İnsanlar ve Maymunlar

Hayat devam ediyor. Dünkü yağmurun damlacıkları daha kurumadan ve hatta daha güneş açmadan once de devam ediyordu, şimdi de… Bugün hava açık. Devamlı muzurluklar planlayan, binbir türlü gariplikler kuran kafacıklarımızın üstünde, aşağıda neler olup bittiğine pek aldırmayan rüzgarlar ve de bilge görünüp içlerinde ne hinlikler gizleyen bulutlar ülkesinde keyifler yerinde anlaşılan. Bizim aşağıların anlamsız (yoksa anlamlı mıydı?) karmaşası ise, durmak ne kelime, yeni uyanmış bir çöl faresi tedirginliğinde olanca gücüyle vızıldamakta. Açan bahar çiçeklerinin insanın içini gıcıklayan ve dahası zaten karışık olan insancık ruhlarını daha da bir karıştıran parçacıkları havada süzülmekte.

Ben ise bu ilahi karmaşa içinde, taş bir binanın içinde insanların anlamsız (yoksa anlamlı mıydı?) korkuları ve utançları yüzünden üzerinde kadınlar tuvaleti yazan kapının karşısında ki bir laboraturda bu yazıyı yazmaktayım.

İşte tam da yazarken, aklımda bir ses “Yahu neden yazıyorsun” diye sormaz mı? Çık şimdi işin içinden çıkabilirsen. Zaten, bu neden, niçin gibi soruları sorma isteğini çoğu insane akıllıca davranıp çocukluğunda bitiriyor. 2 ila 10 yasindaki cocuklar “Baba bu ne?” “Anne, niçin benim pipim var?” “Anne niye salonun ortasına çiş yapınca kızıyorsun?” gibi soruları üstüste sormak sureti ile anne ve babaları çeşitli tedbirler almaya itiyorlar genelde. Bunun sonucunda oluşan ebeveyinsel tepki, genelde sert olduğundan, 10 yaşından sonra “neden”, “niçin” soruları “nasıl” sorusuna dönüşüyor ki bu da zaten hem toplum için hem de birey icin rahatlatıcı bir durum. Boylece gereksiz kaygılar bireylerin kafasından uçarak, pırıl pırıl beyinler bırakıyor geriye. İnsanlar “Nasıl para kazanırım?”, “Nasıl daha çok kadınla yatarım?”, "Nasıl zengin koca bulurum?" ya da “Nasıl daha çok insanı yönetirim?” gibi yararlı ve de ahlaklı sorular sormaya başlarken, benim gibi maymundan türeme, insan artıklarına ise, nisan ayının ortasında, taş bir binanin içinde neden kadınlar ve erkekler tuvaletleri birbirinden ayrıdır diye düşünümek kalıyor.

Size rahatça söyleyebilirim ki, böyle niçin’li, neden’li düşünceler insanı çıldırtır, raydan yoldan çıkartır . Tanrı insanın neden yaratmıştır? Tabi ki, neden, niçin diye düşünsün diye değil; iyi, ahlaklı bir hayat sürsün diye. İşte bu yüzden Şeytan oyuncağı, neden’li niçin’li düşünceler, Allah yaratısı insani, maymundan gelme insana çevirebilir.

Benim gibi, maymunla akraba olan insanlar çok tehlikelidirler. Hem ne yapacakları belli olmaz, hem de cok hareketlidirler. Üstelik kendince ahlak kuralları vardır ama bu kuralları devamlı değiştirirler. Namussuz, şerefsiz olurlar ve de vatanseverlikten falan da pek anlamazlar. Tek düşündükleri muz yemek ve de birbirleri ile devamlı bir şekilde anlamsız cümleler kurmak vasıtası ile iletişim kurmaktır. Bizim gibi maymundan gelme insan evlatları hem topluma rahatsızlık vermekte, hem de yüce tanrısal insanların bazılarının aklını çelmek suretiyle kendilerine çevirmektedirler. Bu yüzden yaratılmış insanlar, benim gibi maymundan gelmeleri, içinde oldugum taş binalara kapatmışlardır. Arada muz atarak ve de ihtiyacımız oldukça, “aa ne şirin bak gözlüğü de var” gibi sozlerle kandırarak içerde tutmaya, ne yazık ki muaffak olmuslardir.

Sonuç olarak, siz siz olun, benim ebeveyinlerimin hatasına düşmeyin. Çocuğunuz sordukça vurun kafasına.

Ermeni Meselesi - Yilmaz Arguden'e Cevap

Yilmaz Arguden'in yazisi
Merhaba,
Gündüz Aktan'ın konuşmasını dinleme fırsatı bulmuştum geçen sene, Columbia Üniversitesinde. Türkiye lobicilerinin, bence en mantıklısı ve en akıllıca konuşanıi olarak beni etkilemişti açıkçası konuşması.

Sayin Argüden'in yazisi da Gunduz Bey'in akillica konusmasini yansitiyor ve önemli belgelerden alıntılar içeriyor.

Ancak, yine de sonuçta verilen mesaj, benim için son derece rahatsız edici bir trendin devamı. Sayın Argüden'in çıkarımı son derece açık: Türkiye'nin propaganda savaşımı kazanması için Türk entellektüel elitinin, yani yazarların, sanatçıların, film yapımcılarının, açıkça taraf olarak Türkiye'nin resmi pozisyonunu desteklemeleri gerekiyor.

Burada atlanan iki önemli nokta var. Birincisi, bu tip lobicilik ve de uluslarasi diplomasi ortaminda ki siyasi savaş, benim üzerinde çok durduğum ve Türkiye'nin kendi tarihi ile hesaplaşması ile ilgili bir diyaloğun oluşması önünde önemli bir engel oluşturması. İkincisi, Türkiye'den Ermeni meselesi ile ilgili oluşan ve Yılmaz Bey'in yazısı ile desteklenen büyük ulusalcı beklentinin, Türkiye'nin entellektüel yapıtlarının (ki son senelerde Türk bilim insanlarının, yazarlarının ve sanatçılarının dünyada önemi hızla artıyor) değerine gölge düşürmesi.

Önce ilk maddeyi biraz açayayım. Son on yıldır, Türkiye'de çok önemli meseleler, dünyanın konuşamadığı meseleler, konuşuluyor. Etnisitenin kimlik oluşumunda ki öneminden, islamın modern düzlemde kendini yeniden tanımlamasına, ulus-devletlerin yapısından, askeri gücün politika üzerine etkisine kadar bir çok önemli konu açıkça ve mesela Amerika'ya kıyasla son derece cesurca tartışılıyor. Bu tartışma sadece Türkiye için değil, dünya için önemli bir tartışma. Türk yazarlarının (Pamuk, Şafak), sosyal bilimcilerinin (Göle, Keyder, Keyman) ve de film yapımcılarının (Ceylan, Akın) ve Muzisyenlerinin (Ergüner, Mercan Dede), Politika ve ekonomi düşünürlerinin (Derviş ve Argüden'in kendisi) son yıllarda yakaladıkları başarılar sadece şansla bağlantılı değil. Türkiye, yeniden şekillenen bir dünyanın düşünsel merkezine çok yakınlaştı son yıllarda..

Şu anda benim Sayın Argüden'e bu cevabı yazıyor olmam bile bunun bir göstergesi. Bence bu Türkiye tarihinin çok katmanlılığına ve de Cumhuriyet projesinin başarısına işarettir.Tam bu noktada, küçük ulusal çıkarlar için, büyük global hayallerden vazgeçmemiz gerektiğini düşünüyorum. Hiç bir zaman sömürü altında kalmamış, nüfusu, ekonomik etkisi, tarihi ve de jeopolitik konumu ile dünya politikalarında her zaman önemli rol oynamış bir toplumun, uzun süre yurtsuz kalmış, kimliklerini bütünü ile yaşadıkları acı olayların travması üzerine kurmuş Ermeni gruplarından daha bilge ve daha çok sesli davranması gerekmektedir. Aksi bir tavır, aynı Ermeni kimliğinin kendisini basitleştirdiği gibi, 'Türk' kimliğini de 'soykırım yapmayan' 'soykırımı reddeden' basit ve anlamsız bir kimliğe dönüştürecektir. Eğer bir diyalog olacaksa bunu Türkiye'nin başlatması gerekmektedir. Bu da tek sesli bir lobicilikle başarılamaz.

Ulusalcı beklentiye gelince, bu, en azımdan benim kafamda, son derece net. Entellektüellerden beklenen ulusalcı beklenti, batı dünyasını ulusalcı diskurun argümanlarına ikna etmekten ziyade, Türkiye'de üretilen yapıtların çeşitliliğini ve de kalitesini düşürüyor.Kendini İstanbul ile tanımlayan, Türkiye ile ilgili Türkçe olarak yazan Orhan Pamuk'u, istediği kadar ukala, istediği kadar ödül meraklısı olsun, bir ulus olarak reddetmek saçma değil mi? Aynı şekilde, entellektüel yapıtları, bu bizden, bu değil gibi tanımlamak ve bu tanımlamanın medyaya yansıması, Türkiye'de üretilen düşünsel yapıtların çok iyi tartışılamamasına yol açıyor. Mesela Pamuk'un Kar kitabında gözlemlediği İslamcılık-laiklik, devletçilik-ayrımcılık ve doğululuk-batılılık karşıtşıkları, bizim memlekette pek ünlü olan Huntington'un yavan ve masalsı medeniyetler çatışmasına kıyasla çok daha kompleks, ayrıntılı ve muhtemelen daha doğru. Ne yazık ki, hala kendi meselelerimizi Huntington'un basit ve akademik olarak tartışmalı tezleri bağlamında tartışıyoruz.

Sonuç olarak, kendimin ve tanıdıklarımın akademik ve düşünsel kariyerlerinden tümevarım yaparak, demek istediğim basitçe şu. Türkiye kompleks bir coğrafya ve de önemi düşünsel arenada hızla artıyor. Bu ivmeyi durdurmamak için düşünsel ve yaratıcı çeşitliliği ve diyaloğu arttırmak gerekir. Kısa dönem ulusal çıkarların korunması için (mesela Ermeni lobisine karşı çıkmak için) Türkiye'nin yaratıcı ivmesini yönlendirmeye çalışmak, bence sadece Türkiye'nin değil, dünyanın zararına olur.

Sacma Hayaller

Son iki haftadir gazete okudunuz mu bilmiyorum. Ama, BBC News'ten Hurriyet'e, NYtimes'tan Zaman'a, El Cezire'den India-Times'a her yerde Olum, siddet, anlasmazlik, ve mutsuzluk var. Moralim bozuldu biraz. Moralimin bozuklugu sadece son iki haftada olanlar degil, cok daha kotu haftalari hepimiz biliyoruz. Daha ziyade medyaya yansiyan siddetin, daha fazla siddet yaratacak bir zemin hazirlamasi.

Bakin. 28 Temmuz Hurriyette mayina basarak olen binbasi Adil Karagoz'un haberi vardi. Adil Binbasi muhtemelen cok cok iyi bir askerdi. Anladigim kadari ile ozel kuvvetler harekatlarinda vazgecilmez bir lider ve de iki senedir tatil yapmayi birakin, ailesini dogru durust gormemis, kahraman, yetenekli, isine bagli ve de isinin cok onemli oldugunu dusunen bir insandi haberden anladigima gore. Herhalde askerleri arasinda cok saygi duyulan bir figurdu, herhalde gozu kapali olume giderdi taburu o emrederse. Bu ozelliklerle, Adil Binbasi, muhtemelen cok iyi bir bilim adami olurdu. Muhtemelen cok iyi bir sanatci, cok iyi bir politikaci, cok iyi bir isadami olurdu. Ama adil binbasi onun yerine daglarda bir mayina basarak oldu. Adil Karagoz'un cenazesine 10.000 kisi katilmis ve sonra DTP binasini taslamislar. Adil Karagoz'un babasi, 80 yasinda, beni yine askere alirlarsa giderim, teroristle savasirim demis. Hurriyet'in haberine gore. Tebrik ediyorum Adil Binbasinin babasini... Adil binbasi gibi yetenekli bir insanin bu hayattaki hatirasi bir cok insan oldurmus olmak, Turkiye Cumhuriyeti icin iyi bir propoganda araci olmak ve de topluluklarin bir binayi taslamasini saglamak oldu.

O mayini kim yerlestirdi diye dusunuyorum. PKK'nin sayfasinda "sehitlerine" ayrilmis bir sayfa var. Mesela Amara diye bir kiz, Istanbul'lu, Universite mezunu, guzelce bir kiz. Allah bilir nerede olmus, belki de Binbasi Adil'i oldurduk diye kutlarken arkadaslari ile, Binbasilarinin ocunu almak icin canla basla doglarda kosturan askerler basmislardir gizlenme yerlerini. Sonucta, muhtemelen kafasi iyi calisan (cunku bir binbasiyi oldurecek yere mayini koymak kolay degildir), muhtemelen kin dolu, mihtemelen 30-40 yaslarinin altinda bir Berivan, bir Firat bir Huseyin'de binbasi Adil'e katilmistir simdiden, Amara ile beraber... Bu insanlar bir yerde ogretmen olmak yerine mesela, kendi koyunden cikan ilk doktor olmak yerine, aptal, eskimis ideolojilerin ve karmasik, anlamsiz kabile kavgalarinin arasinda sikisip kalmislar. Siddetin icinde yasamislar sevinclerini, arkadasliklarini ve siddetle olmusler, geriye hic bir sey birakmadan kendilerinden.

Yine ayni gun bir arkadastan, su anda Beyrutta olan bir arkadastan e-mail geldi... 10 senedir NY'ta yasiyordu. bir ay once dondu Beyrut'a, ulkemi birakamayacagim diye. Yazarken ellerim titriyor diye basliyor e-maili. Yapacak hic bir sey yok, sular kirlenmis, icecek su yok, cocuklar yerlerde. Ne yapacagim ben burada diye yakiniyor bize, Amerika'daki arkadaslarina. Ne olur bu e-maili gonderin etrafa ama e-mailimi vermeyin diyor. Basin rahat vermiyor, sozlerimi kullanmak istiyorlar diye devam ediyor. E-mail devam ediyor, ediyor sayfalarca. Okudukca icim daraliyor. Bir anneden bahsediyordu evi bir bomba ile yikilan. Bebegi laktoz (yani sut proteinini) sindiremedigi icin soya sutu icirmek zorunda, Amerikan elciliginde yalvarmak zorunda kalmis bu anne ama iceri almamislar... Ne oldugunu bilmiyor sonra. Bu anne, hele ki Allah vermesin, bebegini kaybederse, ne yapabilir ki... Bir insanin kafasi, yuregi, ruhu nasil bir baris dusunebilir, nasil intikam duygusunu silebilir. Nasil nefret etmez Israil'den ve Israil'i destekleyen her gucten.

Sonra Israilli oldugumu dusunuyorum, ne yaparim diye. Gozu donmus Hizbullah'in, kana susamis Hamas'in ve bunlari besleyen Iran'in Suriye'nin arasinda, kucucuk ulkemde nasil dusunurum diye dusunuyorum. Korkarim herhalde. Kafeye gitmekten, askere alinmaktan, isgale ugramaktan, kacirilip iskence ile oldurulmekten korkarim. Korkumu arkama alip herhalde askerime, yahudiligime, ulkeme daha cok sarilirim. Lubnan'daki olumler, Israil'deki olumleri engelleyecekse sesimi cikarmam, cikaramam herhalde. Ekin'i dusunurum Hizbullah'in elinde, babami annemi, sizi arkadaslarimi. Daha cok korkar, herhalde korka korka gonullu yazilirim askere.

Sonra aciyorum, Hurriyetin baska bir sayfasini Elif Safak'a, "Turklugu asagilamaktan" dava acilmis. Elif Safak'la hem bogazicinden, hem de University of Michigan'dan bir okullulugumuz vardir. Hep ismini duyardim, sonra romanlari geldi arka arkaya. Elif, bildigim kadari ile, Insan oldurmez, mayin'da dosemez, kin de duymaz kimseye... Ama yazar. yazdiklari basit degildir. Sloganlar yoktur yazdiklarinda. Hepimizin paylastigi insani zayifliklar vardir kitaplarinda. Elif Safak tahmin ediyorum, Turklugunu pek onemsemez. Istanbul'u, dogdugu yerleri ve Turkiye'yi cok onemser herhalde, cunku yazdiklari hep Istanbul'un derinliklerinde, bizim bile bilmedigimiz mekanlarinda, kisilerinde, tarihlerinde hayat bulur. Elif Safak Turkiye'yi, en azindan Istanbul'u bizden iyi bilir.

Bir baska mahkeme haberi de Korgeneral Altay Tokat ile ilgili. Bu pasa hakimleri "hizaya getirmek" icin evlerinin yaninda bombalar patlatmis. Cok laik, cok milliyetci bir insanmis. Onu da tebrik ediyorum.

Sonra oturdugum kafede Ermeni bir arkadasi goruyorum. Bana soyle bir bakiyor, sonra soz yine Ermeni meselesinden aciliyor. Bana gozlerini dikip, nasil olsa bir gun soke soke kabul ettirecegiz size diyor. Icim yaniyor. O kadar absurd ki durum, ikimizde memleketlerimizden uzak, ikimiz de bilim insani... Ikimiz de Philadelphia'da yasayan. Ikimiz de klasik muzik dinleyen, ikimiz de biyoloji bilen iki insan... Ve Starbucks'ta bu tartismayi yapiyoruz. Halbuki ikimiz birbirimize iki Ermeni'nin veya iki Turk'un olamayacagi kadar cok benziyoruz. Ben de peki kabul ettirirsiniz bir gun diyorum ve muhtemelen bir daha yanina oturmamak uzere yanindan kalkiyorum.

Bunlar nasil birbirine baglaniyor diye sorarsaniz, cevabi benim icin cok basit. Insanlar, ulkelerinin, toplumlarinin, dinlerinin esiri olmuslar. Turklukten baska, Kurtlukten, Islamdan, Yahudilikten, Amerikaliliktan veya Laiklikten baska kimlikleri, baska kendilerini anlamlandirdiklari bir sey kalmamis. Abuk sabuk, basit, siyah-beyaz sloganlarin esiri olmus dunyanin insanlari. Ne soylerseniz soyleyin. Bir insanin hayati, bir insanin onuru, bir insanin sevgisi ve bir insanin dusuncesi, Turkiye'den de, Amerika'dan da, Kurtlukten'de, Turklukten de, Islam'dan da onemlidir... Ben bir dine, ulkeye, genel olarak bir topluma, bireylere hizmet ettigi kadar, esitsizlige care buldugu kadar, diger toplumlara saygi gosterdigi kadar saygi duyarim.

Bu hayat herkes icin zorlu, herkes icin korkunc... Korkumuz ile yarattigimiz hayali efendilerimiz, Ulkelerimiz, Dinlerimiz, Irklarimiz, ayriliklarimiz bizi esir aliyor, bizi birer hice ceviriyor. Halbuki, insanlarin iyiligine inancim tam. Cocuklar, bebekler, insanlar oldukce, aci cektikce, esitsizlige maruz kaldikca hepimizin ici ciz ediyor... Bunu biliyorum. Kendimden, sizlerden, arkadaslarimdan, okuduklarimdan biliyorum. Cektigimiz bu aci bir ulkenin, bir dinin, bir etnisitenin tekelinde degil. Cektigimiz aci, bizim gibi hisseden, bizim gibi dusunen, bizim gibi insan olanlar icin. Cabalarimiz da oyle olmali.

A Sunday Afternoon Devoted to Soccer

I play soccer every Sunday. It is great. How can you argue with a game in which western Europeans and the rest of the world (the poor lot) interact, and the Americans do not make the rules? In addition, soccer helps me to control my ever-growing belly, which, as a concept, is essential for any serious academic, but should be controlled nevertheless.

Last Sunday, during this soccer game, I met a Colombian Evangelical Pastor. He was a great person –he shared his orange juice with me. He was also a smart fellow, graduated from Harvard and worked in several places in the world to help the poor. We had a very interesting conversation. I told him that I am very uncomfortable with the religious exclusion, which, I added, many ‘organized religions’ do. I exemplify my argument by telling him about the different sects of Islam in Turkey , almost all of which ideologically urge conflict with other Islamic communities. In an attempt to prove that unity can be reached through ‘truth’, my new friend told me about his brother in-law, a messianic Jew. Apparently, this person believes that the Muslim people (i.e. Palestinians) and Jewish people (i.e. Israelis) can only find peace if they both start to praise Jesus, the son of God. I do not know if my Pastor friend actually believed in his brother’s idea, I assume he does. Nevertheless, the messianic idea is completely irrational (not even mentioning the impracticability). It is irrational because the people define themselves as Muslims or Jewish or Messianic Jews, by excluding themselves from the other religions. All religions, almost by definition, dictate that they are the ‘real’ ones. In addition, in retrospect, Messianic Jews are Jews, who separated themselves from the greater Jewish body in the first place. Thus, there is no rational (or empirical) basis for why believing Jesus will bring peace to anybody.

We also talked about his church, which apparently is a growing evangelical organization in poor quarters of North Philadelphia . It was good, almost relieving, to hear about the church’s local projects for controlling and coping with violent crimes, helping poor and homeless, and, seemingly, creating a dependable community for our neglected neighbors. However, still, something was wrong in the subtext of his excitement, something about the repetition of “Jesus Christ, the son of God”, and the constant emphasis on the “differences” with other “churches” and “Islamic faith”. Most disturbing, nevertheless, was his vehemence on “Justice”, a justice for “cleansing our sins,” a justice “higher than the law of men.” My pastor friend created and recreated himself in front of my eyes, first as a man of great virtue and compassion for other humans, and then, as an irrational man who believes in sins and vengeance more than anything else. It is another situation where I encountered great practice, with an ideology that I cannot possibly relate.

I agree with him that we are weak, we are all prone to great wrongdoings, and we are only human, after all. I agree with him that there is great suffering and injustice on this earth, which has to be challenged bit by bit, day after day, without giving up hope. However, without reason, we, the weak humans, are lost in a sea of conflicting, exclusive, and manipulative ideologies. Worst of all, nowadays, these ideologies are generally embedded in a corrupt, power-hungry, and extremely politicized hierarchical global networks. Even though, my pastor friend does actually help to fight injustice in the local level (I am not sure about how successful he is, I just hope), on the ideological level, I think, he serves to create more conflicts and more injustice.

My point here is very simple. I think reason should harness all ideologies. I cannot see how a democratic civil society can function without institutions based on reason and, more importantly, individuals who have the “capability” (a la Sen 1984) to reason. Of course, in our world of Jihads, Crusades and Intelligent Design, it is hard to say that reason is very dominant. I am deeply worried.

The Divide

Last year's AAAs was an interesting experience for me. I attended panels that discuss human origins from a very 'scientific' perspective, and just after that panel, I rushed to another where speakers dwelled on "molecularization of race". As much as I enjoyed most of the talks individually, I realized that our community is really divided. In fact, I painfully observed that the divide between different fields of anthropology is not just a joke or it is not just simple miscommunication. I could not help but think that the field of anthropology is becoming an over-specialized, confined, apologetic and shy discipline.

It seems that the divide between "scientific anthropology" and "humanistic anthropology" is as real as it gets in American anthropology. However, I think, this divide is epistemologically artificial and methodologically limiting. Your opinions will be very welcome here, but it is my inclination is that there is no well-defined boundary between humanities, social sciences and so called hard-sciences. On top of that, we are, as academics, bound to logic and rationality in our thinking. Most importantly, we are asking the same questions and we are worried about the same problems. There is no excuse for not discussing when there is a possibility of an unifying anthropological epistemology. Instead of discussing, however, we are trapped in our past and in our differences. As a field that celebrates diversity and heritage like no other, it is a shame that we cannot celebrate our own heritage and diversity.

I think that anthropology is a great discipline. Not from a personal point of view, but from an intellectual one. The questions it asks about the human condition and progress are of utmost importance to understand "human" in a holistic sense. Within anthropology, there is an unmatched methodological and theoretical diversity. The possible connections with other parts of the academic are countless. As a field, anthropology is in the middle of the intellectual world. This central position, however, becomes problematic, when the field starts to break-down into mis-communicating, separate sub-fields. While anthropology is losing its groundbreaking edge, other disciplines, such as biology, physchology, history, political science, regional studies, genetics, behavioral studies, neuroscience, sociology, demography and many others start to occupy the traditional areas of anthropology. If this trend continues, I am afraid anthropology will be eventually marginalized within the academia.

I am hoping with this e-mail to initiate a series of discussions about the communication within anthropology. I outlined three questions that highlight my perspective about the issue, as a molecular anthropologist

1. The reflection of neoliberal democracy within academia. How do you measure the value of an idea, statement or argument. The good example here is the Creationism vs. evolution. I like to know, for instance, what is the stance of a cultural anthropologist about this issue and why? Why are biological anthropologists think that defending evolutionary theory is a matter of life/death? Why, in general, is evolution critical for biological anthropology? Is there a dislike of evolution in cultural anthropology?

2. Are the results or arguments that emerge through scientific methodology essentially 'stronger' than those that come from humanities? What is the real difference? Is the difference just historical?

3. Why identity, a purely social construct, is still embedded in the biological categories even today? What should anthropology do to understand the reasons behind 'ethnic', or 'racial' categories? Without the knowledge of biological theory, is it possible to study racial constructs? Without the knowledge of cultural theory, is it possible to study human variation? More generally, is it possible to understand human condition without biology or culture?

Since there may be a hundred more questions, I will stop here. Hopefully, more will be added to these questions, and we will start discussing these. I will repeat here my firm belief that the discussion within anthropological sub-fields may and should create a more coherent and comprehensive understanding of human condition and progress.

Realpolitik and violance

I am delighted to hear that France actually will not go through with the youth job law, which might or might not be beneficial for the people economically. I am happy that the French government had to listen. My interest in this issue is centered in two intermingled arguments, which overwhelmingly dominated the major media (BBC and NYT): the constant insistence of realpolitik and the discrimination between the peaceful (good) and aggressive (bad) protesters.

One Turkey 's (and probably other developing countries) major problems in dealing with both internal and external issues, is the lack of institutions that embodied Realpolitik as their modus operandi. Instead sentimental illusions drove most of the decisions made both in the local, national and international level. This creates huge problems, especially when Turks are dealing with Europe , a political world where most of the time political realities construct ideologies (rather than vice versa). Consequently, often, Turks think that Europeans trick them. And people protest against EU. Not clear why, but they are convinced that they were tricked and they have the right to protest. Again, people protest for and against headscarf. People protest for and against Kurdish Rights. People protest for and against Kemalist regime. Yet, not many political leaders narrate realistic political frameworks to mobilize this energy. Instead they preach Allah's name, Marx's name, Muhammed's name, Ataturk's name over and over again without any 'real' meaning. This again creates problems. Thus, I am not a huge fan of purely sentimental politics. Having said that I think the neoliberal realpolitik is ruining western democracy on many fronts.

To exemplify my argument, the French 'riots' or 'protests' sets a very compelling example. Probably, all of you followed what has happened in France for the last year. There has been obviously a significant unrest, both among the youngsters living in the marginalized 'banlieues' and also among the young bourgeois living in the center of Paris . The unrest of these two groups cannot be expected to come merely from class politics, ethnic conflict or religious sentiments. The groups on the streets of Paris for the last couple of weeks were many. They came from poor, uneducated, angry fringes of the society. They came from Sorbonne. They came from young workers employed in cafes, cinemas, restaurants. Ironically, the law comes to help the poorest of the poor, and to increase employment for the most economically marginalized. Still, they were protesting, probably just for showing their discontent with the world they are living in. From my perspective, it does not matter. When people protest, the governments should listen. The French government eventually did.

But then there was the media coverage of the events. BBC claimed: "most student demonstrators-and the workers who came out in support of them-quickly left as more youths descended on the square, with the sole aim of picking a fight with the riot police. These youngsters - aged between 15 and 25 - were wearing hooded tops that obscured their features. Many wore masks, so they could not be identified. Some had soaked scarves in lemon juice to wrap around their mouths before they came, to counteract the effects of the tear gas they knew would be unleashed by police. According to the riot police, many of these youths had come in from the suburbs outside Paris looking for trouble: this violence seen by some as a continuation in Paris city centre of what began in November's riots in the suburbs."

OK. This text means, at least from perspective, good behaved kids went back home without causing a real problem, but the bad boys, who are 'looking for trouble' on the other hand caused trouble. They even 'have soaked scarves in lemon juice to wrap around their mouth...to counteract the effects of the tear gas.' Spooky people they are. The question here is 'From who or what BBC possess the power to make value judgments about the 'kinds' of protesters'?"

American media, however, was worse. New York Times declared: France 's government has argued that the hotly contested new labor law will encourage companies to hire more young people, giving them a chance to prove themselves and land permanent jobs. But opponents say the new measure will just make it easier for employers to hire cheap, disposable labor and keep young people like Mr. Sylla turning in an unsteady netherworld of partial employment. That may sound like basic market economics to Americans, but while most of the world struggles to cope with the shifting threats and opportunities of an increasingly global economy, much of Europe, and France in particular, remains devoted to a quasi-socialist ideal."

OK. The subtext of article can be read as this. American 'basic market economics' is the perfect way of doing things. The 'quasi-socialist' Europe are trapped in their 'backward' ideologies.

My point here is that the efficiency of the markets and the stability of the 'system' becomes more important than people. If not suitable with the neoliberal ideology, i.e. if it is violent or if it interferes with the Global (American) idea of market system, any discourse is deemed irrational, even by the democratic left media. I do not have any problems with Realpolitik. But, once we, both individually and as a community, start to make our decisions based merely on 'the realities of the world' we will lose our emphaty and consequently our power as PEOPLE. I believe that French protesters achieved one simple, but extraordinarily important thing. They make their governments listen. In a time, when people's voice is lost in the grinding Wheel of neoliberal market ideology, this gives hope.



RESPONSE: Utsav Schurmans

Hey, these were interesting reading - thanks for writing about this. I'll be supplying my bent on all this and hopefully it makes some sense when I am done. Essentially I would argue that we need to be more vocal as anthropologist or scholars more broadly, much as did Janet and perhaps Omer too (not totally sure).

First a comment about protest and particularly student protest. Student protests are a difficult beast (and I say this as a former student leader helping to put out opinions and at times stage protests in
Belgium). Protests can easily go out of hand with very real damages, but sometimes as Janet indicates this is the only way to get attention. Further certain actions such as blocking the highway or train tracks are very different from overturning cars and starting fires in the city. I don't think anybody when I was involved actually incited such violence. At the same time these things did occur in the cat and mouse game with riot police that any protest eventually seems to bring with it. The sense of lawlessness (similar in kind to the lawlessness after Katrina) associated with 'battling' the police brings with it excesses that are difficult to control - certain people very quickly loose track of what it means to throw a rock through the window of a shop. The problem that this creates rests as much with the students as it does with the authorities and their un-interest in listening as well as the media that does or does not cover stories. There is a very real tendency in America to ignore protests or sometimes cover ones that are very marginal. During the run-up to the war in Iraq there were protests but these got VERY limited coverage. Also people in the US do not go out and protest as do people in some European countries. This rests as much the presence or lack thereof of labor unions as it does with a lack of student involvement and the general perceived notion that it would not make a difference anyway. This perception as far as I am concerned is very much constructed and maintained at all kinds of levels throughout the country, academia, etc.

As an outsider it was amazing to witness a shift from we are listened to as students to 'who cares about students' when I moved to the US. Sure, students are cared for to the extent that the university needs their presence (ideally ones with high scores on tests) and their money. A
simple example of this difference: more or less any university board that makes decisions in Belgium has both voting undergraduate and graduate student members. Actually, graduate students are not called students but are effectively considered junior researchers. If you explain this here people are surprised and even will voice the opinion that really undergrads and grad students do not deserve or should not have a seat at these tables. Well, that perception is generated by the
culture and indeed if you do not give people this responsibility they might come across as bumbling idiots when you ask them about the issues. On the other hand, if they are sense they are listened to, you will be surprised as to how intelligent and thought-out their opinions are and as to the often interesting angles they can bring to a debate.

Academia is not something that gets routinely listened to in the US, at least, much less so than in Europe. There are exceptions, true, but I think that in general this is a true statement. It is on us to try and be proactive about this and offer opinions when they might be relevant to a debate. Sure, it is yet another thing to do, but something that we at least owe the public. After all the money that keeps us in business often comes from them, not that it means we have to cater to their wishes. Anyway, in academia itself in the US there is a very real sense of hierarchy. If you are an undergrad you are meaningless to a large extent and discouraged to voice opinions. This is true of grad students too. The feeling I get is that you are not knowledgeable until you reach a certain 'stage', but this stage gets pushed further and further until half your life is over. Even among professors you get this sense. The junior faculty are considered exactly that - junior. And them raising issues or bringing things up is considered rebellious. They should be full faculty the argumentation goes (I got this from an actual faculty member here in the department, so it is not only the grad students that feel as if they should not be part of the community. Of course in the
end 10 people are allowed to voice opinions and all 390 others all the way to the undergrad anthro majors should be voiceless. That is an issue as far as I am concerned.

As a student I have been involved both in ASU where I did a masters and here at Penn in trying to get the student voice heard. It has been an interesting battle with surprising results. That is, at ASU I managed to get a grad student in the faculty meetings. Every single faculty member at the time that I talked to thought this had been wonderful. After I left the grad student was kicked off the meetings. Perhaps you might say it is not up to us to be there - well, let me tell you, it never is. I
certainly understand those of you thinking as you read this that students should not have a voice in department matters. Is that still true if you call them junior researchers? After all students are here as long as junior faculty who it turns out the last decade have been kicked out after 6 years. Most grad students as you all know do not even make it out in 6!

Now, mind you, I am not trying to say the Belgium system is great and the American sucks, far from it. After all, why then would I waste my time here? In fact Belgians might learn a bunch from the increasing success with which departments are able to add female faculty to their rosters. Sure, not perfect by any means, but quite extraordinary if you consider that in my old department in Leuven there was one female faculty out of 20 and that ratio was the norm throughout the university.

RESPONSE: Janet Chrzan

Your comments about protests remind me of a book I read by Diane Johnson (she of Le Mariage, Le Divorce, and L'Affaire) about living in the uber-bourgeois 6th Arrondissment of Paris - that her similarly uber-bourgeois French neighbors just couldn't understand why Americans weren't rioting in the streets after the theft of the 2000 election. I've often wondered that myself..... But my political work has convinced me that most Americans are either too scared to protest or too fat-n-happy-n-self-satisfied to even consider it. And besides, as one of those 2000 protesters, I remember being herded to a muddy field with the thousands of other protestors that you also didn't see on TV. Of course, you also didn't see on TV that we angrily left the fenced enclosure the bush admin had 'allowed' for our use and so disrupted the parade that bushie had to get back in his car - he was being pelted by things. I personally got into several tussles with cowboy-hatted Texans that day who made the mistake of kicking me - and I won. There were a lot of muddy white hats and a few rather, um, bedraggled fur coats that you also didn't see on TV....!

I quit protesting that day because I was so angry that to do so in the future would have meant that I would violate certain rules about conduct I'd like to live by - I was too furious to grapple with the bushies and their friends without getting, ahem, incensed. What I mean to say is that I knew the next time I went out it might be with steel-toed Doc Martins and bricks, I was that mad; so I decided that protesting in other ways might be better for my peace of mind and arrest record. I think that is an undercurrent in many of the conversations I have with angry voters. I also think that, as Omer has outlined, the discourse of protesting emphasizes the unwashed and radical. I personally think that if we want Americans to protest we must stage parades where people wearing suits are seen. Sorry to be so bourgeois here, but most main-stream Americans are not interested in marching down the street with people who have dreadlocks and smell of patchouli, even if they agree with them politically. I once protested in a suit, heels and pearls with several friends similarly dressed - and it was quite a revelation. People joined our little group from the street....!

But to return to Omer's excellent comments on 'realpolitic' (which is just a fancy way to say "My way or the highway, you stupid proles") it is time for us to study the landscapes of risk - that's really what this French protest is about. Risk; most people really don't want too much risk - they want to think that they have some security. They simply want to know that if they play by the rules they are not going to get effed. And most people do play by the rules, and here in America they get effed anyway. And Americans are indeed waking up to that! But what is needed is some really solid work on economic risk and strategies and outcomes, precisely the kind of work anthropologists do - strongly emic - since those stories are the only way to sway the politics of sentimentality that determines opinions and elections in the US (when Diebold isn't jacking elections).

I suspect that the politics of the next ten years are going to be determined by perceptions of the variables of risk, and that is precisely the area where anthropologists can help create change, because we have the tools to do the work and then explain it to the people.

Hope that makes sense! It's just that people in my ward are so scared.... and I feel it in every conversation. They are not afraid of the stereotypical jackboots in the night - they are afraid about how they are going to send their kids to college, pay for that emergency room bill, and afford to eat in their old age. And these people are not working class, they are professionals, most of them - engineers, doctors, etc. One thing I think is that the bushies are so over the top in their attempts to rewrite America for their benefit because it is about to collapse for them. I suspect that we are about to re-enter a cycle of progressive politics (there are 30-year cycles for these cultural trends) and they are trying to stay in control. They are vicious, cornered rats. And we must be aware of that, because they are very dangerous. But we must also provide the forces of change with the words and the myths and the symbols needed to sway American sentiment away from a neo-liberal framework - and I think we can do that, with anthropology. But we have to agree that it's OK to do so and still be an academic - which means we have to stand up for ourselves... and resist the academic McCarthyist witch-hunts they are trying to start right now. The bushies are more afraid of education than anything else, I suspect.

White Soil and Globalization

During fieldwork in Central Anatolia , I learned that cancer was a major cause of mortality in the region. My contacts told me that many fellow villagers had died in recent years, and this has been the trend for generations. They immediately added that the reason behind the disease was fate and the will of God. For these people, the cancers were unchanging facts-of-life that had to be accepted. However, I thought that these cancers must be attributable to either high smoking rates among these people or a shared genetic background for the disease. I was wrong.

A short time later, during an interview in a neighboring village, I learned about beyaz toprak. Beyaz toprak is a regionally abundant white dust that is used for many purposes in the villages, including as a whitewash and a hardening agent in making a grape-based paste, pekmez. Unfortunately, beyaz toprak contains both asbestos and erionite. These chemicals have been shown to cause a rare and generally untreatable type of cancer, namely, malignant mesothelioma (Emri et al. 2002). Upon learning the nature of beyaz toprak, I immediately alerted the local medical staff to this fact, and was relieved to learn that they were aware of the situation, and had already taken initiatives to educate the villagers about the association between beyaz toprak and cancer.

This experience convinced me to the multifaceted nature of public health. Even in this relatively confined case, human health could be seen as a product of a complex nexus of cultural traditions, environmental variables, and biology. A better understanding of public health for the great diversity of humankind is even more challenging. Global public health is situated at the center of several seemingly unrelated processes, namely, shifts in biological and cultural adaptations of humans to their changing physical and cultural environments, as well as to the ever-evolving human pathogens; the increase in political and economic inequality; and the dramatic intensification of physical and cultural interactions between world populations.

Physical anthropology can and should play a leading role in studies of the public health. On one hand, the theoretical perspective of the field understands human health patterns under the umbrella framework of the adaptive mechanisms through which human cultural and biological diversity emerges. This perspective will allow physical anthropologists to explain processes in which the differences and similarities in public health patterns around the globe emerge. On the other hand, fieldwork experiences provide physical anthropologists with firsthand insights into local conditions, which subsequently allow inductive, and through cross-cultural comparisons, global perspectives on human health.

Specifically, physical anthropology explores the different mechanisms through which humans have adapted to different health challenges, such as disease (e.g., malaria), environmental stressors (e.g., high altitude adaptations), and socio-cultural differences (e.g., diet). These studies not only document regional cultural and biological diversity, but also address more deep-rooted questions about human evolution and adaptation. When contextualized within the evolutionary framework, the associations between human health and adaptation will be crucial to understand different medical histories of human groups, and consequently, to find new preventative measures and curative solutions to contemporary health problems, and, more importantly, to predict the future health challenges that our species faces.

Furthermore, in the wake of the “third epidemiological transition” (Barret et al. 1998), physical anthropology, through local readings of human health, can lead academia to a processual and temporal understanding of global public health. The need for a local perspective on disease processes and epidemiology to understand worldwide health issues has become even more important in the globalizing world. For example, the next avian flu pandemic may stem from one of the seemingly isolated cockfighting pits in Southeast Asia , a practice that has been a subject of anthropological inquiry for a long time. It is already known that one man died from the disease, which he contracted from handling the prized fighter birds (Hien et al. 2004). This not so uncommon local tradition can potentially become a threat to entire human population within the contemporary world of “viral superhighways” (e.g., Morse 1990).

Many more examples of this kind can be cited, but the main point here is that cross-cultural physical anthropology studies provide a very powerful framework for understanding the patterns of human health. They allow not only a theoretically more complete perspective that integrates cultural traditions with biological patterns of health and disease, but also an inductive analysis of local trends in human health. The next wave of broader readings of human health and disease may come from none other than physical anthropologists.