This illusion, or illusions, is that of Turkish and people who are trying to illustrate Turkey to their fellow compatriots of non-Turkish. Therefore it is a rather insignificant illusion. Yet it is interesting to note, to have the chance to know something as well as I can being a Turk; that changes, not only because it also changes in reality, but the world’s – and I use world in its most commonly used sense as in world is composed of Europe and its former baby, now champion US – illusion, conception, understanding and judgement about it changes as well. So, I would rather say it ‘truly’ changes as the truth seems to become the truth only when it is acknowledged by the ‘world’.
And to prove this point one doesn’t have to look far as the Arab Spring is at our convenience right now. There, you can see how things do not truly change, at least not until, the ‘let’s wait and see’ if the ‘support’ will bear its fruits, or will the Arabs – not as a culture but as a conception – just fall back to their winter period, is over. Meanwhile without a glimpse of doubt it is thought without ‘support’ it will definitely fall back, but unfortunately and despite this support it might still fail. Fail, because that is the way of the Arabs. And yet there is nothing the ‘world’ can do to achieve what is right for ‘these’ people despite themselves. And yet they still try through America, in Iraq or Afghanistan. And it is their ‘duty’ as some politicians might claim to do so.
Yet Turkey is changing, because contrary to the belief and to the surprise of the ‘world’ it is becoming wealthier as a result of its own accomplishment. Is it surprising that the ‘world’ is ready to acknowledge such success, a success that can be measured in money? And they are ready and afraid and willing and trying to change their conception of some other countries as well; China? India? Brasil? Any country that can become rich, even if through the support and leading of the ‘world’ but still managing to make it look like it is their own doing deserves an applause. Indeed a huge applause, especially as it was not too long ago (and yes, a person of the ‘world’ might quickly notice, they still have many problems) they were so corrupt, unable and doomed. Much like the Arabs and Africans of today.
However, the more I talk about the ‘world’s’ conception of things it looks like I get further away from the illusion and am stuck in just pointing out examples of the well established concept of orientalism. My example is still the illusion of Turkey: A country that is tried to be fit into a role model for their next-of-kins Arabs by the ‘world’. Why? Because ‘although’ it is predominantly ‘Muslim’ it can still function as (at least resemble) a ‘true’ ‘Christian’ democracy. Ironic, that the foreign relations intellectuals in Turkey are also warning: even if we do want to become a role model we should do so without acting like one, and we should not remind them of our leadership (or as the Arabs would like to see, domination) during the Ottoman era. How fitting it is for both sides; the ‘world’ and the Turkey within their own illusions, to think how to save the poor Arabs.
The Turks’ illusion of Turkey is that it has become a country to lead. And it might be the illusion of the ‘world’ that Turkey stopped being a country to be led or of insignificance or of encumbrance and became a country of usefulness. Illusions all around. And yet there is nothing to be said for the reasons of these illusions and the changes in the illusions, in the past or now, other than that it solely depends on money. Coming from someone who first of all tries to explain all foreign policies and ongoing conflicts in the world through the motivations of economy, what does this mean? It means that the money is the closest thing to rationally explain the reasons for these illusions whether they are close to truth or not; but many other explanations are found, some very misleading and disturbingly effecting the actualities of the future.
Other day on a Turkish TV channel a Turkish guy, at his convenience, summed up the two dominating philosophies of the world right now: One, he says, are people that only look to the last 100 or 200 years – the period after industrialization – and tries to explain the world through it and the second, who looks at the world since its beginning and sees how much the East has also contributed to the civilization. The first ones, he says, tries to explain the world by clash of civilizations; whereas the second tries to lead the world to peace.
Here is a little test: Looking at Arab Spring how do you explain what has happened there and what will happen? Did you resort to one of the two ‘philoshophical views’? But let’s forget that typical TV simplification of things. Did you resort to history? Is not it possible for anyone; European, American, Turkish or Arab alike, to try to explain what is going on in the Arab countries right now just looking at the people who are doing it and what these people are themselves? What do they want and what they are; but not what they have become and where they are coming from? Or is it just too convenient for the ‘West’ and ‘East’ similarly; to look at Arabs and say they always have fought, look at financial crisis in Greece and say they were always lazy and corrupt, and look at Turkey and say they are improving and becoming influential because they were an Empire once and dominated Balkans, North Africa, Middle East? If you think I’m exaggerating try to find an article that explains the new Turkish foreign policy without the Ottoman inheritance. Is not this approach simply just looking at the things of the past that are able to explain the result. And yet if things were going bad for Turkey I am sure there would be millions of historic explanations deriving again from the failure of Ottoman Empire itself. And if Greece had been doing great it could have been explained through how present Greeks resembles their great ancestors of ancient Greeks.
It is actually the struggle not the wealth in these countries that are truly changing. The struggle of people in Turkey, China, India, Brazil and many others that does start with the ambition to get rich, but will go through the improvement of ideas, life, philosophies, science and unfortunately, will probably end in the struggle to get and stay rich again. The ‘world’ struggled to get rich and meanwhile they produced ideas and science and now they ended up in only trying to stay rich and wealthy. And if a oriental was to foresee the future of the East through the simplification of how the West tried to explain the East, and looked at West to make sense of what will happen to the East as it is the West it started to resemble (applaused and confirmed by the West) would not he conclude that one day the East will end up in a position where their only aim is to get rich and stay rich and satisficing with the rest of their lives?
Or will the ‘world’, through observing the changes in East, understand how content they have become with the fruits of their past struggle to get rich; namely representative democracy and capitalism with a hint of state supported socialism?
So far I, myself, am quite irritated by the way I have depicted the alleged dominant view in the West, even if I did it for a reason. It is my allegation guess and I will still stand by my point that it is a dominant view, or at least a view that dominates the base of many other views. But, how simply I classified the ‘world’ into people content with their lives, only money oriented, prejudgemental, orientalist fools and how wrong was it. I know there are many people, anywhere in the world, that think and struggle to improve the world and do not perceive the rest of the world through this limited approach. So, if so far you have been disturbed by my depiction of the ‘world’ just take it as an example of how easily you could do it for the rest of the world. And if you have not been disturbed by it, think how easily you can do the same thing you blame other people for doing.
However, despite all my misconceptions of how the ‘world’ sees the rest of the world, the following question can still be rightfully asked: Will the Arabs, Turks, Chinese, Indians be let alone to have their own struggle in their own way – as they had before the Europeans have their own – to contribute to the well being of humanity as they did before; or will they simply be forced to concede to the dictations of the ‘world’?
The most dangerous illusion of Turks about Turkey is how much they think they have started to resemble and are similar to the West. And the two differing, yet equally dangerous illusions of the ‘world’ about Turkey are, first, how much they think Turkey started to resemble themselves and second, how much Turkey does not resemble themselves.
What gives anyone the reason to think that the best Turkey or China or India or Brazil can achieve is to copy the countries, that are for now, relatively and presumably in better condition? Anyone, including the Turkish, Chinese, Indians and Brazilians themselves as well.
There is an oppurtunity. The oppurtunity to improve through the differences, through the people who are struggling even if they are not struggling for the right reason. This is not to say that we have to embrace and tolerate the differences, it is to say it is the difference from each other that will end up improving all of us. It is not the differences of their pasts or simply the differences of their religions, but the differences of their future that makes them truly different. And Turkey or China or India or Brazil might fail in doing so as there are many reasons to. They might not be able to change at all or they might change into the same thing we, as humans, already have and tested. But yet, they might not. And the world might improve; even if the ‘world’ think it cannot or already has.