Turkish Armenian Conflict; A Better Understanding Through Social Psychology
A through analysis of Turkish-Armenian conflict should be a trial to understand the social psychology of both nations rather than a historical research. The tale of whatever might have happened in the past, and no matter told by whom, is not free of the filter of social subconscious of the either society. One can encounter an old Armenian who fled the area or who survived the atrocities perpetrated by İttihat ve Terakki party and one can encounter an old Turkish person who fled the area because of what some Armenian armed groups were doing to them. A deep historical analysis, in this case, is not so objectively accurate. A social-psychology perspective, however, may give us the reasons why a historical analysis would not be accurate, reaching deep down to the core of the subconscious of both societies. This may provide us with the reasons of their current actions and political maneuvers, which in turn can show us what might be the best course of action to resolve this conflict between two neighboring nations.
If one examines the self-image of both groups, as an example of a social-psychology perspective on the conflict, one can have a firmer grasp on the reasons behind the lack of communication and unwillingness to resolve the conflict existing between these two nations.
Armenian society has a written, oral and visual tradition that is strongly influenced by their relationship with Noah’s Flood, the fact that they are the first Christian state in the world and with the events of early 20th century. Some other symbolic structures may include numerous “genocide” statues that are built in Armenia and in many European nations and laws that are being issued in European countries. This may show us that Armenian society has a self-image built upon their pains, sufferings and hard times that they have lived through. Especially in Diaspora, which has a larger Armenian population than Armenia, the events of the early 20th century are simply who they are.
Looking at Turkish society, if one wanders around Turkey, one can observe sculptures and parks dedicated to national heroes, numerous epic tales which have a huge place in the oral tradition, ballads sang for soldiers and martyrs and grand cemeteries dedicated to those who has been killed during two wars that the nation has recently lived through. One will also notice many statues of M. Kemal Atatürk—the founder of the modern Turkish Republic—who saved Turks from the trauma of the collapse of 600 years old Ottoman Empire by establishing a new nation and thus preserving the Turkish self-image. These may show that the Turkish society has a rather heroic and victorious self-image built upon certain ethical virtues. Hence, one can conclude that Turkish Society might have the tendency to exaggerate its victories and forget about its painful memories.
Because of these dynamics, because Armenian identity is mostly influenced by their sufferings and pains, Armenians are very likely to stay in, what Vamik Volkan calls, “a perpetual state of mourning” (Volkan, 1997). Moreover, because Turks have a heroic self-image with a strong attachment to certain virtues that they trace back in their history, they are very unlikely even to start considering the events of early 20th century from a rather objective standpoint.
Many mediators know that sometimes, the best way to take care of a conflict is not to talk about it. This seems to be the best solution in this conflict. Since two sides see each other as the other, the best strategy would be to eliminate this feeling of alienation. A way to that path would be the initiation of cultural and economic exchange on a very small scale. Later on, as more time passes and more trust is built between nations, this cultural and economic exchange can grow until the two sides can understand each other as objective as humanly possible. After getting beyond prejudices, maybe then the two nations can start discussing the conflict. There are, of course, many dynamics involved in the equation. International politics are never this simple. During this process, Turkey’s relations with Azerbaijan would take some impact as well as Armenia’s relationships with its Diaspora in Europe and in the United States. More variables could be inserted easily to this equation; however, the point of this essay stays the same.
In order to resolve this particular conflict, (1) the two nations must be willing to resolve it, (2) must start from somewhere and (3) must start slow and small and build up the relations as well as trust as time passes. This, of course, is not a whole and complete solution to this complex conflict. It is, however, just a way, a direction that might result in a better future for these two neighboring nations, which, as people, have hundreds of years of shared, peaceful history together.