Decolonising Kurdish Refugee Studies: The Need for a Critical, Reflective and Emancipatory Approach

Over recent years, with the rise in Kurdish refugees in Europe and the disastrous events in the Middle East, there has been an increased focus on Kurdish refugees and migrants in migration studies especially within the context of Turkey and Turkish nationalism. Academics have carried out research into and have tried to understand the social and political reality of Kurdish refugees, the driving forces behind their escape, the pattern and the construction of their diasporic organisation, their activism and their incorporation process. However, this has not been without its problems. In many of these studies, the Kurdish refugees, including Kurdish Alevi immigrants, have been positioned and presented as “Turkish immigrants” or “migrants from Turkey”. The positing of this has meant that these non-Turkish communities become invisible communities. This pattern of misrepresentation obscures the understanding of complex matters of these non-Turkish immigrants. This may have consequences as it can lead to the distortion and manipulation of knowledge construction surrounding Kurdish refugees and other linguistically, ethnically and culturally diverse communities. Furthermore, other more detrimental consequences can arise as policymakers make use of such studies when enacting policy.

This approach and the misrepresentation of Kurdish refugees and their contextual realities in migration studies reproduces the politics of forced assimilation and internal colonisation that has been instigated by the Turkish state since its inception. This extends beyond the state of Turkey and the language that is used in creating narratives denies individuals from the Kurdish community the opportunity to position themselves as a separate entity. The influence of Turkish nationalism means the Kurdish population are considered to be “peripheral Turks” in Turkey and Europe. Additionally, it prevents the Kurds and non-Turkish communities from enjoying their own cultural identities and languages which are distinct from the one that is shared by migrants with Turkish ethnic backgrounds who are not Kurds and are from the mainstream Sunni sect. Through this, Kurds are often omitted or referred to as Turkish refugees and migrants in official statistics in Europe. Whilst some scholars have criticised the misrepresentation of the realities that are faced by Kurdish individuals and have provided more fitting analyses, there  needs to be further work  to decolonise the existing and dominant paradigm that all marginalised communities with diverse ethnic and language backgrounds are designated as “peripheral” members of the ruling segments of societies.

The prevailing approach in which the realities of non-Turkish immigrants and Kurdish refugees remain in the shadow of Turkish studies can be regarded as the continuation of the domination of Turkish nationalism as a superordinate or upper Turkish nationalist identity and the reproduction of internal colonisation and assimilation within Turkish politics. The knowledge produced outside this dominant framework is viewed in a prism which is described as “nationalistic”, “narrow-minded”, and “unscientific”, whereas the knowledge produced within this framework appears to be presented as “scientific” because of its positivist and institutionalised approach. This discourse is reminiscent of the Turkish nationalists and their successors which viewed the Kurds as “mountain Turks”, “backward”, “pre-modern”, “tribal” and “barbaric”. By using these discourses, counter-hegemonic criticism and decolonising counter-knowledge are undermined and deemed to be illegitimate.

Historical and political developments within Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, in which processes of assimilation usurped the social, cultural and political uniqueness and independence of groups such as the Kurds, provide a useful background for the comprehension of how knowledge is constructed by Turkish institutions and established scholarship.Turkish universities and academics in Turkey and Europe play a crucial role in presenting all non-Turkish communities under the domination of a superordinate Turkish identity. These processes directly and indirectly influence the knowledge production of mainstream Turkish academics in favour of Turkish nationalism. Accordingly, these actors influence the social and political fields of Kurdish refugees by analysing their realities from the perspective of Turkish identity, ignoring their social and historical experience. They conduct ethnographic fieldwork on Kurdish refugees but may not have all the requisite skills to enable them to understand the nuances. For example, a lack of experience with, and knowledge of, the Kurdish language, culture, values and norms is very limiting. It is also less clear whether and how mainstream Turkish academics manage to overcome unconscious bias stemming from the domineering and assimilationist policies of Turkish institutions and the education systems which they have been part of. In this way, they might end up contributing to the prevalence of Turkish nationalistic and colonial politics toward Kurdish and non-Kurdish communities whose homeland is ruled by the Turkish regime.  While researching Kurdish refugees and immigrants these studies appear to avoid reflecting on the discriminatory and nationalist policy of the Turkish state toward the Kurdish population. These studies seem to be lacking a critical analysis of the impact of Turkish state policy on traumatic experiences in exile, miserable conditions, uncertainties, disarticulation and the predicament of Kurdish refugees and immigrants in Europe.

Instead, they deal with the topic of Kurdish refugees either from a perspective of pity and humanitarianism, or through the normalisation of unprecedented events, namely the repression of Kurdish people and culture by the Turkish state being equated with the individual experiences of Turks who have been subject to misfortune as a result of natural disasters such as earthquakes. This politics of pity does not emerge amongst Turkish academics through a critique of the repressive actions of the Turkish state which is the main factor of suffering for Kurdish refugees, but rather due to viewing their circumstances as one of misfortune. The disconnect that comes from the pitying observations of mainstream academics who are fortunate not to face the experience of suffering is another factor. In all of this, the traumatic experience of Kurdish refugees concerning torture, imprisonment, escape, exile and their uprooting caused by the politics of the Turkish state is normalised. This tendency shaping observations of the Kurdish refugee experience can be interpreted as a concealment of, whether intentional or unintentional, the repressive and discriminatory politics of the Turkish state that caused the “refugee-ness” of Kurds and other non-Turkish minorities. There seems to be an unreflective and uncritical approach to studies on Kurdish refugees and this also appears to distort knowledge on the complex issues and realities facing the Kurdish population in general and Kurdish refugees in particular.

To challenge these patterns and approaches in Turkish academia and the way it dominates Kurdish refugee studies and shapes knowledge construction about the realities of Kurdish and non-Turkish refugees under the influence of Turkish nationalism, critical, reflective and emancipatory research is indispensable. Such an approach will enable scholars to critically think through and interpret current narratives about past events and interrogate dominant knowledge that is initiated by hegemonic Turkish power structures, values and underlying assumptions on the historical, political and social context of the Kurdish population and refugees. This reflective approach places researchers in a position in which they feel connected with the realities of refugees, and can develop a double reality and consciousness with regards to  their perspectives. Consequently, they require political responsibility rather than pity which omits the crucial role of Turkish nationalism and the state in the suffering of refugees. Finally, emancipatory knowledge production refers to the liberation of academics from official discourses as represented by the state institutions in Turkey that also span across European states. This emancipatory framework is vital to move beyond the constructed and imaginary reality and knowledge that sustains the dominance of Turkish nationalism in favour of the Turkish state. It is also absolutely necessary to challenge the reproduction of colonial politics which prevents self-knowledge, self-reflection and an understanding of the context and experience of refugees and immigrants in question. Thus, a critical, reflective and emancipatory approach has great potential to make a crucial contribution to decolonising studies on refugees and immigrants, as well as the academic space in which knowledge is constructed and disseminated by dominating institutionalised stakeholders.

Feature Image. Kurdish refugees and immigrants demonstrate in London against the Turkish state’s invasion of the predominantly Kurdish city of Afrin in Northwest Syria in 2018. Photograph taken by the author.