Hrant Dink Foundation organized the first workshop of the Social Science Graduate Students Workshop Series on 21 December 2017. The purposes of these workshops are to facilitate discussion about theses and dissertations submitted in Turkey about topics related to the Armenian Studies such as Armenian history and culture and to strengthen the dialogue among researchers. During the first workshop, three theses about the historical and contemporary matters related to the Armenian identity were discussed.

First, Seda Özdemir’s thesis titled “Contemporary Armenian Literature in Turkey: The Literary Representation of Armenian Identity and History” completed at the Atatürk Institute of Boğaziçi University in 2010 was discussed.  Özdemir pointed out that she analyzed the literary works as a historian and tried to interpret the Turkish texts written by Armenian authors in their historical context in her thesis. Categorizing these texts as the literary works of a minority group resisting domination and trying to survive, she emphasized that, these writers tried to rewrite the Armenian history which was interrupted, and by doing this, historicized the Armenian identity through literature. Özdemir categorized these authors into two groups. While the first group includes Anatolian Armenian authors such as Mıgırdiç Margosyan, Agop Arslanyan and Kirkor Ceyhan, the second one includes a more recent generation of Armenian authors from Istanbul such as Karin Karakaşlı, Markar Esayan and Kevork Kirkoryan. Özdemir analyzed the works of these writers to show the ways in which the Armenian identity were addressed by focusing on spatial and generational differences. Her thesis was discussed by Mehmet Fatih Uslu who is assistant professor at the Turkish Language and Literature Department of Istanbul Şehir University. Before presenting his suggestions and criticisms, Uslu emphasized the contribution of this thesis to the field of Armenian literature. Pointing out the limitations of analyzing Armenian literary works in Turkey with a framework that only focuses on writers who write in Turkish, Uslu reminded that some of these authors first wrote in Armenian and noted that this fact should be taken into consideration. Uslu suggested that it would be more appropriate to categorize the Armenian authors in Turkey as bilingual and monolingual (Armenian or Turkish) authors. Uslu also noted that the provincial/village literature genre within the Armenian literature goes back to the 1880s and it is necessary to think about the impacts of this historical background on the writers of the first group.

Second, Can Özden’s thesis titled “Being an Armenian in Anatolia: Narratives of Loss and Recuperation” completed at the History Department of Boğaziçi University in 2014 was discussed.  Özden noted that he conducted oral history interviews with twenty-three persons who were born in Anatolia and live in Istanbul for this study, and that he analyzed these interviews in terms of gender, hometown and class factors. Özden, who elaborated on the challenges related to the oral history method during the fieldwork, told that he had to make several interviews in order to gain the trust of some interviewees. He noted that the main theme that came out from those interviews was the narration of personal life stories as a part of 1915. He also pointed out that the narratives of the interviewees were influenced by the themes of resistance and struggle and that many of them developed survival strategies like conversion, immigration or marriage, especially when they lived in Anatolia. Özden also said that there was a gender difference among the interviewees, that women adopted a more personal narrative and that there was a theme of rebellion against Armenian identity, and against fathers or brothers in the narratives of women. He noted that male interviewees told their personal life stories with macro-narratives by adopting a more pluralistic discourse. His thesis was discussed by Bülent Bilmez who is a professor at the History Department of Istanbul Bilgi University. After mentioning that Özden combined the fieldwork with his own life experiences and that he discussed the issue over an original research question, Bilmez pointed out possible methodological challenges. He emphasized that oral history accounts can be a source considering the experiences, but experiences and learned or transmitted knowledge can be intertwined and it can be hard to distinguish them. He also stated that the personal stories and experiences of those who moved from Anatolia to Istanbul can be stimulating to comprehend the history of regions from where these people migrated. He noted that such interviews can be a source for writing the history of Anatolia in the 1960’s and the 1970’s. With regards to the issue of oral history and transmitted knowledge, Özden said that he prioritized the question of how experiences were framed and narrated rather than what was actually experienced and that he tried to explore this question in his study.

Finally, Hilal Ünal’s thesis titled “Apologies for the Past in Turkey: The Example of the ‘I Apologize’ Campaign and the Dersim Apology” completed at the Cultural Studies Program of Istanbul Bilgi University in 2015 was discussed. Ünal pointed out that there are some criteria such as identifying and acknowledging the wrongdoing, expressing a sincere remorse as well as adopting measures repairing the wrongdoing that are used in the evaluation of apology campaigns, and that all these criteria should be considered while interpreting the apology campaigns. Ünal elaborated on the ‘I Apologize’ campaign initiated by a group of intellectuals in December 2008. Ünal, who analyzed official and non-official reactions to the campaign, said that the text was a significant attempt but because it was written in an ambiguous style and because the word genocide was not used in the text, it was met with several criticisms. Her thesis was discussed by Kerem Öktem who is a professor at the Southeast European Studies Center of Graz University. Öktem said that this study is important with regards to the collective memory because the country examined in the thesis had different conditions from the contemporary Turkey. Öktem noted that the literature review section of the study was based on studies related to apology in Christian and Jewish traditions, but the approach of Sunni Muslim tradition to the apology issue was not explored. He also emphasized that it is important to think about how to ensure peace among societies/communities instead of states.

Several scholars and graduate students from different universities participated in the workshop and gave their opinions about the theses. Methodological suggestions regarding researches which will be conducted were also made during the discussions related to these three theses. There was an agreement amongst the discussants that there are some limitations in studies focusing only on one identity and that different identities and categories should not been ignored. It was emphasized that discussing categories like gender, class and ethnicity with an intersectional and integrated approach can be stimulating. Additionally, the discussants pointed out to the importance of adopting a perspective which aims to contribute to the literature.