Amea folklor institutu

Key words: culture, identity, slavery, master, cooperation
Özet: Üç çeşit tarih vardır: (1) bireyin kişisel tarihi; (2) bir ülke ya da ulusun tarihi; (3) insanlığın genel tarihi. Bu tarih kavramlarının her birisinin kendine özgü nitelikleri ve gerçeklik olarak ortaya çıkışları için gerekli bağlantılı dinamikleri vardır. Ancak, olguların ortaya çıkışındaki farklı dinamiklere karşın, hepsinin de ortak bazı özellikleri bulunur: en az iki farklı güç odağı arasındaki çatışma / ilişkinin niteliği ve sonucuna göre şekillenirler. Kişisel tarih bireyin toplum, diğer kişiler ve toplumsal normlar ile ilişkisindeki konumuna göre şekillenir. Sonuç, bireyin özgür iradesi ile diğerlerinin ve toplumun dayattığı normatik davranıştan kaynaklanan ve kaderini oluşturan bir ilişkiler zinciridir. Bir ülkenin de tarihi diğer ülkelerle olan ilişkilerindeki güç dengesini nasıl idare ettiğine bağlıdır. Genel tarih ise insanlık arenasında güç gösterisinde bulunan odakların hareket şeklinin sonucudur. Güç ve iktidar oyunundaki başarılarına bağlı olarak, bir kişinin, ulusun ya da genel tarihin akışı belli olur ve bunlar ya efendi ya da köle konumuna gelirler. Uluslar ve bireyler ya dışarıdan yardım kabul edecek ve böylece yardım edenin tebası haline gelip kimliklerinden ve kültürel özelliklerinden ödünler verecek ya da kendi kendilerine yetmenin yolunu bulup, tüm sıkıntılarına rağmen kölelik yerine bağımsızlığı seçeceklerdir. Bağımsızlığın yitimi kültürel niteliklerin ve kimliğin kaybıdır.
Bu makalede, kültürel niteliklerini ve kimliklerini kaybetmeksizin günümüz dünyasında ülkeler arasındaki işbirliğinin gerekliliği teması bir kurt, bir köpek ve insan arasında geçen iki öykü üzerinden anlatılacaktır.
Anahtar sözcükler: kültür, kimlik, köleleşme, efendi, işbirliği
What makes humans different from other animals is their reasoning faculty on an abstract level. Similarly, human societies vary substantially in their level of civilization according to their qualitative rather than quantitive properties. According to Fromm, “the main characteristic that separates humans from other living beings is their awareness of self-conscience, logical capacities and imagination faculties (1994:48). These qualities have made humans a special, but unnatural being.
There are three layers of history: (1) one person’s own personal history; (2) a country or a nation’s history; and (3) a general history of mankind. All these layers have their own characteristic flows through time, and each possesses various relational dynamics in the course of emergenge as realities. Yet, despite great differences in terms of the factors shaping events, all these types have a common characteristic: they are shaped and determined according to the clash between at least two types of powers. A person’s history is shaped according to his relationship with other individuals and society and its norms inflicted upon him. The result is a fight between his free will and the dictates of norms and others, which, in the end, turns into his fate. Similarly, a country’s well-being, prosperity or fate depends on the quality of the relationship with the other countries. Power is the determining factor in this formation. General history, likewise, is the balance of powers playing a part in the arena of humanity. Depending on the success of power manipulation and decisions of persons, countries and others, a person, a country, or a nation can become the master of others or just a slave.
One of the first things a human baby learns is the discovery of the world around. This is vital for survival and well-being. Through the discoveries, it slowly begins to make use of both other humans such as the mother and objects. This process marks a transition period from a completely passive state to a free play of human will. This term is the threshold of humanization, which never lets it remain passive in the face of worldy orderings. S/he swiftly becomes responsive to the changes, and in an inborn reaction, they begin to dominate the other beings and objects as a result of their natures.
In this play of domination, an individual either succeeds and becomes the master or fails and turns into a state of slavery. However, in either case, an interdependent relationship grows between the individual and the others. One cannot exist without the other. This is called master-slave relationship. It is constructed on a fluctuating base, where the slave in a ceaseless effort to free himself from the master. On the other hand, the master takes some precautions to maintain his domination over the slave, including chaining the latter’s hands and feet. Yet, instead of such an inhumane and obsolete method, the practicality of the relationship can be constructed through the design of laws, which turns it to an indestructible fate in the eye of the slave. Oskay says that “in return for saving his life, the slave automatically feels forced to give up his free will, cultural existence and the acquired identity” (2010:256).
As explanatory cases, two different stories are told in terms of identity:
In the first story, a wolf is hungry and comes to a town to find food. There, he comes across a well-fed, large dog and is astonished at how the dog might be so large. The dog explains the case, “my owner feeds me every day.” The wolf, “what a good creature man is! Can he feed me, too?”, he asks. Both animals go to the house where the dog lives, and the wolf sees a sore on the neck of the dog. He asks the dog about the sore. The dog replies, “my owner feeds me every day but he fastens me every night.” Upon this answer, the wolf leaves the town and goes back to the forest where he is hungry but free. (Genç; 2005)
The main difference between the dog and the wolf is that whereas the dog is well-fed, he is just a slave to man, he has lost his free identity and become the servant of man, who fastens him at night. In return for food and shelter, he willingly accepts slavery, and so he loses his independence and natural properties. He has become alienated to his own nature. The wolf, on the other hand, is hungry, but when he sees that he will have to pay dearly for food, he makes a choice between hunger and loss of freedom. As freedom means maintenance of his natural existence as himself with identity, he refuses to become a slave like the dog.
Nations, and individuals are in the same situation. They have to make a choice between becoming independent despite all the hardships they are likely to encounter or accepting help from other nations and turn into dependent slaves. Loss of independence means loss of cultural entities and idendities. Nations become like their masters, and cannot create a world of their own, where they can live as themselves with their natural qualities. The second story is also about a dog, narrated in Mongolian culture in very old times:
Once, a dog lived alone in a forest. But, in time he became tired of loneliness. He decided to find someone to live with. He wanted his friend to be the strongest creature on Earth and not to be scared of any other creature. He thought that the wolf is the strongest animal and went to him. They became friends, but when the dog started to bark, the wolf warned the dog not to bark, as that might be heard by the bear. The dog understood that the bear was more powerful than the wolf and left to become friends with the bear. When he began to live with the bear, he was also warned by her about the lion. Again, the dog understood that the lion was more powerful than the bear and left her to become friends with the lion. As soon as they became friends with the lion, he was warned not to bark, as that might endanger them by attracting the attention of man. Here, too, the dog understood that the lion was not as powerful as the man.
In the end he became friends with the man who encouraged him to bark whenever he heard a noise. After that, the dog was attached to the man in complete fidelity, and they have been living together since that time. (Demirkan, 1996:36).
As can be understood from these two fables, living with a more powerful person might mean the loss of one’s cultural heritage and his identity. The rejects to become like the well-fed large dog, just because man fastens him at night time. The man would give the wolf food, but he would also take away his freedom. So he decides to live freely as himself instead of being well-fed, but a slave.
In the second fable, in terms of friendship, the dog wants to be friends with the most powerful creature, which is man. However this relationship is based on mutual sacrifices and terms. The dog decides to live with the man because their union will mean a stronger community, without the dog losing his freedom and identity.
In totalitarian regimes, individuals become just a means in the system as their activities are restricted and made stereotypes. In other words, where scientific mind is ignored, and dogmatic life-style takes over free thought, no one can be free. So, in such a system, one becomes a slave to the system, blinded and with no original identity, as repression of people means a slow loss of cultural properties and acquisition of a new identity which is different. Shortly, a dog cannot live as a wolf, and vice versa. As Nietzsche says, “if you want to be happy, stay in the herd and forget yourself.” Fromm says that “a person realizing himself is aware of his limitations as well as existential problems. When he becomes a slave, his is torn and cannot unite his two different selves, which makes it impossible for him to become free again,” (1994:48). Huxley adds that “if they wanted to be successful, they had to be knowledgeable, but for happiness, the less they knew the happier they would be” (1999:25).
Herd people feel safe as long as they are a part of it. As Freud says, “to be out or in the herd is difficult” (1985:156). The feeling of safety and power within the herd stems from that slaves feel a need for the minds and decisions of their leaders. They lead nihilistic life-styles. They have hopes only of other worlds, ignoring real life, obeying clergymen and statesmen alone. They form the majority and hate every difference or tolerance. They refuse every kind of existence other than theirs. They have no real ideas, so they completely obey what is thought to them.
A slave, as Canetti suggests “is not a man, but just an animal” (2006:386), as he is isolated, alienated and command-oriented. He cannot have a life of his own, fora life cannot be constructed with no identity, a judging mind, the ability to take over responsibility, or free choice.
So, the main focus of humanity recently has been the construction of bonds, instead of boundaries, respect of differences and not their destruction, wholeness rather than oneness. A keen mind can see that, political, economic, and cultural mergers are shaping the world: the U.S.A / S.S.R.U / E.U / O.E.C.D / G7 /N.A.T.O / U.N as well all these ravaging COs, LTDs, UNs, mergers are all a reflection of the need for cooperation in scientific, cultural, economic and political domains.
In conclusion, we can say that, without a struggle to dominate others, repress their cultural heritage and identities, or violating their differences, Caucasian region countries should begin to see themselves a union like the European Community. This union, or unification will be based on mutual respect to others with all the differences. A social, economic, and cultural entity can shift the region and peoples here to the best level in the world. It can emerge as one of the ruling unions in the world with its power based on educational institutions, scientific achievements, agricultural and industrial production, riches of mines, work force, and diversity of cultures all United for a bigger dream for the sake of future generations, our children and grandchildren.