Abstract
Diaspora, memory studies, and decolonization share a common focus on historical justice. Diaspora raises concerns about the separation from one’s homeland. Memory studies investigate how our memories of the past influence our present and how we should approach our traumas. Decolonization seeks to reverse the effects of colonial injustices. Although Diaspora as Translation and Decolonization by Ipek Demir does not explicitly present itself as a contribution to memory research, it intersects with the field. The objective of this work is to utilize diaspora memory as a tool for decolonization and radical transformation of host societies. To analyze whether the book achieves this goal, I will closely examine Demir’s main arguments and her use of the concept of memory in making those arguments.
Demir offers a unique perspective on diaspora, departing from both strands of diaspora literature: “methodologically nationalist discourses and examinations,” which present diasporas as ethnic struggles within nation-states, and a transnational approach, that is supposed to focus on post-nationalism, but according to Demir unfortunately does not (p. 3). Instead, she seeks to position diaspora within postcolonial epistemology by relating it to the concept of empire. As in the postcolonial approach, Demir uses the term empire both as a historical term to refer to both classical empires as well as a sociological condition that refers to the type of power relations in the present between neocolonial powers in the Global North and the postcolonial Global South. This definition encompasses historical and contemporary contexts. Demir aims to expand the temporal and geographical perspectives to better understand the phenomenon of diaspora by placing it within a postcolonial framework, rather than conceiving it as a concept related to the nation-state. The book’s main theme is the potential for diaspora to act as a “decolonizing” force. The transnational literature, which includes works by Bhabha, Hall, and Gilroy, has previously highlighted the potential of the “diaspora condition” to challenge essentialist notions of race and ethnicity. However, this literature did not analyze how diaspora affects power relations (p. 22). Demir argues that the post-modern treatment of the diaspora is not political enough because it does not clearly relate the diaspora to social inequality and exclusion. She considers diaspora as a unique actor capable of “transforming” and “dislodging coloniality” (pp. 1, 6, 135). Postmodernists, in defense of their position, aimed to use diaspora as a tool for deconstructing modernist meta-narratives. They did not intend for the diaspora to become another meta-narrative for effecting change in the world, nor did they aim for a change toward another version of the utopian society.
Demir utilizes literary theory and translation studies as a heuristic to show us various strategies diasporas use in their effort to unravel empire (p. 7). These “strategies” aim at “pushing the boundaries of the target rather than simply assimilating into it” (p. 6). Here, Demir questions the existing integration framework for diasporas and calls instead for diasporas to transform receiving societies. Diasporas can engage in decolonization by “translating their identity struggles and battles to the host” (p. 6). Other major strategies of decolonization which could also be used as tools of analysis are “diaspora as exclusion and transformation,” “diaspora as rewriting and transformation,” “diaspora as erasure and exclusion,” “diaspora as a tension between foreignization and domestication,” “radical remembering,” and “radical inclusion.” She explains how diaspora engages in translation as a decolonizing strategy: “Such translations can take place in the form of foreignization or domestication; they can be partial and at times opaque. They can smooth over differences, leave out sections, and at other times help to achieve ‘unlearning’” (p. 6). As in critical theory, these strategies are both presented as empirical findings and normative suggestions for “intervening in the world” (p. 33).
The book’s main contribution is Demir’s use of translation studies to show how diasporas maintain their culture and express their differences in both the receiving and sending countries. However, some of the strategies she refers to as “translation” were actually studied by social movement theorists as “framing processes.” The fact that the “Kurdish national movement” can be presented as a “human rights movement” to European audiences, while being presented in emotive language to its participants (p. 91) is not surprising to social movement scholars.
In suggesting the strategy of “radical remembering,” Demir underlines “colonial legacies” (p. 25), colonial amnesia, historical justice claims, “radical ways in which diasporas need to be included into the national history”(p. 71), diasporas’ “retelling of collective memory” (p. 91), “traumas of colonialism, nationalism, race, empire, power, and violence”(p. 95), and all sorts of counter-memorialization processes. The author argues that “diaspora is therefore the nemesis of collective amnesia, questioning the spatial and temporal limitations imposed on it” (p. 4). Underlining diaspora agency, she suggests that “[p]ostcolonial diasporas have been, and continue to present themselves as being, constitutive of the national/metropole story, and in so doing they have resisted the segregated way in which White European history and stories of postwar ‘immigration’ are told” (p. 70). While many people support measures to rectify colonial injustices in theory, it is not clear if mandating an unquestioned “anti-colonial counter-memory” narrative will automatically lead to emancipation. Therefore, it is necessary to problematize memory processes. Memory is not a replica of the past as it happened, but rather it is shaped by our present thoughts and emotions and how we choose to remember from our present point of view. Failure to address the issue of multiple narratives of memory and mandating memory with a present agenda, as David (2020) suggests, can create discord and conflict in society, leading to so-called “culture wars.” Even the type of anti-colonial memory can be contested, as in the case of Namibia where government and genocide victims have their own versions of anti-colonial memory. Thus, without a discussion of the heteregenous, incomplete, multifarious nature of memory, postcolonial counter-memorialization can turn into another hegemonic project.
Demir aims to expand our understanding of the temporality of diaspora beyond the modern nation-state era by examining classical empires. This challenges our conventional conceptualization of diaspora as solely related to nation-states. However, she acknowledges that the history of nation-states may still play a role in shaping the diaspora phenomenon. She undertakes a rare example of postcolonial theory being applied to the Ottoman Empire and the Kurdish diaspora. She conducts a case study of the Kurdish diaspora, using extensive interviews and examination of “grey literature” consisting of available news, pieces from diasporic media, documents and Kurdish community association publications and websites, to show how Kurdish agents without a territory employ various strategies to challenge colonialism in the nation-states where Kurds reside as indigenous communities, as well as in Europe where a large Kurdish diaspora has existed since the late 1950s. Finally, the author brings the discussion up to date by showing the relevance of diaspora to present neo-colonial structures, discussing culture wars, anti-multiculturalism, and white identity movements in Europe and the United States under the title “Backlash to Diaspora in the Global North.”
The use of “empire” as both an axiom denoting the current world order and as concrete historical entities, such as the Ottoman Empire, creates a conceptual problem that would not be welcomed by historians. For, the exclusions and injustices in actual colonizing empires throughout history, as well as in neo-colonial structures such as those in Western Africa or the former Soviet Union, and present “postcolonial” Western states, differ vastly. Interestingly, here postcolonial theory’s axioms prevent an empirical and comparative study of colonialism. Despite being well-versed in Turkish studies, Demir does not address the debates among historians regarding whether colonialism can be applied to the Ottoman Empire due to its unique system, which included multiculturalism, mobility for minorities, and a lack of modern economy and ideologies until the final decades of the empire. In addition, the fact that the Ottoman Empire was itself colonized complicates the theoretical framework. In this context, the term “nested colonialisms” could be a useful addition to the discussion. Demir does not mention the Russian or Chinese Empires, despite the fact that both are engaging in full-fledged “classical” colonialism toward Ukraine and Xinjiang Uyghur currently. To develop a general theory of diaspora as a decolonizing force, we must explore empire/diaspora axes from South to South, North to North, and even South to North.
Demir argues that she aims to provide one of the first political accounts of the diaspora, going beyond cultural and economic accounts. However, numerous case studies in the literature classified as “methodologically nationalist” by Demir already demonstrated that diasporas are political actors, even actors in international relations. Demir dismisses “nationalist” diasporas, or their nationalist activities, as she believes they do not have “decolonizing” potential. This presents an ontological and methodological problem. Should we ignore certain aspects of the phenomenon we study because they do not fit our theoretical and normative agenda? Would attending to ethnic identities and national movements of diasporas mean that we commit the sin of “methodological nationalism”? In fact, we can study the national identities and movements of diasporas from a non-essentialist perspective by attending to their processes of social construction.
Something must be said about the conception of diaspora here, especially the neglect of the concept of homeland all through the book. It seems that diaspora was stripped of its essential properties and mostly regarded as a subaltern that merely serves to challenge both sending countries and countries of reception toward a non-colonial future. Diasporas cannot be understood without considering a social memory of the golden ages in their homeland, their myths about the geography of their homeland, and the homeland traditions that they reproduced in diasporic settings. Rebranding “‘ethnopolitical’ struggles and violence within the nation-states” as “transnational indigeneity” does not make them less nationalist (p. 100) as we know that indigenous peoples also utilize the frame called nationalism. Being transnational also does not guarantee that a community will be non-nationalist either. Therefore, diaspora may not necessarily be a response to colonialism, but rather a response to the emergence of nation-states, which often prioritize homogeneity within their borders and demand extraterritorial ties to be broken, leading to counter-mobilization by diaspora communities (Tölölyan, 1991). Some of us have suggested that diaspora itself can be seen as a form of national identity that emerges in response to the dislocations caused by the nation-building processes of nation-states as well as empires. The diaspora’s asserted “heterogeneous” nature (implying other ethnic communities are homogenous) and deterritorialization do not prevent aspirations of communal coherence, which they attempt to achieve through nationalist frames. Memories of homeland and dispersal are instrumental in creating ethnic solidarity within the diaspora community. Long-distance nationalism of diasporas could be the most effective tool for decolonization, just as nationalism in the Third World was the most effective reason for decolonization.
The book employs ambiguous language, such as “disruptions,” “destabilizations,” and “horizontal dialogue with other knowledges” (p. 404), which are typical in postcolonial literature. However, the author’s writing is clear and easy to understand compared to other works in this field. The book presents a well-written and well-argued theoretical standpoint. This review of diaspora studies and contribution to postcolonial theory is insightful and will benefit both later undergraduates and graduate students. It is also highly recommended for those interested in Kurdish Studies.
