Law and Anthropology Network
Meeting
– 24 June 2010 – UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles
Present : Emeline De Bouver, Christoph
Eberhard, Dominik Kohlhagen, Jose Regalado, Barbara
Truffin, Sophie Servais
Two themes were presented and
discussed during this session. Sophie Servais
presented a work on ÒMigration Comfort and convenience in migration. Immigrant in Turkey and immigrants from Turkey. Comparative
Anthropology.Ó Christoph Eberhard
presented an interview that he made during his last field
work in India with Darshan Shankar from the
Foundation of the Revitalization of Local Health Traditions in Bangalore,
ÒÕModern ScienceÕ and ÔTraditional KnowledgeÕ. A DialogueÓ.
First
Presentation
|
|
|
Migration comfort and convenience in migration: immigrants and
immigrants from Turkey Turkey. Comparative anthropology 1. GOALS OF
THE RESEARCH |
3. CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESEARCH
The concept of honour, in Turkish şeref, weaves the raising of relationships within groups of
Turkish origin. These compose a social type as identified by Tšnnies as Gemeinschaft, where şeref becomes a
habit that links between this type of social life and its position set in the
hierarchy of groups.
The Turkish representations of honour are crucial in the process of
accumulation of cultural capital (as a strategy for economic success in the
context of labor migration) as they are the principle
of the accumulation of material capital through trust, mutual financial loans,
...
This pattern expresses itself in relational exchange networks from Turkey,
outside of the official standards and at the borders of illegality. In these
spaces, honour seems to be a predominant factor of integration: it gives the
network its panturc characteristic and provides
access to socio-economic success at diverting the requirements of the
mainstream society. Thus, the paradigm of migration, starting line to an integration, could eventually become or araise beside a paradigm of transnational mobility assorted
with an immigrant identity, built on cross-cultural.
The presence of Europeans in Turkey in the context of a "comfort
migrationÓ draws, however, attention in various ways.
British migrants are pushed beyond their borders by the adverse conditions of
savings and investment in their country, meeting very attractive Turkish
standards of living and property market.
Their arrival is mutually benefit: they
boost the national economy and the seaside resorts doomed to inactivity outside
the tourist season, and give rural people the opportunity to replace their
income from field work by the rental or the sale of their property
; the massive property purchase encourages municipalities to invest in
urban infrastructure ...
However, immigration brings new imbalances to light: the weight of European
purchases in the Turkish property market inflates prices, including limiting
the access of the nationals; the infrastructure development increases the
pressure on the landscape and social life, which loses a part of its friendly
character, ... In addition, comfort migrants focus their real estate purchases
at places that tourism has been adapting to European cultures, they thus enjoy
the facilities and adaptation of the population prior to their local languages
and cultural practices. Their adaptation is therefore not necessary for their well-being, and their condition contrasts with that of their
coreligionists of labor migration, whose well-being
traditionally requires efforts to integrate into the host country.
Given this a priori absence of proactive efforts of integration, the economic
forces that describes the movement of comfort seem to intensify the imbalance
between the populations: it seems that in this context, social relations are
not dictated by the needs of migrants, but by their economic power, and raise
the exchange in terms of dominant and dominated.
Thus, concrete tension may occur: for example, the importance of certain sexual
taboos of the utmost importance in Turkish sensitivity are unknown by the
comfort migrants, mainly because they are not necessarily equivalent in the
western contemporary attitudes. This ignorance may have the Europeans adopt
behaviours that offend taboos which can be at the
principle of Turkish social cohesion, and their non-compliance may raise a
response commensurate with the importance of ensuring the namus (a kind of honour certified by
sexual behaviours recognized as respectable). The honour is required, again as
a force of resistance in a context, this time, native.
While the balance of economic and social data bends to the favour of comfort
migrants, they move to Turkey to lead to a shift on its traditional territory
of the problems inherent in labor migration from
South to North (housing, language, employment, training, cultural identity, ...).
And while cross-cultural integration of Turkish origin immigrants is now an
asset in the movement, a comfort factor
in the migration, lack of cultural traits promoting genuine social cohesion is
seen as a cause of the difficulty of comfort migrants to generate a community
in immigration.
Thus arises the question of social ties in European societies: their members migrate from the comfort of their purchasing power, but they seem to have neglected the social bond, promoting, at home elsewhere, social relationships affected by the seal of inequality.
Conversely, appears in the groups of Turkish origin, a real asset for integration.
Thus, the balance of power itself is potentially reversed.
Here are the questions and problematics that our debate has raised:
● Besides European comfort migrants in Turkey, other groups such as North Americans settled in Paris and Indians recently involved in diamond businesses in Antwerp, seem not to spend a lot of effort in integration. This validates the hypothesis according to which material comfort doesnÔt encourage integration efforts; it also eventually rises up the same question about cultures contact on European soils.
● It would be interesting to set up an ethnography of the crosses through which diverse groups choose Turkey as a destination for purchasing their second place (by word of mouth, television advertisements É). Similarly, an ethnography of the ways linguistic groups settle down on the Turkish Riviera would be of interest: the English- and French-speaking are more localised on the Aegean coast, the German- and Dutch-speaking are more spottable on the Mediterranean coast; they all mix in Bodrum, at the meeting point of both coasts.
● The purpose of
the book directed by Bertrand Montulet and Vincent
Kaufmann Ç MobilitŽs, fluiditŽs, ... libertŽs? È
links up some observations described in this article. It shows diverse
categories of space-time users: the tourist, the parochial, the businessman, É
● Where is the limit between Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft ? Both could be worth each other but – and this is actually what the article aims to show – the Brits community in Turkey doesnÕt possess any feature as strong as honour is in the Turkish society.
● How to define the concept of culture considering a groupÕs real as well as potential influence on another? How to measure the influence of the Turkish groups in Germany on German culture? Is necessarily the cultural impact of the European groups on the Turkish Riviera negatively perceived? What is the difference of potential influence? It is probably to be found in the position that each group occupies in the economical power relationship. Indeed, the article shows how comfort migration tends to maintain everyoneÕs position on the North-South relations axis.
● The Brits settled in Didim have currently started to run their own businesses, which tend to ruin local trade. Does that mean that comfort migration is shifting to a work migration? Strictly speaking certainly not, because comfort migration has to do with the reason of the departure (a personal favorable economic situation). But this second phase might potentially deepen North-South inequities on the Turkish soil.
● What does this balance look like on a legal point of view?
On the principle, Turkish law aims to equity: according to bilateral agreements (concluded among other countries with Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, United Kingdom), nationals of countries allowing Turks to own a property on their soils are allowed to own some in Turkey. Many Turkish labour migrants (or their progeny) own a property on the Western European soil.
Administrative terms and conditions donÕt appear necessarily heavier in Europe than in Turkey. For example a residence permit is not more required in Belgium than in Turkey. However, Belgium seems more demanding about cash guarantees, as a deposit of 10 to 20 % of the purchased good will be enough in Turkey. But the property absolutely has to lie on an urban sprawl and out of a military zone, which has to be confirmed by the Turkish army.
● The traditional notions of namus and şeref appear as crosspieces for the Turkish culture but their intensity depends on different criteria such as geographic areas and socio-economical backgrounds (as diverse as word, sšz and honour crimes).
The effective European influences are probably related to those diverse levels of intensity. In the future, it will be interesting to study them as well as the counter-reactions they may have raised up (identity reflexesÉ).
The cultural contact issues enlighten by my observations have to be considered as local as my observations are. For example, Bodrum, a small city not far from Didim, needs a different approach in that concern, because the groups that settle there are more varied than in Didim in terms of nationalities and of socio-economical background.
As far as the Brits settled on the Turkish Riviera are concerned, it seems that eventhough some small and isolated groups show some features that may recall Gemeinschaft, none of those features is as strong as namus and şeref can be. Indeed, their solidity and deepness have a role of social and familial link, a link the deliquescence of which is highly deplored in West European societies.
● Last but not least, any anthropological approach calls the question: why
and how do we choose to treat a subject among others?
Second
Presentation
"Modern Science" and
"Traditional Knowledge". A Dialogue with Darshan
Shankar
Since many years, I am interested in the dialogue between different
traditions of knowledge. I was very fortunate to be able to go to Bangalore and
to make an interview of Darshan Shankar who founded
the Foundation for the Revitalization of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT) in
India sixteen years ago on 16th of june 2010. You can find the interview at : http://vimeo.com/12821524
In the interview, Darshan Shankar talks about
the conditions for genuine dialogue and mutual enrichment between "modern
scientific approaches" that are based on a more reductionist and
structural approach and "traditional systems of knowledge" that are
anchored in more holistic and "field" approaches.
He points out the epistemological and human difficulties of this
dialogue. On an epistemological level, if the parts are obviously in
relationship to the whole (and traditional systems of knowledge do even claim
that the whole can be seen in each part), the whole is different from the sum
of its parts. It is not easy to construct equivalences between epistemologies
rooted in these two different perspectives. On a human level, dialogues between
"modern" and "traditional" scientists used to be (and
continue to a large extent to be) difficult because of the involved powerrelationships. Modern science sees itself as the truth
holder against whose standards other systems of knowledge must be tested. This
has led to very reductionist approaches that were unacceptable to
"traditional scientists". A challenge of our times is probably to
engage in these dialogues and to complete our pictures of the
interrelationships between the whole and the parts.
This search for knowledge also brings up the question of mind. If, for
modern science, "mind" does not exist as such but can be equated to
biological processes, traditional sciences do not share this view. From their
perspective, it is as absurd to equate the mind with the brain and its
processes, as it would be to say that a driver and a car are one and the same
because from a distance they appear to be moving together. From a traditional
science's perspective, mind and body are different and can be separated, at
death, or during lifetime according to the experience of many Yogis.
Mind is also understood as a multilayered reality. From a traditional
science perspective, the rational mind is only one of minds many layers and
dimensions. It is considered the grossest form of mind in relationship to the
quest for knowledge. And it is actually rather seen as a precious tool to
organize and to communicate knowledge rather than a tool to unveil knowledge.
Thus, great emphasis was put in the traditional sciences on preparing the mind
to be able to know.
Unfortunately, we did not have time to enter much
discussions. We decided to explore the issues raised by this interview
in our next meetings.