We are scared of people who are different, if they are poorer than us. An interview with Orhan Pamuk
Orhan Pamuk's study, one of the most important of contemporary novelists, is the materialization of the dream of every aspiring writer. Four big walls, three of which are covered with books. The fourth, made entirely of glass, looks out onto the Bosphorus. And beyond the glass stands an imposing mosque, seagulls floating on the wind and great ships lumbering back and forth, between East and West. He moved there this year, leaving his old family home shortly after finishing his last novel, The Museum of Innocence, which like many of his works (such as My Name Is Red, which won him the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2006) tells a story of differences that attract. Melancholic and beautiful novels, all set, without exception, in Turkey.
Since 2005 when he was put on trial and threatened with death due to his statements about the extermination of the Armenians, Pamuk lives between New York, where he is Visiting Professor at Columbia University, and his Istanbul, where I met him.
Mr Pamuk, a recurring theme of your books are differences, which end up becoming a source of attraction and love for your characters. And yet if one looks at the political and social sphere, differences are often the source not so much of love, but of suspicion and fear. How do explain this?
Proust wrote that when we love we also desire all of the differences that we see in the object of our love. But when one speaks of peoples, not all differences are the same. Some have historical and cultural roots: religion, language, customs. Others concern economic and social questions. And it is only these last kind that frighten people. Take Turkey for example. If the Turkish people were wealthier, like the Japanese for example, no one in Europe would have anything to object to regarding their entry into Europe. Instead France and Germany continue to block the entry of Turkey into the European Union providing the most disparate of reasons. The reality is that we all accept differences, we fall in love with them or as a minimum we tolerate them to a good degree, as long as those different are not poorer than us. In this case the differences suddenly become uncomfortable and we prefer to sweep them under the rug, to keep them out of sight. We tend to think that people poorer than us are probably less capable and therefore less interesting under a cultural profile. I do not want to accuse anyone in particular, but this is the situation: without big economic differences the cultural gap tends to be considered something curious, perhaps picturesque, but certainly not decisive.
So poverty is the principal reason for the diffidence of the European Union towards Turkey?
Not only. Your diffidence also depends on the idea that you western Europeans have of my country, of its culture, of its religion. In part you see it as a viaticum towards Islam and from this point of view your newspapers are not performing a good service, emphasizing the least positive aspects of our culture. In part you consider it a new market for your businesses, and this, despite not being particularly elegant, nevertheless represents a notable improvement over the past. It's much better to be considered a market than a target to point bombs and cannons at. Indeed, all things considered, I don't mind that Turkey is seen as a market, because the Turks have always been a people of merchants. It was the Turks who opened many of the trade routes to Asia and the Balkans in past centuries and in the end it just doesn't matter much to me where a company decides to sell its cookies.
You claim that the West is afraid not of differences, but of poverty. But don't you think that Islam represents an exception? Because the Islamic world frightens us so much?
The West does not fear Islam, but rather Islamic fundamentalism. These Islamic organizations fight, sometimes successfully, in the name of Islam, but they do not at all represent the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world. I know that what I am about to say won't make me very popular with your readers, but the anti-Islamic sentiment of Westerners is in large part due to the American media, and those of some European countries, which have been associating Islam with terrorism for some years now, something that until the Seventies no one would have dreamt of doing. Then however oil prices rose and a few small Arab countries hoarded away most of the profits. And this turned into a big enough problem for western economies to push their governments to manipulate public opinion in order to change its perception of the entire Islamic world.
As far Muslim countries are concerned, there is indeed an anti-American sentiment, which in large part depends on the continuing support that the United States gives to Israel and its horrible behavior towards the Palestinians. I'm not happy about this. But it's only one aspect of the problem. The other concerns the extent to which a few organizations of Islamic extremists, which we we identify with Osama Bin Laden, have succeeded in creating a conflict, a conflict which western media were quick to depict as a clash of civilizations. I believe this vision to be completely groundless, but if accepted it creates ideal conditions for the outbreak of a real war.
Many Islamic countries do not have a democratic government and this in part justifies western suspicion, but let's not forget that just thirty years ago in Latin America nobody was even talking about democracy and yet today South America is place that is mostly democratic and peaceful. In those days we showed solidarity with Gabriel Garcia Marquez and his struggle against military corruption, but we were easily able to distinguish between reactionary military officers, corrupts officials and the rest of the population. Media generalizations shouldn't limit our critical capacity.
In these frictions what role does religion have?
A determining role, even though the states in involved in the conflicts often declare themselves to secular. I think for example that the deep understanding that in Turkey we feel for the suffering of the Palestinian people depends a great deal on our religion, on the fact that they're Muslims like us. If for example the same suffering were happening, say, in Argentina, I am certain that Turkey would show less empathy, because the Argentines are further from us, from a cultural as well as a religious point of view. Following the same line of thought, the European Union is more inclined to be in favor of the entrance of the Ukraine instead of that of Turkey: they are both poor peoples, but the Ukrainians are Christians while the Turks are Muslims. So religion plays a fundamental role in international relations, even if it's never officially the reason why decisions are made. I wish a clash of religions did not exist in our lives, but exist it does and it would be a mistake not to take it into consideration.
Poverty and incomprehension create distance. But what can we Westerners do to reduce it?
What I don't believe is that it's the big social engineering projects, especially if they are promoted by governments. Social engineering can work, as in the case of the kind carried about by certain non-profit organizations. But when it is governments that are behind it economic interests always prevail and then, sooner or later, lies and the sound of bombs end up drowning out the voice of the people. Iraq is an excellent example. Saddam Hussein was a horrible person. But this does not justify what the United States did to his country. I believe that the United States shouldn't be so interested in the rest of the world, but rather should first of all take a look at themselves. The cases of Burma too, with struggle between the United States and China over the control of the country, is emblematic. There, it's true, there are important questions concerning crucial aspects for people, such as freedom of expression. But in observing the interference made by the great powers, where can one draw the line between legitimate defense of human rights and political and economic interests?
That being said, and getting to what each one of us can do, I believe that there is much single individuals can do: write books, get involved in the lives of others... Fortunately Western Civilization produces a great number people willing to do this. People whom I respect and admire.
Should we fight to promote the values in which we believe?
That which every one of us should do is to defend our rights, whether they be religious, political or social. But we ought not to seek to impose them on those who do not share them. Our task is to defend and support the values in which we believe, without insisting on imposing them on others and thus becoming missionaries. Because by acting otherwise we will risk contributing not to development, but to horror. Be respectful of that which is different from you. Force yourselves to entertain relationships outside of your usual social sphere. And again, don't listen to CNN acritically, reflect on what you are told. When a terrorist sets off a bomb in London don't associate immediately his action with the entire Muslim world. Don't fall into the error of viewing the Islamic religion solely through its holy texts: a religion is always much more than a simple book. I for example am not religious, but my existence is nevertheless based in an Islamic cultural context, which is a part of me.
Sticking to the theme of differences, the image of Ataturk (the founding father of modern Turkey, ed.) is everywhere here in Istanbul. And yet, for a westerner like myself, it is perhaps the differences more than the similarities between Turkey and Western Europe that emerge when visiting the city. Are you convinced that Turkey is actually moving towards the West?
This is a question that I am often asked, but it's mistaken both in its content and in its form. Turkey is not at all changing its direction, indeed it's actually moving towards Islam. Don't forget that there is here an extremist Islamic party, which today is no longer very active, but for a certain period even led the country. In any case Turkey's behavior regarding the West is not really different from how it was twenty or thirty years ago. This habit of ours of moving slowly, in a continual oscillation between left and right, between tradition and modernity, between the Middle East and Europe, has always been an integral part of Turkish politics. What has changed is that today Turkey is stronger and more visible at an international level, which makes this question even more important.
Ask the Turks whether they would like to be part of Europe. Most of them will respond in the affirmative, but more for economic and political reasons than anything else. The Turkish people want the wealth, the freedom of expression, the idea of democracy and the respect for people that are more developed in Europe than here. For my part, I like the idea of Turkey as a part of Europe for cultural reasons. But for this to happen we still need to make some steps forward, resolving for example the problems of Cyprus and of the Kurdish population.
Mr Pamuk, are you working on a new novel?
Yes. I am halfway through a new story. It's about a traveling salesman of Boza (a lightly alcoholic fermented drink very popular in Turkey, Ed.) who lives in Istanbul and loses his job. The story of an unlucky man, but also of the immigration and poverty in this city.
Don't you fear that the enormous quantity of stories, news and voices which bombard us every day may reduce our ability to listen?
To the contrary I believe that this overabundance of noise increases our need to listen to stories. Technology and progress help us to live with greater simplicity, but they also increase our solitude. Thus the eleven-hour flight that separates a Turk from the United States is a perfect time to read a novel. And it doesn't much matter whether that novel was written by Garcia Marquez or by John Le Carré. The intimate contact with a story has always been a profound desire of every human being and technology does not reduce this at all. On the contrary, it amplifies it.
You live between Istanbul and New York. What are the differences that strike you most between the two cities?
The idea of time, first of all. Here in Istanbul time seems infinite. A friend could pass by at any moment and decide to spend the entire afternoon chatting with me. In America people are imprisoned in their net of meetings, appointments, goals to be reached. The other big difference concerns the concept of community. Here in Turkey belonging to a group is a fundamental part of life and from a certain standpoint even defines it. At Columbia University I arrive in class, hold my lesson, and then, for all intents and purposes, I disappear. If you're an ambitious person who wishes to produce a lot, New York is the right place to be. But if what you want most is to enjoy life, Istanbul is the better place. Although for higher social classes the differences become rapidly less pronounced. Everything tends to resemble everything else and happen at the same instant all over the world. A phenomenon which doesn't happen on the other hand with poor people. For them the world changes much more slowly.
Note: This is the full version of the interview published in Focus Italia
