The only problem with these unplanned visits is when they overlap. Sometimes friends who belong to different social groups suddenly bump into each other in my home: a pro-Kurdish friend brushing past a nationalist, a conservative friend sitting down next to an anarchist, or a devoted Fenerbahçe fan arriving at the same time as another friend who dresses up in black and white even during holidays.But interestingly enough, despite my minor panic, the visits never end up with any problems. My friends who meet at my house exchange neither harsh words nor telephone numbers to call each other in the future.
On the other hand, my feelings of discomfort due to the overlapping visits are irrational, but I think that this comes from the very unnatural absolute acceptance in Turkey of a mentality which holds that different social groups fight with each other and the existence of one group automatically endangers the existence of any others.
It is a great shame that our political culture strongly believes that coexistence is not possible and that if it were ever to happen, there would have to be painful concessions made first to achieve it. For example, allowing children to be educated in Kurdish would be perceived as making a concession by a Turkish nationalist, but to get even this basic right, first of all the Kurds have to accept Turkish supremacy. But education in one's mother tongue isn't a concession, nor should it require the acceptance of any superiority.
Recently, a woman complaining that she was facing difficulties in some parts of Turkey because she does not wear a headscarf had asked some ladies who wore headscarves to come with her to the places where she felt uncomfortable and to take off their headscarves. The woman said if headscarved women acted in this way, she would support them in their own quest for liberty, but otherwise she would think that headscarved women are not being sincere when they are asking for freedom themselves, since headscarved women will not support others who are also asking for different freedoms.
This kind of thinking is unfortunately very widespread and for me, it is also very wrong: If you support me, I will support you. Why should it be this way? Nobody has to support anyone else in this way, but they should, instead, know and act according to the universal principles and values of human rights. There can be no ifs, ands or buts under any circumstances.
Recently, a piece of research was released which was jointly conducted by Boğaziçi University and the Open Society. It pointed out that in Anatolia every social group has difficulties and faces daily problems, especially if they are from the "other group," i.e., if they are Alevi, if they are Kurdish, if they are not wearing headscarves, if they do not go to mosques, or if they are not a member of the various businessmen's associations which are based on common conservative ideas. Some media commentators wrote that this research had shown the danger of the "Islamification of society," especially in Anatolia. One newspaper complained about the "end of that legendary Anatolian tolerance."
In the past, societies in Anatolia did not have to live with "other cultures" in a very interwoven way or in an interdependent manner. Other cultures were there, but their means of income, where they lived and their homes were totally different, with a clear-cut, defined border. With the beginning of modernization this situation totally changed: People have to live with "others," often under the roof of the same apartment block.
Then the state comes in. Since this cultural change is natural and to cope with it takes time, the state and the laws that it promulgates should take measures to help ease this process of change. As the same piece of research pointed out, a process which allows citizens to lodge complaints should be established, especially about how secularism is being applied. Educational mobilization in order to teach some universal values like human rights and an atmosphere in which a democratic culture can flourish should also be established.
But it seems that we are still, unfortunately, far from that point and the real danger is not having different groups struggling with each other but having some agents of the state claim that a simple collection of signatures will harm the country.
