Hatırlayarak aktör olmak: Türkiye'deki Çerkeslerin durumu

In this research, we try to understand the process of identity construction among Circassians in Turkey. Collective memory based on the recall from exile of May 21, 1864 is analyzed as the basis of Circassian identity and as a component of contemporary identity, transmitted across generations. The Circassians claim, as many rights as other ethnocultural minorities, expressing their difference based upon their culture and their memory. The identity recognition comes first of these claims. To understand the importance and scope of these claims, we decided to analyze the case of the Circassian identity in the context of sociological reflections on multicultural societies and the issues of living together. Likewise Turkey confronts problems arising from living together issues, as a part of compliance with the criteria of the European Union. The speeches, such as "Anatolia is a mosaic of cultures", ?All differences are the riches of Anatolia?, which are used by Justice and Development Party and practices of democratic initiatives encourage Circassians to express their claims on the same terms as the identity claims of Kurds. In opposition to the official Turkish historiography, they take care of their neglected past and take action to reverse the stigma of ?Hain Çerkez? used against them. Through demonstrations, they increase their public visibility in urban spaces, in order to express their opposition to assimilation practices in Turkey and Russia. Thus, in this contemporary period, they try to express themselves as ?Circassian? in the public. Indeed, those they claim, they are either universal rights, equal and fair rights written in the definition of citizenship, or rights protection and recognition-with-respect of their difference as members of a particular history and culture. In other words, they demand individual and collective rights at the same time.Our problematic of research is shaped around these concepts and we wonder how individuals become actor-subjects of an ethno-cultural identity by remembering a tragedy and getting the policy of difference in the era when the liberal multiculturalism reign. So, we construct the arguments that support our problematic. First, the Circassians of the Turkey, as members of a group of difference, claim the identity recognition and cultural protection. Indeed, they want access to the citizenship by obtaining the universal rights and the rights based on their differences. Second, the Circassians are reacting against the single and homogenous identity and they claim that Turkey reconcile with the past. Third, to remember the Circassien exile is a source of the imaginary community and the Circassian identity. It is the common pain which unifies all Circassians and legitimates their present claims. Fourth, we assume that the collective memory, rebuilt on the exile, is transmitted by the old people; but we saw, at the end of the field, that the old people of the Circassian community do not fulfil their mission of transmitting. Instead of that, it is the ceremony of commemoration (in Kefken) which contributes to the transmission of the past. Fifth, the official history, that is to say, the national memory, does not give the place to the stories of minorities and prohibit the rememberance of the past for the groups of difference. Sixth, the recall of the past plays a role of liberalizing for the Circassians who claim the recognition of the injustice which was done in thepast. Finally, to remember become a mode of resistance and call the action with which the Circassians actors get their individual freedoms and they become the subjects.How can a Circassian be aware that he is a Circassian? With which figures recall, he quickens his memories of exile and the Caucasus which are the most important components of his identity? How does he reproduce himself as a Circassian? On which factors does he reconstruct his identity? To find answers to these questions we have done a field work by using a qualitative method. We realized semi-structured interviews to obtain data on the Circassian identity construction and reconstruction of collective memory in this process. The qualitative method has given us the opportunity to see also the tendency of subjectivation of actors of this identity. 42 people, men and women of different ages were interviewed in total and we built four typologies according to their different political or traditional trends. We did the analysis and synthesis of data obtained at the end of discourse analysis and of the observation on some Internet sites by using tools offered by sociological theories about the main identity and collective memory. On the other hand, we also benefited from secondary sources to analyze the history of exile: we did a literature search and benefited from the scientific researches, books, articles, novels, documents etc. In addition, we observed also the internet sites, the forumes, the texts of campaigns and the projects which were proposed for the new constitution. We participated in the events and meetings which were organized by the Caucasian associations or by the Initiative of May21. On the other hand, there are also private archives which we profited like the photographes, the public records etc. Our goal was to show how the Circassians in Turkey reconstruct their identity by expressing their difference based upon their memory and their culture. It was rather a field without difficulty but there were still some limits. Some interviewees have asked us not to write their names because they were afraid of meeting an obstacle to their career. Second, it was difficult to have an interview with the old people because they wanted to direct all interview. They tried to use their authority coming from their age. The old women were more timid than men. They always oriented us towards men. Third, we could not have an interview with the witness of the Circassien exile in 1864 because the witness are already dead. Finally, it was difficult to find, in Turkish, the official archives which give us the sufficient information about the war between Caucasians and Russians of the 19th century. They are rather in Russian and English. To obtain much information, we must go to Russia and learn the Russian language.At the end of the research, we have reached these results:Circassians, as members of a group of difference want to benefit the democratic reforms of the current Government in Turkey and claim the identity recognition and cultural protection through the policies of difference. Indeed, they struggle to access to multicultural citizenship and to be visible in public space. With accepting the collective memory as a source of difference we saw that the Circassian memory and culture are transmitted to new generations by the ceremonies of the commemoration of the Circassian Exile or Genocide, by the stories and by the reinventing of the culture in the settled lands. They express their difference by putting an emphasis on the past because the exile of 1864 and the policy of assimilation of Turkey legitimate their claims of the present. The fall of the Soviet Russia, that is to say, the meeting of the Circassians of Turkey with their compatriots who live in Caucasus and other countries, and the proses of the Turkey?s membership to the European Union encourage their claims about Circassian exile and identity recognition. And by 2000, the young activists have turned their faces to the Russia which is the sole interlocutor and responsible of the genocide for them. Assuming that they have been influenced by the policies of assimilation, we saw that they rejected the definition of ?Çerkez? made by the Turkish national historiography and redefined the identity of ?Çerkes? with the aim of reversing the stigma from the Turkish national history. In this sense, the Circassians consider as responsible for reconciliation with the past, not only Russia which is the actor of exile and genocide, but also Turkey. The actors react against the official story that marginalizes the collective memories reproduced by groups of difference, claim the recognition of the injustices done in the past and rendering of the prestige to Cerkes Ethem. Recalling of a tragic event like the Circassian exile plays a constructive and unifying part for the Circassian identity. In addition to that, it offers a legitimate basis for their claims. Still, it plays a liberation role to resist and they become the subjects, so the actors of their own social movement by remembering. They are actors-individuals seeking to live freely their youth and their culture. That is, they want to obtain the emancipation of the authority of Thamades and living freely your culture in public space in Turkey and in Caucasus. It is the disappointment of the loss of the imagined Caucasus which in fact pushes them to resist because the Circassians had a nostalgic and utopian aspiration towards Caucasus. But the real image of Caucasus destroyed this utopia. Therefore, the Circassian identity is rebuilt around this recall and this resistance. On the other hand, we say that the 21 May 1864, as a symbolic date of the exile, and the Northern Caucasus, as a place of memory, are also important components of this identity.Keywords: Multiculturalism, Policy of Difference, Identity, Recognition of Identity, Collective memory, Circassians, the Circassian Exile May 21, 1864, Caucasus.