Affiliation:
1. University of Groningen
Abstract
This article analyses Turkish parliamentary discourse about Turkish communities living outside of Turkey from 1988 to 2016. It focuses particularly on the usage of the bridge metaphor in discursive strategies towards these communities; concentrated mainly in former Ottoman territories and parts of Eurasia. The article argues that Turkish parliamentarians used the bridge metaphor to frame Turkish communities as part of both the Turkish nation and the nation where they lived, thereby constituting their liminal and in-between identity. Parliamentarians continuously (re-)imagine, (re-)construct, and (re-)produce the Turkish nation by using different discursive strategies that included uniqueness, sameness or difference. They used identity markers as ethnicity, language, geography, history, and religion to address these strategies. Metaphorically framing Turkish communities as a bridge provided them a dominant bridge role, namely that of friendship and peace. By transforming Turkish communities into a bridge of friendship and peace, through different dimensions, they believed that they would have a positive and crucial role for the country where they live and for Turkey. This bridge role provided opportunities as well as limits, illustrating the interplay between discourse and foreign policy developments.
Publisher
Migration Research Foundation
Reference24 articles.
1. Anderson, B. R. O. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev.ed). Verso.
2. Aykaç, E. (2021). A Bridge with Multiple Faces: Competing Identities in Turkish Parliamentary Debates (1988-2016). DIYÂR, 2, 279–301. https://doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279106
3. Baser, B. (2014). The Awakening of a Latent Diaspora: The Political Mobilization of First and Second Generation Turkish Migrants in Sweden. Ethnopolitics, 13(4), 355–376. https://doi.org/10.108/17449057.2014.894175
4. Bilgin, P. (2007). “Only Strong States Can Survive in Turkey’s Geography”: The uses of “geopolitical truths” in Turkey. Political Geography, 26(7), 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo. 2007.04.003
5. Brubaker, R. (2000). Accidental Diasporas and External “Homelands” in Central and Eastern Europe: Past and Present. IHS Political Science Series 71, October 2000. [Working Paper]. http://www.ihs.ac.at/vienna/IHS-Departments-2/Political-Science-1/Publications-18/Political-Science-Series-2/Publications-19/publication-page:6.htm