Historicising the British possession of Cyprus

Hyphenated Identities: Voices from the Watchtower During the Cypriot Civil War

“…The social constructivist approach – which guides this study – builds on the fundamental assumption that the essence of ethno-national identity is a collection of imagined and manufactured ideas, for instance, conventions regarding which people ought to be excluded or included in social groups (Kaufman 2001, 23). In agreeing with Varnava’s (2009) apt statement that “identity is predicated upon perceptions not facts,” identification with a given ethno-national group will be seen as a matter of political imagination rather than an objective reality in the context of this investigation (23). Such an understanding is evident in Anderson’s (2006) influential conceptualization of the nation as an “imagined political community” (6) and in Hobsbawm’s (2012) characterization of national formations as “all-embracing pseudo-communities” (10).…”

“…In turn, the different cultural components of the group identity of individuals, such as religious affiliation or native language, inform their perceptions of the surrounding environment, and how they are viewed by the broader society (Kaufman 2001, 23). From this angle, the nation – and identification with it – is an ageless and integral aspect of the universal human experience that has endured throughout the centuries (Varnava 2009, 22). Clifford Geertz, one of the most consequential anthropologists of the 20th century (Yengoyan 2009), and the originating figure of the primordial camp (Kaufman 2001, 24), stressed the given nature of ethnic and national identification (Anagiotos 2016, 35).…”

“…As a result, up to the arrival of British colonial rule in 1878, the most salient differentiation among the group identity of individuals in Cyprus hinged on the distinction between Muslim or Orthodox Christian religious affiliation; although it must be noted that during the Ottoman period, in a syncretistic fashion, several individuals also blended and trespassed the boundaries of religious group identity (Constantinou 2007, 255–256). Importantly, the demarcation of Ottoman imperial subjects that was informed by their religiosity did not prevent the culturally integrated Cypriot Muslims and Christians – who were affected by joint socio-economic adversities (Vural and Rustemli 2006) – from partaking in common traditions and acts of interfaith marriage (Varnava 2009, 155). Notwithstanding the notable integration of the differentiated Orthodox Christian and Muslim communities, the Ottoman domination of Cyprus led to the formation of “class/social cleavages” between rural and urban areas that also influenced interreligious contacts and lasted even until the early years of British rule in the island (Varnava 2017, 31).…”

“…The effort of the British colonial administration to “modernize” the millet structure in Cyprus saw a gradual top-down process of ethnicization of the preexisting religious group differentiation (Constantinou 2007, 256), which influenced the reconstruction of Muslim religious identity into Turkish ethno-national identity and Christian religious identity into Greek ethno-national identity (Anagiotos 2016, 28). While implementing their view of modernity that had the effect of obstructing Ottoman-influenced integrating efforts among Muslims and Christians (Varnava 2009, 159), the policies of British officials initially turned individuals from both the “lower” and “higher” classes of Cyprus into “imperial citizens” and then into “Turks” or “Greeks” (Varnava 2020, 6–7). This modernizing process is evident from the historically contingent transformation of census classifications in the 20th-century Cypriot context (Constantinou 2007, 257).…”

“…This modernizing process is evident from the historically contingent transformation of census classifications in the 20th-century Cypriot context (Constantinou 2007, 257). Before reaching their formative period and the Cypriot peasantry in the wake of World War I, ethno-nationalist visions of Greek and Turkish motherland nationalism(s) were propounded by a number of literate elites in the two religiously defined communities (Varnava 2009; 2017). Given this, one can argue that the cultivation of the ideologically dominant Greek nationalism – alongside Turkish nationalism (Dağlı 2016) – was an “elitist” phenomenon, which was enabled by the impulse of modernization that defined British colonial rule in the island (Varnava 2017, 34).…”