Securitized identities and less secure western multi-ethnic states: a critical geopolitics of the East–West discourse – Turkey and beyond

Abstract

This article explores the implications of monolithic notions of “East” and “West” for security within ethno-religiously diverse nation-states. It builds on literature within critical geopolitics by recognizing not only that homogeneous notions of the “West” and its “Others” were formed for the purpose of legitimizing ideological and physical contestations of geographical space, and that they continue to operate, but also that this has made nation-states substantially less secure at the intra-state level. Travel accounts by Western European and American travellers to Turkey from 1989 onwards are used as data to explore this. The content of these accounts mirrors the wider East–West discourse; considered together with Turkey's popularly described position “at the crossroads” of Europe and Asia, the texts lend themselves to salient discussion of identity, culture, and difference between the hegemonic “West” and its “Others.” The post-1989 decolonized, post-Cold War period enables us to work within a contemporary context in which the opening of geographical space has occurred, and allows us to test whether “Western” identity in its hegemonic form of Western Europe and the US has evolved to accommodate this new context.

Keywords:

• geopolitics
• ethnic conflict
• security
• identity
• political geography

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Wendy Bracewell for supervising my dissertation from which this article developed, together with her course on travel writing that provoked it. Thanks to Bilkent University's CCI program for the opportunity to present an earlier version, Stephen Chan for positive comments, and Stuart Croft, Gerald Maclean and the anonymous reviewers for constructive criticism. Finally, thanks to those that offered alternative perspectives; these have played an integral part in the development of my thinking.

Notes

One can also question the level of passivity assigned to the East in Said's discussion of the East–West discourse. These criticisms will not, however, be discussed further in this piece, as despite the East being active in the East–West discourse throughout history (travel writing from East to West), these writings did not largely find exposure amongst Western audiences and thus did not impact upon views of the Other.

Anglo-American dominance has emerged over the course of the twentieth century, transformed by both itself and international dynamics into a power of unprecedented reach. See Brzezinski (3–11).

This is not to ignore the necessity of questioning whether current dominant hegemonic conceptions of modernity and advancement are the most beneficial or accurate for genuine societal progress and advancement – this is simply beyond the scope of this article. Rather, it attempts to illustrate the way that current understandings of identity present a barrier to such questioning by allowing reductive and essentialized collective categorisations of human identity to maintain their dominant position

Past editors include Iain Macleod, Ian Gilmour, and Nigel Lawson, who became Conservative Party cabinet ministers, and Boris Johnson, the current Mayor of London and former Conservative Party Shadow Minister for Higher Education.

During his reign Spanish Jews were welcomed into the Ottoman Empire following their expulsion from Spain in 1492 as a result of the Spanish Inquisition. See Imber (ch. 1).

At its peak (1520–1566) the Ottoman Empire spanned Anatolia, Southeast Europe, the Caucuses, the Near East, and parts of coastal North Africa. See ibid. (1–8).

The significance of this is highlighted when compared to the crippling problems caused by the “nationality question” for other racially diverse empires such as those of Russia and the Soviet Union, with the latter inheriting an underlying lack of nationhood to the point of causing its disintegration within a century. See Hosking (402–91).

This refers to a process in which individuals perceive mainstream society as failing both its indigenous ethnic minority and non-ethnic minority populations by repeatedly “distinctivizing” them. That is, focusing on emphasizing ethno-religious and cultural differences together with framing these differences as problematic and by manifesting that distinctivization in forms of socio-economic discrimination, either real or perceived, in favour of their respective “others.” This potentially enhances feelings of marginalization, negative difference, and denied access to resources based on ethno-religious background.

For discussion of these ideas, see Albertoni; Giddens and Held.