Conferences Date

07 Oct 2017 15:00 - 15 Oct 2017 23:59




Dr. Hakan Altun

We were all Brothers and Sisters!

We need to accept in advance the impossibility of foreseeing the responses in the aftermath of extreme experiences of human beings - such as forcing people to watch the death of beloved ones with Hobson's choice of their death and forbidding the burial/mourning of the death bodies. Such tragic experiences cannot be represented, expressed or perceived. For this reason, it is also impossible to develop an empathy. Hence, all arguments that are mooted for such real circumstances would be imaginary, fictive and inevitably hypothetic. Therefore, your provocative and inspiring question needs to be accompanied with speculative arguments such as hypothetic/fictive texts as sequences to be discussed. This reductio ad fictum method could create necessary distance to discover the situations which haunts the life. On the other hand, trying to understand the “other” is only possible with the dialogic participation including the “self” which can be called as strategy of building bridges between “otherness”. Life, which is experienced through an art redefined with the struggle and experience of the subaltern, might have a potential for the establishment of a semi-fictitious third space necessary to provide a distance for otherness to touch, a sympathetic positioning and dialog. I try to scrutinize one of the tougher of the tough questions you have asked with new questions and arguments. One of them is Hanoch Lewin’s provocative question, which he asks himself and the world, in his play Murder: “If it's peace, why is it an hour late? And if it's late and my son is already dead, what good is peace to me?” That is to say, people, who are the subject of cruelty, can’t resume on their pre-traumatic life so easily as if nothing has happened, and their traumas don’t blow up at the speed of light. That’s why, the vital question to be asked is: “Can I face up the price, which I have to pay to the “other”, in order to retrieve a life with dignity?” That means, we need new paths like the “friendship politics” which is offered by Marc Nichanian instead of (or beside) peace politics which takes place between political agents and necessarily neglects “person”. Whereas, the contact is inevitable to build the peace and accepting the stories of other is a must. While Roza Yaruk was conducting a drama based cinema workshop with the children of deterritorialized families in peace period, they insisted on their “identities” until the peace even in the fictional space. Evaluation of the story of Samareh Ali Nezhad, who forgived the murder of her son, would indicate that rage separated from revenge may have constructive motive. It is evident that the dominant codes of art must be left behind after Auschwitz (or trauma). The art of the subaltern is not completed and finished as Augusto Boal suggests; on the contrary, it is a constitutive, resisting and rehearsing art. As Marc Nichanian underlined, this new art is suitable medium to expose the representation of unpresentable social traumas. Because this new art accuses as well as it is capable to uncover the official histories with the carried memory. The question which I am trying to answer focuses on the case of Taybet İnan’s death, and her case is not a singular event in the land of sorrows. Antigone can be marked as the prototype of these cases. Presence of too many quasi-antigone cases may be the reason why the text something like Antigone is not written. Antigone, in this context, might be suitable to discuss this difficult questions.