This long paper that I have written for my World Lit. course where we discovered literature of different countries mostly the colonized parts of the world but we had Turkish writers also and discussed the issue of modernity, modernism etc. I have chosen Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar as my paper and oral presentation assignment. I thought it would be easy because it was written in my mother language but it was more difficult to write about than english ones. I had to use secondary sources at least 5 and all of them were Turkish so I had to translate every one of them unfortunately. Anyway it was the longest assignment I wrote till the end of this semester. Hope it helps someone.
The
Time Regulation Institute
Ahmet
Hamdi Tanpınar is known one of the most important modern novelists and poets of
Turkish literature. In fact he wanted to be known with his poems but his novels
are more popular than his poems. He lived in the time of transition period of
Turkey, so in his novels we see influence of this period a lot. Actually, he
criticizes this period and the people who lived at the time, in terms of
changing everything, accepting anything as the right one for the sake of being
modern which is came from West, although he was not against to Modernization.
By virtue of his criticism of this time most of people especially who was known
as intellectual did not like him much, in fact Tanpınar was isolated by these
intellectuals and they presented him like retrograde person because of his
ideas. Of course it was a misunderstanding of Tanpınar’s idea, he was not
against to Modernization but he defended not to lose of all Ottoman and Islamic
heritage. He was right in his defence because most of people of that time
thought that modernization means throw out past and all heritage than to take
everything from West instead of them which most probably ends with identity
problem. When we look at the history of world we can easily see many examples
of physical colonialism, in all of them the superior side which means colonizer
wants to make colonized people forget of their past finally their identity in
order to divide and rule them easily. Turkey has never been colonized
physically but, with the begining of
modernization process Turkey and citizens of this country start to lose
something, something belongs past and identity even today it goes like this. In
this point, Tanpınar criticizes Turkish society, not for only The Time Regulation Institute in another
his novels are also based on same point. In The
Time Regulation Institute which is the base of this paper Tanpınar
specifically shows us that every change does not mean an improvement. Rest of
the paper will prove this thesis with the help of primary and secondary
sources.
Before going through the novel with
examples we need to understand that what modernization means.
There
is an essential difference between the two of the words, modernity and
modernisation, which has been intended by Habermas. This difference identifies
historical evolution, not only the western societies but also non-western ones. We can say
shortly, modernity marks a Project or reflection, but the modernisation
marks instituonal and structural
evolution which can be facilitated by modernity. .Another subjectional
judgement In this context, non-western societies are able to modernize but not
to be modernWesternizing includes the
colonizational and capitulational relations and beside of this capitalist
market growth. Because of this point, westernizing also includes and cause the
unequal historic evolutional improvements.“Modern” pratics, which has been
executed on the non-western countries,
have never any humanistic virtues and benevolent
characteristics.Westernizing has contructed itself as an compensational idelogy and remover of the historical
belatedness as a negotiator.
With
the Angle of the political wiew, modernity and modernisation explains the
evolution of normative and instituonal seperations.Modernity can be defined as
a process like an individual discipliner and educater. But modernisation
establishes the infrastructural basement of this kind of education. In other
words, modernisation identifies the conceptual and political framework. Modernity
in the meaning of “To westernize” or we can rather to call “make someone
westernize” couldn’t have surpassed the resistance. But it caused many
important irreversible changes in the way of modernisation for many societies
in the world. (Çiğdem 68)
In the novel Tanpınar chose the characters
on purposely to show circumstances of that time with an ironic and satiric way.
This transition period and its dilemma is the base of Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar. Most
of his writings we see the same point.
Tanpınar’s
writings vocalise a criticism of such a combination of nationalism and cultural
conservatism… Indeed, the major crux of Tanpınar’s vision is this: how to
reconcile the European ideals with a restored cultural tradition and historical
continuity. True, in some crucial respects, Tanpınar explicity criticises the
positivistic and atomistic moral and political outlook of some of the boosters
of modernity. This strain in Tanpınar’s thought comes out very clearly when he
expresses the existential significiance
of some of his crucial terms such as “continuity” and “tradition”. But in some
other important respects, Tanpınarcontinues with the political legacy of
European modernity. This manifestly distinguishes Tanpınar’s thought from
Safa’s cultural conservatism, a perspective replete with cultural essentialism
and romantic deceit. In no account Tanpınar’s view of cultural tradition can be
construed as to refer either to some sort of an aggressive political
nationalism that can be used as an instrument of social and political
mobilisation or an epistemological essentialism concerning the Notion of
culture and tradition. Nonetheless, some of Tanpınar’s important concepts and
writings have invited, with some justification, the interpretation that
Tanpınar’s work expresses yet another romanticisied version of conservatism or
traditionalism. Many commentators, bothhis proponents and opponents, have
stressed this ambivalence in Tanpınar’s writing. (Sezer 428)
For Tanpınar himself his expression is that;
When
the idea of society is introduced, the tragedy of fate diminishes, because
unlike fort he individual, there is no death for society. Cotinuity exists
there. The chain continues for all eternity.. History, art, Works, traditions –
all of these are society’s consciousness of contiunity.. As individuals – that
is, as people diverge from the cosnciousness of society – they are nothing but
an aggregate of weaknesses. As they enter into and adopt the life of society,
they overcome these weaknesses.. What is going to liv efor all eternity is
netiher the individual nor even generations, but rather society. Only society,
and its historical manifestion, the nation, can withstand fate and time. Only
the oak tree that has put pout its roots into the depths of the earth, not the
individual leaf, can endure the storm. ( 22-23)
In the novel Tanpınar uses an irony and
shows us oddness of the people at that time with the little details through the
characters of the novel. For instance in the home of father of Hayri İrdal is
the protagonist of the novel they a Wall clock named as Mübarek and fort hat
clock İrdal describes it as a human being also everyone who lives in that home
is so respectful fort he clock, Mübarek. Being respectful for an old clock
represents dependence of past which in spite of teh modernization process still
they are bound their past, their heritage. Another example is wives of Hayri
İrdal, first one Emine is a faitful, a good house wife who represents house
wives in old time, in Ottoman time but, when we come to Pakize the second wife
of İrdal, he meets with her after meeting with Halit Ayarcı who changes his
life a lot. For Pakize, she is not a faitful woman, she is not like Emine at
all. She cheats Hayri with Halit Ayarcı also they have a child but she does not
regret at all. She is a kind of light woman like she likes parties, drinking
etc. In terms of this representation I can easily say that Pakize signifies to
the Western women. Of course I do not humiliate or blame western women but this
example shows us that modernization is understood wrong. There is a
misunderstanding at that time because for people who live the time was thinking
that who behaves like the women in the movies or like the women in the West
makes them modern. This is the wrong perception of modernization in our
country. To support the thesis, I can say that two have new habit like Pakize,
it is a changes but it is not an improvement at all.
One of another important points in the text
is the corruption of government and foundations. In the novel Hayri and Halit
Ayarcı set the Time Regulation Institute and they get employees fort he
institute. The funny and ironic point is that they choose employees from their
relatives and suggestions of their friends. They do not think about anything
the education or qualification of them. The significant thing is for them to be
relative or friend. This circumstance criticizes of foundations and their
working system in Turkey. Eventhough absurdity of existence of the institute,
governer visits the institute and congrulates them to do such works. This is
another ironic point in the novel.
Prominent
Tanzimat novelists such as Ahmet Mithat Efendi and Namık Kemal welcomed Western
technology while preserving theestablished cultural texture in their novels.
The republican novel, on theother hand, seems to serve the purpose of building
a nation–state. AhmetHamdi Tanpınar is one of the outstanding novelists of this
epoch. A careful analysis of his novels, which problematize the major social
and cultural transformations from Tanzimat to Republic, may serve to understand
beter the Westernitation process in Turkey. Modernisation achievements which
has been made Ottoman era, imitates western but the main goal of these
activities is keep the empire permanent. But republic changes the ideas. Now
and then, the main purpose is,”improvement for social order” In this era, we
saw radically hiatus from traditions and policies. Revolutions punctuate the
speech with cheers and make the end forever. (Gündüz 14)
Halit Ayarcı seems to the antagonist of the
novel because whenever he wants something İrdal does it without questioning. Of
course Ayarcı influences İrdal’s life in a bad way. After meeting with Ayarcı,
İrdal’s life changes a lot in a bad way. He behaves like so called modern
people. He cehats his wife also and somehow he know the relationship between
his wife and Halit Ayarcı but he does not do anything even does not say any
word. Maybe it can be criticism of the proceeds of being modern in a bad way.
İrdal
performed all the things that has been told by Ayarcı without questioning. But
the author criticize the obedience and acceptions without any investigation. On
the other hand, useless activities that made by Ayarcı who says “beliefs are
necessary for success” has been criticize also. All of two behaviours are
nonsense fort the author. Imperious manner of Ayarcı and thoughts about modernisation symbolizes western life style.
İrdal symbolizes the last term of the poor Ottoman Empire and the conservative
policy. (Günday 84)
To sum up, in this novel Tanpınar shows the
situation of the people at the transition time. Misunderstanding of
Modernization, identity crisis and corruption of belief somehow traditions
which means, with the begining of Tanzimat a Modernization process stars and it
still cotinues, this process has taken something from our lives because it does
not fit on us. In terms of this perspective, Tanpınar defends that, we should
protect our İslamic and Ottoman heritage, we should not take everything from
West. Of course it does not mean that Tanpınar does not like West but he just
wanted to make us protect our past if we do not then it turns identity crisis,
nothing at all.
Works
Cited
Çiğdem, Ahmet. "Batılılaşma Modernite
ve Modernizasyon." Modern
Türkiye'de siyasî düşünce. 1. baskı. ed. Cağaloğlu, İstanbul:
İletişim, 20012009. . Print.
Gündüz, Olgun. "Türkiyede Batılılaşma
Serüveninde Özgün Bir Portre: Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar." U.Ü. Fen Edebiyat
Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 1 Jan. 2002: 14. Web. .
Günday, Rıfat . "Saatleri Ayarlama
Enstitüsü'nde Toplumsal- Eleştiri ve İroni." İlmi Araştırmalar 1 Jan. 2007: 79-102. Print
Sezer, Devrim . The anxiety of cultural
authenticity in Turkish communitarian thought: Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar and Peyami
Safa on Europe and modernity, History of European Ideas. : 2012. Print.
Tanpınar,
Ahmet Hamdi, and Maureen Freely. The
Time Regulation Institute. New York: Penguin Classics, 2013. Print.
