Legitimate Means of Dying : Contentious Politics of Martyrdom in the Turkish Civil War (1968–1982)

A. Yenen
{"title":"Legitimate Means of Dying : Contentious Politics of Martyrdom in the Turkish Civil War (1968–1982)","authors":"A. Yenen","doi":"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2019.12.1.1004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Until today, commitment to the ‘martyrs’ of the Turkish civil war of the 1970s continues to be a crucial part of Turkey’s political culture. This paper will offer a historical-comparative sociology of state conventions and non-state contentions in defining political cultures of martyrdom during the Turkish civil war of 1970s. First, by outlining the historical semantics and political sociology of the state’s culture of martyrdom, I will argue that the state came to claim a monopoly over legitimate means of dying in the name of the state-nation-religion triad and explain how official martyrdom manifested itself during the civil war. In the second part, this paper will discuss cultures of martyrdom in processes of social mobilisation, collective identification and moral legitimisation in contentious politics, and how the radical-revolutionary left and the ultra-nationalist far-right in Turkey constructed their own cultures of martyrdom. Non-state claims to political martyrdom from the left and right emulated the state’s martyrdom discourse without rejecting its legitimacy. By (de-) legitimising lethal political violence, cultures of martyrdom establish lasting solidarities across people, times and spaces—and in seclusion against ‘others’.","PeriodicalId":30203,"journal":{"name":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","volume":"12 1","pages":"14-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2019.12.1.1004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Until today, commitment to the ‘martyrs’ of the Turkish civil war of the 1970s continues to be a crucial part of Turkey’s political culture. This paper will offer a historical-comparative sociology of state conventions and non-state contentions in defining political cultures of martyrdom during the Turkish civil war of 1970s. First, by outlining the historical semantics and political sociology of the state’s culture of martyrdom, I will argue that the state came to claim a monopoly over legitimate means of dying in the name of the state-nation-religion triad and explain how official martyrdom manifested itself during the civil war. In the second part, this paper will discuss cultures of martyrdom in processes of social mobilisation, collective identification and moral legitimisation in contentious politics, and how the radical-revolutionary left and the ultra-nationalist far-right in Turkey constructed their own cultures of martyrdom. Non-state claims to political martyrdom from the left and right emulated the state’s martyrdom discourse without rejecting its legitimacy. By (de-) legitimising lethal political violence, cultures of martyrdom establish lasting solidarities across people, times and spaces—and in seclusion against ‘others’.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
合法的死亡方式:土耳其内战中充满争议的殉道政治(1968–1982)
直到今天,对20世纪70年代土耳其内战“烈士”的承诺仍然是土耳其政治文化的重要组成部分。本文将提供一个历史-比较社会学的国家公约和非国家的争论,以界定20世纪70年代土耳其内战期间殉难的政治文化。首先,通过概述国家殉难文化的历史语义和政治社会学,我将论证国家以国家-民族-宗教三位一体的名义对合法死亡方式的垄断,并解释官方殉难在内战期间是如何表现出来的。在第二部分,本文将讨论社会动员、集体认同和有争议的政治中的道德合法化过程中的殉难文化,以及土耳其激进革命左翼和极端民族主义极右翼如何构建自己的殉难文化。来自左翼和右翼的非国家的政治殉难主张模仿了国家的殉难话语,但没有拒绝其合法性。通过使致命的政治暴力合法化,殉道文化在人与人、时间和空间之间建立了持久的团结,并与“他人”隔绝开来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Louise Amoore: Cloud Ethics. Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others Editorial: Futures of Critique in the Digital Age „Wie ist Geschichte a priori möglich?“ Algorithmische Vorhersage und die Aufgabe der Kritik Distributed Planned Economies in the Age of their Technical Feasibility Landnahme, analog und digital. Ursprüngliche Akkumulation in den Kontrollgesellschaften
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1