Arabesk music is a new hybrid genre mixing Turkish classical and folk music with those of the West and Egypt (Özbek, pg 211) and by doing that challenging the classical dichotomy of Turkish music which is based on the differentiation of “European polyphony and Turkish monophony” (Karakayalı, pg 128). In this assignment, in the light of Nedim Karakayalı’s “An Introduction to the History of Music Debates in Turkey”, “Doğarken ölen: Hafif müzik ortamında ciddi bir proje olarak Orhan Gencebay” and Meral Özbek’s “Arabesk Culture a Case of Modernization and Popular Identity”, I will try to understand Arabesk music phenomenon in Turkey.
According to Karakayalı, in the light of Rauf Yekta’s writings we can claim that early Republican period of Turkey was shaped by “a crucial distinction between Turkish and Western music” (Karakayalı, pg 127). In accordance with Kemalist nation-state building project, Turkish music was tried to be directed towards Western polyphony and even Turkish Art Music which takes its roots from the Ottoman period was for a short period of time repressed . Similar to Ziya Gökalp’s great cultural project of “Turkish-Western synthesis”, Turkish music was oriented towards a synthesis between Western and Turkish tones. In this atmosphere shaped by a sharp dichotomy between Western and Eastern (sings of Orientalism), Arabesk music emerged as a counter force “in the middle of a battlefield, pushing the two armies farther and farther apart from each other and inserting itself almost violently in the center of the whole debate” (Karakayalı, pg 130). Arabesk music is the popular music genre that appeared in Turkey in the late 1960’s. Although I call Arabesk as a music genre, like Meral Özbek and Nedim Karakayalı underlined, it is more than this and a kind of culture. The definition of Arabesk music in the Encyclopedia of Music as “a music of alienation” is also an interesting note (Özbek, pg 223). Karakayalı also points out that in the 1970’s Arabesk music did not have a specific opposite (Karakayalı, pg 131) and “occupied an unclassifiable status” (Karakayalı, pg 132) in reference to classical categorization.
Özbek on the other hand, thinks that Arabesk music which later transformed into Arabesk culture, is a natural consequence of serious rural-urban cleavage in Turkey during the period of early steps of modernization and is an integral part of Turkish modernity, as well as a historical formation of popular culture that has been mostly despised and seen as an anomaly by Turkish intellectuals, scholars. She explains the appearance and the development of Arabesk music in relation to the political and social changes in Turkey. In her opinion, official cultural politics, growing market forces, the development of a culture industry, and popular traditions as well as changing lifestyles all prepared necessary conditions for the widespread of Arabesk music at the margins of big cities that became densely populated after rural to urban migration wave (Özbek, pg 212). In order to substantiate her argument Özbek uses many examples but especially spends time on the life story of “the king of Arabesk”: Orhan Gencebay. Özbek points out similarities between Gencebay’s and rural to urban migrants’ life stories (Özbek, pg 213-223). Özbek refers to lyrics of some Orhan Gencebay songs and shows reflections of these alienated people’s lives, thoughts and sentiments in the sorrowful words and dramatic voice of Gencebay. “In 1968, Gencebay wrote and performed Give Me Consolation (Bir Teselli Ver) and then Nobody Is Without Fault (Hatasız Kul Olmaz), which made a breakthrough as something more than music” (Özbek, pg 215). She tries to analyze Gencebay’s lyrics with regard to the psychology of these people and tries to determine reasons for the Arabesk explosion. Özbek even tries to indicate the symbology in Gencebay’s songs. “Thus, in this symbolic network, both the personal and the communal levels are addressed through the vocabulary of love, which is itself offered ultimately as the imaginary solution for handling the problem of meaning caused by displacement under modernization” (Özbek, pg 216). Karakayalı also points out the abstract character of Gencebay’s lyrics. “Hiç bir somut olay ve nesnenin bulunmadığı bir metinde geriye ‘Ben’in fikirleri, özdeyişleri, duyguları kalıyor. Ve doğal olarak ‘ben’in sözünü ettiği herşey de soyut ve genel bir nitelik taşıyor” (Karakayalı, pg 148). Moreover, according to Nedim Karakayalı, Orhan Gencebay is an exceptionally successful project not a subject. “Orhan Gencebay bir özneden çok projedir – tamamlanmamış, belki de tamamlanamaz bir proje. İstisnai olan da bu projenin kendisidir” (Karakayalı, pg 137).
Finally, in my opinion -in parallel with Özbek’s concluding remarks-, Arabesk culture is not a deviation from modernity but rather a case of modernization unique to Turkey that has progressive effects on Turkish modernity, a reflection of rural-urban cleavage that should be analyzed more seriously and objectively by intellectuals, researchers.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Karakayalı, Nedim, “An Introduction to the History of Music Debates in Turkey”
- Karakayalı, Nedim, “Doğarken ölen: Hafif müzik ortamında ciddi bir proje olarak Orhan Gencebay”
- Özbek, Meral, “Arabesk Culture a Case of Modernization and Popular Identity”
Our world has gone through many important stages before coming to its present situation; the Age of Exploration, Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment and French Revolution are just some of these stages. The last major stage was the Industrial Revolution[1] and the introduction and the settlement of the modern capitalist system. Industrialization and capitalism played a crucial role in changing attitudes and characteristics of individuals, societies and countries as well as the societal conflicts over the last two centuries. This paper is an attempt to illuminate the actions of various characters -especially the character of Tyler Durden- in David Fincher’s cult movie “The Fight Club”, by examining the causes and consequences of problems arising with the capitalist system’s consumption oriented individuals. This will be undertaken with regard to the famous philosopher Theodor Adorno’s conceptions of “commodity fetishism” and “standardization” from his book “The Culture Industry: Selected Essays On Mass Culture”. It will be shown that the capitalist system brings many problems to people’s lives and creates a virtual world for many people. Some consequences of this problem are commodity fetishism which directs people to consumption in order to feel happy, standardization which prevent people to do creative acts and anarchistic anger which people have because of their meaningless lives. Moreover, our modern world also forces us to obtain pleasure by satisfying our false needs like consumerism and living in accordance with the popular culture. This paper will conclude by showing that the capitalist system in fact affects individuals in a very negative way and it may even force people to behave violently, a theme that is arguably fundamental to an understanding of the film Fight Club. In order to arrive at that point, I will first make a short summary of the film, and then move on to an evaluation of Adorno’s views. Thirdly, I am going to apply Adornian theory to the film and explain their relations in detail. I will conclude the paper by stating my own views related to the topic.
First of all, I will present a summary of the film to be examined. Fight Club is based on the sensational debut novel of Chuck Palahniuk about a confused young man living in our modern world, in USA. David Fincher is the director and the narrator (Edward Norton), Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter), Robert "Bob" Paulsen (Meat Loaf Aday) are the leading characters in the film which was released in 1999. The film does not belong to a certain genre but we can say that it is a deep psychological action film, which also includes dramatic and thriller elements. In Imdb.com the movie is rated 8.6/10 and is considered as the thirty-third best movie ever made by the votes of people around the world[2]. Fight Club is not a simple film and it forces audience to think. It is full of ideas, ideologies and symbols. Despite its huge success in the counter and its popularity, its critical stance towards the modern American society, brought Fight Club only a single Oscar nomination in the “best effects, sound effects” category[3]. We can say that Fight Club is a rare film that challenges the viewer to come up with his own interpretations.
In the movie, our protagonist, the narrator (Edward Norton) has an easy, well-paid desk job but an empty and meaningless life with no family, friends or aims. In addition, he suffers from insomnia and the empty consumer culture that his generation has been doomed to inherit. He frequents cancer and disease groups in order to bond with others and get rid of his insomnia. At the beginning, these support groups help him to get rid of his insomnia and he starts to sleep like a baby. However, when he realises that there is another “faker tourist” called Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter), who participates in these groups in order to have fun and drink free coffee, he loses his concentration and insomnia starts to disturb him again. One day, on a plane he meets a charismatic stranger called Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) and he becomes an admirer of him. After an explosion in the narrator’s house, the narrator moves to Tyler’s house and they become very good friends. With the leadership of Tyler, they form their own secret society called Fight Club, where young and middle-age males fight with each other and feel relieved of their frustrations. The popularity of the club grows incredibly and soon new Fight Club groups are founded everywhere. Tyler Durden becomes a cult hero and he is successful in impressing hopeless people with his ideological speeches. Tyler rails, “Our generation has no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual war. Our depression is our lives”. He criticises the capitalist system and consumerism. “You are not your job. You are not your money in your bank account”. Also, Tyler, the narrator and Marla get involved in a love triangle. Tyler and his followers (members of Project Mayhem) prepare a big plan called “Project Mayhem” in order to destroy all banks, financial sector buildings and to make people free and equal by resetting all bank accounts. While all these events are happening the narrator always stands aside from Tyler and we finally understand that Tyler Durden is the unconscious side, the shadow of the narrator that takes control of the narrator’s conscious. After realizing this, the whole movie makes more sense for the audience and we better understand the situation of the schizophrenic protagonist of the movie played brilliantly by Edward Norton. The narrator in the final scene kills Tyler in his mind but he cannot save the banks and credit card companies to be exploded.
Secondly, I will shortly talk about Theodor Adorno and his conceptions of “commodity fetishism” and “standardization”. Theodor Ludwig Wiesengrund Adorno (September 11, 1903 – August 6, 1969) was a German sociologist, philosopher, musicologist and composer[4]. He was a member of the FrankfurtSchool along with Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Jürgen Habermas and many others.Theodor Adorno was no doubt one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. Affected by Walter Benjamin’s application of Karl Marx’s thought, he argued that capitalism fed people with the products of a culture industry (the opposite of true art) to keep them passively satisfied and politically apathetic. Adorno thought that the capitalist system had not become close to collapse, as the famous German philosopher Karl Marx had predicted. Instead, he saw that capitalism had seemingly become more powerful and widespread. He was pretty negative about our chances of breaking out of this system. Adorno mostly dealt with the cultural aspects (superstructure) of capitalism. He identified popular culture as the reason for people’s passive satisfaction and the lack of interest in overthrowing the capitalist system. He claimed that the capitalist system brings problems such as taking away individual “true” needs like freedom, full expression of human potential and creativity, genuine creative happiness and replacing them with false ones like commodity fetishism, popular culture and standardization.
Adorno also discussed “use value” and “exchange value”. “Use value” refers to the contingent qualities of a thing that are useful to human beings. Adorno also profits from Marx’s ideas. “Marx defines the fetish character of the commodity as the veneration of the thing made by one self which, as exchange-value, simultaneously alienates itself from producer to consumer human beings” (Adorno, pg 33). Exchange value refers to the popularity, scarcity and the price of a thing. For example, water’s use value is very high because it is a vital drink but its exchange value is very low because it is not scarce. In contrast, a diamond is very low in its use value but its exchange value is enormous because it is very scarce. Adorno asserts that capitalism forces us to be delighted by something because of how much it costs. In other words, people began to attach importance only to the exchange value of a commodity. “The more inexorably the principle of exchange value destroys use values for human beings, the more deeply does exchange value disguise itself as the object of enjoyment” (Adorno, pg 34). According to Theodor Adorno, in the capitalist system people are targets whereas firms are hunters. People mostly buy a commodity not because of their will and necessity; instead they are affected by the popular culture that is spread through the mass media. “The customer is not the king, as the culture industry would have us believe, not its subject but its object” (Adorno, pg 85). This theory is called “commodity fetishism” and according to him it is the biggest gift capitalism gives us. He also makes an analogy between consumers and prisoners. “When the feelings seize on exchange value it is no mystical transubstantiation. It corresponds to the behaviour of the prisoner who loves his cell because he has been left nothing else to love” (Adorno, pg 35). I will better explain his theory while applying it to the film.
Thirdly, I am going to make a connection between Adorno’s ideas and the film Fight Club. Adorno’s ideas are mostly based on the negative effects of the capitalist system. The source of these negative effects is popular culture and the culture industry. As I mentioned before, Adorno identifies these as reasons for people’s passive satisfaction and lack of interest in overthrowing the capitalist system. The culture industry forces people to be delighted only by certain accepted values; there is no place for different ideas or behaviors. This is called “standardization” and it is caused by culture industry and popular culture. “…The categorical imperative of the culture industry no longer has anything in common with freedom. It proclaims: you should conform, without instruction as to what; conform to that which exists anyway, and to that which everyone thinks anyway as a reflex of its power and omnipresence” (Adorno, pg 90). We all believe in the dominancy of money and try to be wealthy, in other words we do not listen to our instincts but rather we listen to popular culture’s values. An ideal life is portrayed to us via films, news, and books starting from our birth. Everyone tries to reach this ideal life instead of living his or her lives. When we adhere to popular values or reach an ideal life, we may feel happy but the question to be answered is: is this the truth or a virtual happiness? Standardization prevents us from being ourselves. The culture industry is cleverer than any other dictators because it does not exert any physical power over people but people might have serious “invisible” mental problems or they may unconsciously waste their qualities in order to behave according to popular values. In other words, they may sacrifice their individuality. “The sacrifice of individuality, which accommodates itself to the regularity of the successful, the doing of what everybody does, follows from the basic fact that in broad areas the same thing is offered to everybody by the standardized production of consumption goods” (Adorno, pg 35). In other words modern capitalist state “offers a vision of a society that has lost its capacity to nourish true freedom and individuality” (Adorno, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”, pg 29).
In our film, the narrator has a well-paid, white-collar work but he is not happy about his life. He feels emotionally and spiritually empty. He feels that he is one of the victims of this complex system but he does not know what to do in order to escape from this virtual world. He realizes that he has lived for money and sacrificed his individuality until today. He realizes that he unconsciously conformed to popular ideas and has become a slave of capitalism like Adorno mentioned. So, he is not a typical victim of the capitalism because at least he discovers that there is something wrong going on with his life. After realizing that, he begins to suffer from insomnia and sadness. He goes to a doctor but the doctor could not help him. He participates in disease groups in order to face with realities and gets rid of his virtual life. He talks with dying people and feels relieved. Although capitalism offers us a virtual world, even in this virtual world death is cold and real. He feels alive, like he is out of the game when he speaks to dying people. “Walking home after a support group, I felt more alive than I’d ever felt. I wasn’t host to cancer or blood parasites; I was the little warm centre that the life of the world crowded around”.
Because of Marla’s presence he needs to find another way of escaping from the land of virtualness so, he discovers his own unconscious side - Tyler Durden- a mad but charismatic man that shows him that he can face realities not only through disease groups, but also through fighting, self-destruction, anarchism and everything starts to change. Tyler is aware of capitalism’s efforts to standardise all people. Tyler rails against standardization: “You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake” he says. Tyler does not want to sacrifice his individuality and encourages or threatens people to behave like him. In one particular scene, he drags an Asian convenience store clerk, Raymond K.K. Hessel, out behind the store, ostensibly to shoot him. Instead, he badgers the poor clerk into distilling his life story; that he never wanted this job; in fact, he is just making time as a clerk, and he was at one point in school and had a passion to become a veterinarian. He forces him not to sacrifice his individuality, and commands him to return to school tomorrow to become a veterinarian or die. “Raymond K.K. Hessel, your dinner is going to taste better than any meal you have eaten, and tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of your entire life”. Also, he motivates the narrator (his conscious side) to rail against his boss. Adorno explains self-sacrificing through a clever analogy. “Society is always the winner, and the individual is only a puppet manipulated through social rules” (Adorno, pg 141). He clearly states that an individual does not control his own life and acts according to popular social values.
Another negative aspect of the capitalist system that is shown in the film is Adorno’s “false” needs ideology, which is caused again by popular culture and the culture industry. Adorno claims that the capitalist system brings problems like taking away “true” needs like freedom, full expression of human potential and creativity, genuine creative happiness, imagination and replacing them with false ones like commodity fetishism and popular culture. “Imagination is replaced by a mechanically relentless control mechanism which determines whether the latest imago to be distributed really represents an exact, accurate and reliable reflection of the relevant item of reality” (Adorno, pg 55). The narrator at the beginning of the film buys new Swedish furniture for his house although he does not need any furniture. Consuming ties him to his virtual life, his furniture are like his toys, which add colour to his life. Adorno explains this as being hunted by the culture industry and calls it “commodity fetishism”. He asserts that the reason for most people’s shopping is not their need but rather, their strong belief about the high exchange value of a commodity. “The consumer is really worshipping the money that he himself has paid for the ticket to the Toscanini concert. He has literally made the success he reifies and accepts as an objective criterion, without recognizing himself in it. But he has not made it by liking the concert, but rather by buying the ticket” (Adorno, pg 34). Like in Adorno’s example, although the narrator does not need any furniture, he buys new Swedish furniture because he was raised like all other sleeping people to believe that Swedish furniture is very valuable and a “must be” in his house. In this case, he is not happy because of having Swedish furniture, but because he is consuming, spending his money to gain popular commodities in other words satisfying his false needs. However, the narrator’s revolutionary sub personality, Tyler Durden, strongly rails against commodity fetishism. He says, “The things you own end up owning you” and burns the narrator’s house down because he knows that these commodities are things that could pull the narrator back to his virtual life again. Tyler like Adorno complains about false needs. “We are designed to be hunters and we are in a society of shopping. There is nothing to kill anymore, there is nothing to fight, nothing to overcome, nothing to explore”. Popular culture is the reason for the proliferation of these false needs and both Adorno and Tyler criticise popular culture and its most effective tool: television. Tyler says; “We were raised on television to believe that we’d all be millionaires, movie gods, rock stars, but we won’t. And we’re starting to figure that out”. Adorno also believes that capitalism became more powerful after the invention of television. Popular culture spreads like a mortal disease with the help of television. “Here an objection may be raised: is such a sinister effect of the hidden message of television known to those who control, plan, write and direct shows?” (Adorno, pg 144). Those who control television try to impose popular culture on us according to Theodor Adorno’s views. Adorno in his article “Television and the Patterns of Mass Culture” which was published in 1954, talked about the role of technological inventions that have made the control of the individual consciousness easier. Adorno and Durden also both blame advertisements for making people psychologically ill. Tyler shouts; “Advertising has these people chasing cars and clothes they don’t need”.
Adorno is very hopeless about our chances to overthrow this system. However, Tyler Durden has a revolutionary character and he thinks that violence and disruption can be a solution for this problem. He first starts to manifest his violence by fighting with other people and he forms Fight Club. Day by day, Fight Club becomes a stronger obsession, because people slowly open their eyes and understand that they were distanced from reality. Tyler impresses people who are disgusted by the empty consumer culture and people who are not happy about their lives (e.g. Bob has testicular cancer) and they join Fight Club. Tyler trains his students himself and even gives them homework. Soon, he becomes a cult hero for many people but also a public enemy for the rest of the society. He is successful in impressing people by telling them the negative effects of capitalist system and afterwards, he explains to them the rightness and the legitimacy of violence. He has big plans (Project Mayhem) to destroy all banks and credit card companies in order make people’s bank accounts vanish and thus make them free and equal. Tyler successfully executes this crazy plan and the narrator cannot save both the banks and credit card companies from destruction. Tyler Durden influences hopeless person and makes them revolt against capitalism. Tyler sees rich people as his enemies. He steals fat from liposuction centre and makes soap with it. Making soap from human fat is significant since it reminds us the crazy national socialist period in Germany during Adolph Hitler’s rule. Tyler wants to destroy everything and goes back to a primitive society in which people would have nothing and that would result in their being equal. “I wanted to destroy something beautiful I’d never have. Burn the Amazon rain forests. Pump chlorofluorocarbons straight up to gobble the ozone…”. However, like Adorno stated, there is no chance for human beings to overthrow this system and live in a completely equal and peaceful world. There will be always inequalities between ruler and ruled, strong and weak, intelligent and dumb people. Even in “Fight Club”, Tyler Durden puts some rules, restrictions to and gives orders to his “space monkeys (members of Project Mayhem)”. Some members are stronger, more intelligent and in the more favour of Tyler Durden. “Fight Club” also becomes a part of the system by limiting its members’ freedoms.
Another important point about the film is that although the movie seems to be anti-systemic and makes us think that it criticizes the modern capitalist society harshly, we may easily notice that it is a production made by Hollywood for the sake of profit and its publications are made from television, newspapers etc. This reminds us Adorno’s ideas on jazz music. Adorno thought that while jazz music, which is mostly based on improvisation and syncopation[5], seems to provide liberty to the artist, it in fact spreads barbarism and the profit interest of the culture industry with subterfuge. For Adorno, jazz music unlike its marginal position, is strongly tied to the culture industry. Similar to jazz, we can say that the movie “Fight Club” was presented to audience in the form of a cultural commodity in different formats and shapes. Souvenirs, post-cards, posters of the film were put on sale and many companies made profit from the sales of these products made by the film’s admirers who claim to be against the system. This paradox makes the stance of the movie much more complex since we can say that Fight Club, as a part of the popular culture, just performs the role of being against the system. It does not offer any alternative choices and at the end, it offers an imaginary nihilist vigilantism which makes the audience perhaps even more desperate about changing their conditions and the system. From this perspective we can assert that Fight Club fights with other movies made for commercial purposes instead of the system. However, considering Theodor Adorno’s negative position against the revolutionary 1968 generation and violent anti-system movements, we can claim that Fight Club and Adorno stand together within the system not against it and they both show some weaknesses of the system for creating the antidote.
Finally, in my opinion, in addition to its artistic, commercial and cinematographic success, Fight Club is an important novel and movie that directs people to question the system by staying within the system. The movie -from an Adornian perspective- is very rich of ideas and has clever points. However, similar to Adorno’s position maybe, it does not have a revolutionary character and it just acts as revolutionary. In my opinion, Fight Club is still significant in showing problems of individuals living in the modern society. Our modern anti-hero “Tyler Durden” shouts: “The first rule of the Fight Club is, you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of the Fight Club is, you do not talk about Fight Club. Third rule of the Fight Club, when someone says "stop" or goes limp, the fight is over. Fourth rule of the Fight Club is, only two guys to a fight. Fifth rule of the Fight Club is, one fight at a time. Sixth rule of the Fight Club is, no shirt, no shoes. Seventh rule of the Fight Club is, fights go on as long as they have to. Eighth and final rule of Fight Club, if this is your first night at Fight Club, you have to fight!”…
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-Adorno, T., 1991, “The Culture Industry: Selected Essays On Mass Culture”, London: Routledge
-T.W. Adorno & M. Horkheimer, 1992, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”, The Dialectic of Enlightenment, The Seabury Press
[1] “The Industrial Revolution was the major technological, socioeconomic and cultural change in late 18th and early 19th century Britain. During that time, an economy based on manual labor was replaced by one dominated by industry and the manufacture of machinery. It began with the mechanization of the textile industries and the development of iron-making techniques, and trade expansion was enabled by the introduction of canals, improved roads and then railways. The introduction of steam power (fueled primarily by coal) and powered machinery (mainly in textile manufacturing) underpinned the dramatic increases in production capacity. The development of all-metal machine tools in the first two decades of the 19th century facilitated the manufacture of more production machines for manufacturing in other industries” (Wikipedia.org).
Ismail Cem (1940-2007) was a famous Turkish social democrat politician, journalist and writer who also served as the Foreign Minister of Turkey between the years 1997 and 2002. His book “Turkey in the New Century” is a collection of Cem’s speeches, interviews, comments and memoirs about his tenure in office as the Foreign Minister. The book has certain aspects of an autobiography but also carries the qualities of an academic international relations book since Cem from the first-hand knows important details about Turkey’s foreign policy. The book is published from Rustem Publishing Company in 2000 but Cem revised the book every year and added new chapters.
In the book, Cem offers a new approach to Turkish foreign policy by criticizing certain aspects of classical Turkish politics and diplomacy. Cem believes that Turkish foreign policy had been alienated from its cultural roots and historical past (Cem, pg 3) and it must be replaced with a new understanding which was based on the awareness of Turkey’s rich identity and historical assets coming from the Ottoman state. He assumed that the end of Cold War, the phenomena of globalization and the development in technology (Cem, pg 5) created many new opportunities in the foreign policy. He wanted Turkey to be confident of herself, not ashamed of its past and bold and peace-seeking at the same time for the future. He criticized Turkish politicians’ habitude of perceiving foreign policy in the form of idealistic prescriptions such as friendly countries or hostile countries and offered a more flexible and rational approach to problems (Cem, pg 12). Cem defined foreign policy as “a mathematical equation of a country’s interests” (Cem, pg 13). He tried to create a convenient environment to be more flexible and active in foreign policy. Cem was not afraid to consider diversities in the country as richness and tried to overcome the forced alternatives (Cem, pg 14-15). By forced alternatives he meant the concepts often presented as contradictions such as Islam-secularism or West-East. He thought that these dichotomies are exaggerated considering their relevance in both Turkey’s domestic and foreign politics. He defined Turkey as both European (Western) and Asian (Eastern) (Cem, pg 19).
Cem in the next chapters tried to explain his views and analyses on Turkish-American, Turkish-EU, Turkish-Eurasia and Turkish-Middle East relations and offered a new rational and multi-dimensional approach to these relations in order to increase Turkey’s benefit. Especially he focused on Turkey’s full accession to EU and energy agreements made with Eurasian countries such as Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project. In his view, Turkey should develop a rational and peace-seeking multi-dimensional relationship style with all important organizations and countries based on protecting and developing Turkey’s profit. Becoming totally engaged in EU or USA would be a big mistake in Cem’s view. He later concentrated on international war against terrorism and the ways through which Turkey could solve its own terrorism problem. The last parts of the book are separated to Turkish-Greece and Turkish-EU relations. Cem points out that with a liberal understanding in international politics, Turkey could never be successful and would always give concessions to EU. He offers a more rational and interest-based approach to EU relations and claims that if this happens EU would approach Turkey in a different manner. Cem also labels JDP officials and diplomats as inexperienced and incompetent in foreign policy.
Ismail Cem’s “Turkey in the New Century” is really a valuable book that points out the negative trend of Turkey in Foreign Policy after the take-over of JDP instead of DSP-MHP-ANAP coalition government. Cem’s criticism seems to be harsh but he gives concrete examples from his tenure in office that proves that in international relations where all countries act realistically, a government could not defend its country’s interests by acting liberally. He also exemplifies the role of personal efforts and friendships in developing the relations between different countries. Cem who died very recently, will always be remembered for his contribution to foreign policy and his important books.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Cem, Ismail (2001), TURKEY in the New Century, RUSTEM
Crime as a dictionary definition means “an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction”[1] or simply as an unlawful activity. Criminology on the other hand, refers to the “scientific study of crime, criminals, criminal behavior, and corrections”[2]. Crime has been existed from the beginning of human existence and the appearance of norms, rules, regulations together with communal life. Although committing crimes can be considered as a natural part of human existence, we can distinguish that crimes can be high or low according to different socioeconomic conditions and other factors. That is why we can say that humans beings at least have chance to reduce crime rates even though they cannot completely abolish it. This paper is an attempt to show that the separation of crimes into different types and the insufficiency of criminological approaches to totally explain the crime phenomenon, put states and civil society organizations in more difficult position in their struggle against crime. A new complex theoretical approach which will focus on all crime types is needed in the field for success in reducing crime rates. In order to arrive at that point, this assignment is going to begin by defining crime and explaining different types of crime. Then, it is going to continue with explaining the study of criminology and its historical development.
Although there are different definitions about crime, generally all definitions focus on the theme of making something illegal that would cause harm to other people or institutions. Robert L. Bonn offers us the legal definition of crime which was made by Paul Tappan; “Crime is an intentional act or omission in violation of criminal law, committed without defense or justification, and sanctioned by the state as a felony or misdemeanor” (Bonn, pg 6). Bonn thinks that the legal definition of crime is not enough for us to understand what the crime is because the crime’s more important aspect is related to its social nature. Crime gains its meaning in the social context and in speaking about crime, it is useful to bear in mind that “crime is only a small part of the totality of interactions, that occur in society” (Bonn, pg 10). There are different types of crime which is classified by D. Stanley Eitzen and Doug A. Timmer as follows; street crime, white-collar crime, victimless crime, organized crime, corporate crime and political crime. Street crime is very much related to urbanization, immigration and industrialization. Because of industrialization and the lack of working force in cities, a dense rural to urban migration started and millions of people in different countries migrated towards cities. This led to ethnic groupings and conflicts and “divergent religions, languages, cultural practices, and class backgrounds all helped to fuel the fire in an already conflict-ridden society” (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 118). Eitzen and Timmer name some determinants of street crime such as class (unemployment & poverty), race (ethnic conflicts), age (problematic youth) etc. Street crime is a general category that includes crimes such as “robbery, murder, assault and other traditional violent crimes” (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 180). White-collar crime is a type of crimes that are committed by the respectable members of the community. The term was created by famous criminologist Edwin Sutherland. “Sutherland pointed out that the majority of crimes are not committed by members of the lower class, hence, explanations of crime that use of poverty or the sociopathic conditions of poverty are wrong” (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 180). White-collar crimes consist of non-occupational crimes, crimes committed by employees in violation of their duty and loyalty to employers and fraudulent behaviours in occupations. Insurance fraud, credit card fraud, computer theft, time theft, employee pilferage, kickbacks, embezzlement are some examples of white-collar crime. Victimless crime is very much related to prostitution and morally deviant acts (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 206). By the victimless crime, what is meant is the lack of harming others and the abscence of victimization. Adultery, pornography, prostitution, drug use and addiction, gambling, public drunkenness, homosexuality and abortion (in some countries) are types of victimless crimes.
Organized crime is one of the most serious types of crimes. Organized crime refers to “widespread criminal activities, such as prostitution, interstate theft, or illegal gambling, that occur within a centrally controlled formal structure”[3]. Organized crime is often identified with the Italian-American crime families like in the motive The Godfather which take their roots from feudal Sicily. Mafia and organized crime exist strongly especially in countries where laws are not that strict and people search for alternative ways for getting their works to be done or to compensate their damage against unjust acts (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 241). Corporate crimes refer to crimes made committed by big corporations. Since big corporations are very important in liberal countries where free-market economy is available, sometimes, companies and corporations because of the greed of their bosses and managers can do illegal acts (crimes against employees, violence against unions, discrimination in the workplace, deceptive advertising, unsafe products, pollution) which are labelled as corporate crimes. The last and very important type of crime is political crime. Political criminals are different from other criminals because they often struggle for a different political system or arrangement and do not seek monetary gains. Crimes committed by governments are also part of political crimes. The overt bias of government, subsidies to big business, trickle-down solutions, secrecy, lying and deception can be examples of political crimed made by the government. “Watergate scandal” in USA and “Susurluk scandal” in Turkey are good examples of political crimes committed by governments. This separation of crimes into different categories unfortunately divides the subject into too many parts and makes the understanding of crime more difficult. Criminological approaches, which will be explained later, focus on some crime types and do not seek to catch the whole picture.
After explaining crime and its various types, we can continue with the definition of criminology and different criminological schools. Robert L. Bonn defines criminology as “the academic discipline which employs a scientific methodology to describe and explain five key topics: criminal acts, criminal offenders, the victims of crime, the social contexts within which crime occurs, and the criminal justice system” (Bonn, pg 12). Eitzen and Timmer agreeing with this definition claim that criminal theory “simply means the ways of understanding and explaining crime and criminal justice” (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 14). Now, the historical development of criminology and different perspectives that have become dominant in the field during the history will be explained.
Earlier explanations of criminality were based on supernaturalism. “These theories were prescientific and depend on religious faith and belief” (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 14). According to this belief, criminals are thought, conceptualized as people whose soles are acquired by the Devil. Classical criminology on the other hand, was secular and based on utilitarian[4] world view and the notions of rational mand and free will. “Crime, according to this perspective, is the rational choice of a criminal who is ultimately free to choose either criminal or non-criminal behavior” (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 15). The punishment is based on deterrence and aimed to provide the greatest happiness for greatest amount of people even if they have to give harsh punishments. Classical criminology or utilitarianism became widespread in the 18th century and its revised from revisionist classical criminology became popular in the 19th century. Revisionist classical criminology insisted that “it is not always the case that a rational person can choose between good and bad, right or wrong, non-criminal and criminal” because there are some “intervening factors, such as age, mental status, and physical condition” (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 16). During this epoch positivistic understanding of criminology, “which aspects of crime and criminal justice as objective phenomena”, was dominant (Jupp, pg 27). Another presociological criminology theory is chromosomal approach. “The most extreme expressions of this tendency to reduce explanations of criminal behavior to physiology, genetics, and heredity are those that have concentrated on the neuroendocrine system” (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 17). These sociobiological approaches were considered as racist and inhuman and do not become popular. The last presociological approach of criminology is derived from Sigmund Freud’s ideas. According to this approach, criminal acts are understood as psychopathology[5]. We can criticize these non-sociological criminological approaches as non-scientific and away from offering a solid understanding of crime.
Classical (traditional) sociological theories of criminology on the other hand, include social disorganization theories, social control theories, socialization theories etc. The first sociological theories about crime were based on structuralist-functionalist paradigm. According to social disorganization theory for instance, the primary reason for crime was structural economic problems in the capitalist system like the Great Depression. ChicagoSchool, which is major representative of this theory, claimed that “rapid social change led to social disorganization that led to personal disorganization – people became increasingly unsure of what was appropriate bahevior in this new setting – which, in turn, led to deviant and criminal behavior” (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 24-25). For this traditional sociological approach, crime was the result of breakdowns in social control because of ethnic, cultural, class differences and economic problems. The second important theory of sociological criminology approach is social control or social bond theory. According to the main theorician of this approach Travis Hirschi, “the ties that individuals have to parents, peers, and important social institutions like the school and workplace” are major barriers of crime. People who lack these ties can easily become criminals because of their alienation from the social life. The third major approach, in sociological criminology theories, is socialization theory. Robert Merton asserted that “being completely and successfully socialized to a particular society’s cultural values may turn out to be a source of deviant behavior” (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 27). In some social settings where anomie is dominant, individuals can be socialized unsuccesfully. These traditional social theories “have concentrated almost exclusively on conventional street crime” (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 32) and did not include other crime types. Moreover, they seem very weak in explaining crime singularly and they all focus on different points.
More modern sociological theories include interactionist perspective, labeling theory and radical criminology. Interactionist theories of modern sociological criminological works assume that crimes and deviances are socially constructed. An important interactionist school labeling theory claims that “crime is created and defined socially, in the process of social interaction” (Eitzen & Timmer, pg 34). Labeling perspective has some basic premises such as “the recognition that crime is a political phenomenon”, “the recognition that social relationships and processes, not criminals, must be rehabilitated” and “the recognition that crime and crime control are two interrelated parts of the same social phenomenon”. According to labeling theory, when someone is labelled as criminal by the laws, the society begins to approach him like a criminal and the society by doing this does not leave a chance to this person not to become a criminal. Labeling theory is very important and beneficial for us to understand that how criminal life continues but is does not help us to solve the problem of “why at the first instance, crime does occur”. Another modern approach in criminology is radical criminology. Radical criminology is based on Marxism and basically claims that crimes are caused by the inherent conflicts of the capitalist system which creates terrible economic inequalities. Radical criminology conceives criminal justice as “institutionalized oppression of the poor and the working class and a system organized and structured to fail” (Eitzen & Turner, pg 48). However, similar to Marxism’s problems, radical criminology does not answer to the questions of today’s lives and does not explain why crime has always existed throughout the history even in early primitive communal life period.
After analyzing all important schools in criminology, I want to put forward my own ideas about the necessary approach to crime problem. In my opinion, to begin with non-sociological criminology theories are very weak and do not help us to understand the reasons of crime phenomenon. Supernaturalism is a kind of scholastic thought which belongs to the Middle Age and does not have to do with our modern secular world. Classical and revised classical utilitarian doctrine of criminology focus on the punishment instead of finding pre-emptive solutions to the emergence of crime. Although the harshness and deterrence of punishments such as the death-penalty might be a factor that would reduce crime rates, I think this is not enough for us to comprehend why crime still exists. I think that biological theories about criminals are very ugly and racist in their true nature. This kind of approach can only used by racist Nazi goverment and not by our democratic states. Freudian psychopathological approach can be useful for us but it only focuses on internal factors of individuals and ignores the larger social picture that is very effective in the emergence of crime. Classical sociological theories of criminology are much more scientific than non-sociological approaches but I think they still have some problems. Although all three approaches (social disorganization theories, social control theories, socialization theories) have made important points, they cannot explain the whole crime phenomenon. That is why I think that these theories complete each other and should not become separate schools. Interactionist theories are very humanistic and attractive and for instance labeling theory shows us very clearly that after committing a crime it might be very difficult for a person not to do it again because of social pressure and labeling. However, it cannot be an answer to the question why people commit crime for the first time. Radical criminology is very much ideological and away from being real. Although socioeconomic problems and injustices play a great a role in the rise of crime as it was stated by the social disorganization theory, it cannot be the single, historically inevitable cause of crime. Instead of separating all these schools from each other, what we need might be to mix these sociological theories into a complete and consistent whole. I believe that all these theories touch upon realities from a certain point but we cannot aware of turning these portions of truth into a greater truth. That is why as far as I am concerned; the discipline of criminology lacks a total, coherent theory that will explain the reasons of crime. Separating crimes into branches and finding different theories for them does not help us in solving the problem of crime.
To sum up, as far as I am concerned, although there are many different types of crime and discussions about the ideal approach to criminology, we can easily notice that crimes are based on motivations and they have many different reasons. So, crime rates can be reduced by states by necessary laws and solutions to social problems. Crime is a social phenomenon that has always existed and has always been an important problem for individuals. Due to crimes, people are killed, lost money and harmed by other people. Since the role of the modern democratic state is to prevent individuals to be harmed by other people, crime must be studied more carefully and states should do something to reduce crime rates. We all believe that human life is precious and injustice is not something good. Unfortunately, even in today’s so called democratic, liberal states crime exists and damage people’s lives. In order to prevent crime, we must first understand the reasons and conditions that lead to crimes. That is why we need a more complex theory in criminology because existing approaches are very weak. If we achieve this, I think we can do more successful things for solving this problem.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-D. Stanley Eitzen & Doug A. Timmer, 1985, “Criminology”, New York: Mcmillan Publishing Company
-Robert L. Bonn, 1984, “Criminology”, USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
-Sir Leon Radzinowicz, 1999, “Adventures in Criminology”, London: Routledge
-David Nelken, 1994, “The Futures of Criminology”, London: SAGE Publications
-Victor Jupp, 1989, “Methods of Criminological Research”, London: Billing and Son Ltd.
[4]Utilitarianism: “The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people” (Dictionary.com).
[5] “The study of the origin, development, and manifestations of mental or behavioral disorders” (Dictionary.com).
