 22). Lamont and Molnár (2002, 168) define symbolic boundaries as “conceptual distinctions made by social actors to categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space. They are tools by which individuals and groups struggle over and come to agree upon definitions of reality.… Symbolic boundaries also separate people into groups and generate feelings of similarity and group membership” (emphasis added). Social boundaries, on the other hand, are conceptualized as “objectified forms of social differences manifested in unequal access to and unequal distribution of resources (material and nonmaterial) and social opportunities” (Lamont and Molnár 2002, 168; emphasis added). The authors suggest that the former operates at the intersubjective level and the latter concerns groupings of individuals.4 These definitions imply that symbolic boundaries are more about the subjective, ideational components of an ethnic category (the ideas, values, norms, and/or symbols that constitute a particular ethnicity) because social boundaries are related to relatively more objective social interactions and encounters, such as the inclusion and exclusion of actors (who should belong to an ethnic group or movement, who is an in-group member, who is an out-group member).5 It is emphasized that both of these aspects are real, substantially shaping sociopolitical processes and outcomes (see also Fuller 2003).

As indicated previously, the earlier version of the boundary approach was more concerned with the impact of interactions and transactions on social boundaries, neglecting symbolic boundaries (i.e., the cultural content of ethnic categories). For instance, separating symbolic and social boundaries from each other, Barth (1969b, 15) suggests that the focus of investigation should be on “the ethnic boundary that defines the group” rather than “the cultural stuff that it encloses.”6 Thus, earlier versions of the boundary approach focused on “what goes on at the boundary” rather than “what is inside the boundary” (R. Jenkins 2015, 15). In other words, for the boundary approach, we should study the boundaries of ethnic groups from “the outside in” rather than “from the inside out” (Conforti 2015, 142). It was believed that developments and social interactions at and across boundaries have determining impacts on internal structures and dynamics (i.e., the cultural content of ethnic identity). Thus, in such an account, the “cultural stuff” becomes “an effect and not a cause of boundaries” (Eriksen 2010, 46). As R. Jenkins (2008, 13) observes, “Shared culture is, in this model, best understood as generated in and by processes of ethnic boundary maintenance, rather than the other way round: the production and reproduction of difference vis-à-vis external others is what creates the image of similarity internally, vis-à-vis each other” (see also Wallman 1978).

This orientation (i.e., focusing on social boundaries rather than ethnic substance or cultural contents), however, constitutes a major limitation. It makes sense to treat social boundaries and cultural content as analytically distinct dimensions of ethnic categories or movements; however, it is problematic to assume and focus on only a one-way relationship between them. Since shifts in symbolic boundaries (i.e., the substance and content of ethnicity) also directly affect social boundaries (see also Conversi 1995; R. Jenkins 2008), it is more realistic to assume a constant, mutual interplay between the symbolic and social boundaries. In other words, what goes on within the boundary also affects what goes on at and outside the boundary. As Jackson (2015b, 193) also notes, “The cultural content demarcated by different boundaries is manipulated and politicized in diverse ways and across contexts, in order to maximize, or in some cases reduce, the distinctiveness between different population categories.”

Given such a limitation of the earlier versions of the boundary approach (i.e., the tendency to disregard or neglect what exists or happens inside the boundary), more recent studies of ethnic boundary making pay greater attention to the contents of ethnic categories, or the “cultural stuff,” and so symbolic boundaries (e.g., see Nagel 1994; Conversi 1995, 1999; Cornell 1996; Cornell and Hartmann 2007; R. Jenkins 2008; Wimmer 2013; Jackson and Molokotos-Liederman 2015). As Jackson (2015a, 3) warns, “Studying ethnicity and nationalism through a boundary approach, while also accepting that the content of social categories informs how boundaries are drawn and vice versa, is vital.” Similarly, Conforti (2015, 142) cautions that “we must not downplay the value of the cultural elements as a central factor in defining the boundaries of ethnic groups.” The in-depth analysis of the Islamic opening of the secular Kurdish movement confirms that the cultural content of an ethnic identity or category does matter. For instance, empirical analyses show that the degree of ethnic-group heterogeneity and intragroup divisions and cleavages do shape boundary-making processes, such as ethnopolitical leaders’ boundary-making strategies and the processes of boundary contestation, particularly internal boundary contestation.

Like social boundaries, the symbolic boundaries of an ethnic category and of an ethnonationalist movement are mutable as well. Regarding shifts in the symbolic boundaries (or the “cultural stuff”), Nagel (1994, 162–163) identifies two types or forms of boundary work: “construction” (i.e., revisions of current culture and innovations such as the creation of new cultural forms) and “reconstruction” (i.e., revivals and restorations of historical cultural practices and institutions). The former occurs “when current cultural elements are changed or when new cultural forms or practices are created”; the latter takes place “when lost or forgotten cultural forms or practices are excavated and reintroduced, or when lapsed or occasional cultural forms or practices are refurbished and reintegrated into contemporary culture” (Nagel 1994, 162–163). Thus, with reconstruction, ethnopolitical actors might incorporate previously ignored or suppressed ideational elements (e.g., religion) into the ethnic category or movement and shift its symbolic boundaries.

The Kurdish case analyzed in this study constitutes a good example of the reconstruction of symbolic boundaries. With the Islamic opening in the post-1990 period, the Kurdish ethnopolitical leaders quit their anti-Islamic attitudes and instead developed an Islam-friendly approach. As a result, they have incorporated previously excluded Islamic ideas, values, and principles into their ethnonationalist discourses, strategies, and programs. By adopting a more religion-friendly notion of Kurdishness, Kurdish ethnopolitical leaders have remade the symbolic boundaries of the Kurdish ethnic category in their ethnonationalist outlook.

The shifts in the symbolic boundaries of an ethnic category or movement might have substantial impact on social boundaries and interactions across ethnic-group boundaries. Again the Kurdish case illustrates this point well. By developing an Islam-friendly attitude in the past decades, Kurdish ethnopolitical leaders have reconciled with Islam, expanding the symbolic boundaries of the movement. We see that such boundary work at the symbolic level resulted in rapprochements with certain groups but tensions with others. For instance, the empirical chapters of this study display that the Islamic opening of the secular Kurdish movement reduced the distance between itself and the conservative Kurdish masses, while it increased the tension with rival political actors with conservative or Islamic leanings, such as the AKP. Thus, this particular case confirms that there is a constant and mutual interaction between the symbolic and social boundaries of an ethnic category or movement.

Boundary-Making Strategies

As Terrier (2015, 47) succinctly states, “boundaries do not operate without human action.” Human agents consciously or unconsciously make and remake ethnonational boundaries. Both subjective (e.g., sense of belonging, myths, symbols) and objective (e.g., ancestry, ethnicity, language, territory) elements and features of ethnic and national identities or categories are subject to interpretation and reinterpretation by human agents. As Calhoun (1993, 223) notes, “ethnic identity is constituted, maintained, and invoked in social processes that involve diverse intentions, constructions of meaning, and conflicts. Not only are there claims from competing possible collective allegiances, there are competing claims as to just what any particular ethnic or other identity means.” Similarly, Segal and Handler (2006, 59) observe that “even when the existence of a nation is least contested, neither outside observers nor the nation’s most patriotic proponents are ever able to reach closure in their attempts to identify what trait, or trait-bundle, defines the shared national identity, or character, of the nation. Nationalist movements are instead engaged in a ceaseless politics of culture—an ongoing effort to identify, create, and maintain the purported common denominator of their national identity.” Such efforts to identify the constitutive elements of an ethnic or national identity should be interpreted as boundary making or boundary construction because determining what a particular ethnic category entails also means setting or demarcating its boundaries. As Conversi (1995, 77) also notes, all processes of identity construction (including nationalism) are simultaneously boundary generating and boundary deriving. Similarly, Jackson (2015a, 1) asserts that distinguishing the national or ethnic self from the nonnational or nonethnic other should be understood as a form of boundary making.

Cultural, intellectual, and political elites are the key actors in boundary-making processes. Operating like political entrepreneurs, ethnopolitical...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1. The Boundary Approach to Ethnicity and Nationalism
• 2. The Islamic Opening of the Kurdish Movement
• 3. Explaining the Kurdish Movement’s Boundary Making
• Conclusions and Implications
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix: List of Interviewees
• Notes
• References
• Index
• About the Author