Emotions and Nationalism: Armenian Genocide as a Case Study

Abstract

Until recently, sociologists have paid surprisingly little attention to the relationship between emotions and nationalism. Existing accounts remain homogeneous, linear and nonrelational. To remedy this gap, this article compares public controversies in Turkey over the Armenian genocide at two historical moments: its semi‐centennial anniversary in 1965, and the publication of an article in 2004 by the Armenian‐Turkish journalist Hrant Dink that led to his assassination in 2007. It demonstrates that the genocide, and the conflicting epistemic structures that it incites, is a source of anxiety for Armenians due to their actual displacement within the nation. It is also a source of anxiety for Turks due to the perceived threat of displacement within the nation. These relational anxieties over the nation played an important role, during these two events, in reproducing hierarchical and exclusionary configurations, experiences, and representations of nationhood. During the 1965 semi‐centennial, Armenians reacted to the mainstream Turkish public's anxieties by pledging their loyalty to the state. Dink's assassination in 2007, on the other hand, showcases how an attempt by the excluded to redefine the what and who of the nation united otherwise separate social sections around a nationalist front.

Three shades of dismemberment anxiety about Armenians in Turkish politics

“…Moreover, Ekmekçioğlu (2014) suggests that the apprehension about the foreign powers’ potential manipulation of the non-Muslims in Turkey paved the way to their exclusion from the dominant group and ensured their existence as a forcibly included outgroup, which she insightfully terms ‘step-citizen’. Furthermore, some studies highlight the importance of perceived ontological insecurities and threats of displacement for Turks in shaping the Turkish official position with regard to the Armenian Genocide (Adar, 2018; Zarakol, 2010). All in all, looking through group position theory, one could explicate the state’s exclusion of the non-Muslim minorities from the definition of the Turkish nation as a result of the Sèvres syndrome.…”

“Such Hatred Has Never Flourished on Our Soil”: The Politics of Holocaust Memory in Turkey and Spain

“…The experience of the non‐Muslims after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent establishment of the Republic of Turkey is tied to a narrative that accuses non‐Muslims, particularly Christians, of causing the demise of the empire. In line with this interpretation, Adar (:6) claims that “excluded from the nation and being deprived from communal resources, non‐Muslim citizens of Turkey were left in a liminal space between inclusion as legally acknowledged citizens and exclusion from the nation as strangers (yabancı).” Although this narrative portrays the Jewish community as the “good other,” this relationship remains tenuous, reliant on the “proper” actions of the community.…”

Ephemeral and Ludic Strategies of Remembering in the Streets: A Springboard for Public Memory in Chile

“…These are unique moments in which both the new authorities and society at large need to make sense of the wrongdoings of the past and build a collective narrative about them (Elster 2006; Offe ). In times of turmoil, movement, and deep social transformation, societies need new stories and symbols to sustain the difficulties of changing their institutions and to support the deep cultural change that these transformations imply (Adar ; Bernhard and Kubik ; Cerulo ; Pelak ; Walzer ; Whitlinger ). Authorities and institutions behind this process must endorse and transmit symbols and ethical notions to the people, especially to future generations.…”