Li Hemberî Notirvanên Neteweyê Notirvanên Nerîtê

Li Hemberî Notirvanên Neteweyê Notirvanên Nerîtê

ŞARO I. GARİP – JI TIRKÎ: BESRA

Ew ên netewe û gelên din înkar dikin, yekemîn penageha ku wê birevinê gerdûnîxwazî ye

Ev gotar ceribînek e derbarê netewe, neteweperwerî û etnîsîteyê de ku du sed salên dawî de sosyolojî, siyaset û antropolojiyê de yek ji wan babetan e ku zêdetirîn tên nîqaşkirin. Nîqaşên li ser têgeha neteweyê li seransera dinyayê hê jî bi heraret dewam dikin.

“Babeta bingehîn a felsefeyê endustrîbûn ne lê neteweperwerî ye; makîneya dûkelê û computer ne lê netewe ye.” (Nairn, 2015)

Wê zêde ne şaş be ger mirov bêje li Tirkiyeyê lê bi taybetî di nav kurdan de derbarê van mijaran de sergêjiyeke zihnî heye. Wek mînak kurd ji aliyekî ve nehewcetiya dewletê diparêzin lê li aliyê din pir bi hewes hewl didin şaşî an kêmasiyên dewletên serwer rast bikin. Di mînakeke din de kurd di her firsetê de dibêjin tu derdê wan bi ala neteweyeke din re tuneye lê diyar e derdê wan bi ala wan re heye. Di her wesîle û nîqaşê de dupat dikin ku ew ne neteweperwer in. Gelek caran em nikarin xwe rizgar bikin ji paradîgma û teoriyên ku dinya me ya zihnî dorpêç dikin û pirsa bikin. Bi taybetî raveya zanistî ya di warê sêbareya netewe, etnîsîte ango dewletê de carbicar dikare bê veguhestin bo zanîna îdeolojîk û taliya talî hegemonyayeke îdeolojîk. Em dibînin di vî warî de bi taybetî teoriyên Anderson, Gellner û Hobsbawm ji aliyê alîgirên wan ve li bazarê baş tên firotin. Ji ber ku olîgarşiya fikrî ya navenda serwer, wek zanîngeh û çapamenî van fikran di piyasayê de di tedawulê de dihêlin. Lêbelê xebatên payeberz ên Anthony D. Smith, digel ku ev paradîgma û hegemonyaya teorîk hejandin jî, ji ber ku ji aliyên etnîsîteyan, ku ji ew amrazên navborî yên tehequmê bêpar in, ne bazarkarîkirina wan em dikarin îdia bikin têr nehatin xwendin jî. Ji ber vê, Anderson bi rêwresmeke muhteşem hat veşartin û Smith jî bi rêwresmeke sade hat veşartin.

Destpêk

Yek ji pirsên vê xebatê ev e, ka bo çi hewcedarî heye bo netewe an neteweperwerî, ya rasttir bo têgeha nasnameya neteweyî. Ango wek ceryanên gerdûnîxwaz îdia dikin gelo hemû gunehên du sedsalên dawî yên netewe, ya rasttir, yên neteweperweran e? Di vê nivîsê de em ê liser ew hokerên dibe sedema sergêjiya di warê têgeha neteweyê de ku ev du sedsal e teorisyen liser negihiştine pênaseyeke hevpar, bisekinin.

Wê baş be em ewil bi kurtî behsa bandora rêbazê ya li ser lêkolînê bikin. Boçûnên me yî di warê xebatên zanistên civakî de li gor amrazên em bi kar tînin diguherin. Têgeh, mînak û teoriyên wek referans tên nîşandan dikare bandoreke mezin bikin li ser analîz û encamên lêkolînan. Wek mînak, lêkolînek dikare bi teleskopê di nav çarçoveyeke makro de jî bê kirin, lê bi mîkroskopê analîzeke ber bi kûrahiyê jî dikare bê kirin. Berawirdkirin, delîl, mînak an hin caran pirsên heyatî gelek caran gelek tiştan li nîqaşên zanistî zêde dikin.

Her çiqas rêbaza lêkolîner, hilbijartina têgehan, nirxandin subjektîf be jî, mijara lêkolînê bixwe û dane, diyardeyên derveyî me ne û objektîf in. Hin sînorên boçûna me ya subjektîf hene, divê nirxandinên me honakê neke şûna diyardeyê yan daneyan neguhere û nebe lêkolînêke manîpulekirî ku ji serî de encama wê diyar e. Li vir wek rêbaz, netewe û neteweperwerî di çarçoveyeke makro de tenê wek nîqaşeke teorîk li ser nayê sekinandin lê çêbûna neteweyê û hîmên mîkro yên teorîk ên neteweperweriyê û bandora wan a li ser tevgerên yek bi yek takekesan jî bi awayekî mikro wê liser bê sekinandin. Heta ku gengaz be gelek caran wê bê hewldan bi berawirdkirin û mînakdayinan teorî û realiteya heyî di heman demê de bê famkirin.

Dikare bê gotin, nîqaşa derbarê netewe û neteweperweriyê taliya talî nîqaşa li ser nasnameyê ye jî. Di vê gotarê de bêtir em ê ji vî alî ve nêz bibin. Ne gengaz e û ne rast e jî mirov bo peydabûna diyardeyên netewe û neteweperweriyê dîrokeke teqez û sînorên diyar bide. Ji ber ku ev diyarde ne di demeke diyar de lê di nav pêvajoyekê de çêbûne. Yek ji nîqaşên demên dawî, tezên ku îdia dikin netewe û netewe-dewlet emrê xwe tije kirine. Dema mirov di dîrokê de li awayên îktisadî û siyasî yên civakan dinêre, wek mînak dewletên xulamker an feodal ji hezar salî zêdetir dewam kirine. Ji vî alî ve tê wê wateyê, him civaka kapîtalîst him netewe û neteweperwerî ku tê gotin ev du sed sal e heye, her çiqas niha dewra xwe ya kemilî bijîn jî, wê zû bi zû ji ser dikê neçin. Ji ber ku diyardeyên netewe û neteweperweriyê di pêşveçûyina civakan de teqabulî realîteyekê an êwreke pêşveçûnê dike.

Di sedsala 20mîn de kêm dewlet hene ji holê rabûnê lê dewletên nûava çar caran zêde bûne. Di sedsala 21emîn de hejmara dewletên nûava kêm bûbin jî, pêvajoya çêbûna dewletên nû dewam dike (Jahn, 2015, pp. 13-31). Li aliyekî din jî, gelek etnî an gel ji ber bêdewletbûnê asimîle bûne ango ji aliyê fizîkî ve winda bûne. Wek mînak her tim jî Yekitiya Ewropayê tê dayin bo xilasbûna netewe-dewletê. Ger Yekitiya Ewropayê bi ser keve jî, di nav yekitiyê de eyn wek nasnameyên qewmî yên serdema împeratoriyan netewe jî wê wek xwe bimînin û dikare ber bi împeratoriyê biçe. Niha zehmet e mirov pêşbiniyekê bike gelo wê di nav sedsalên bê de sîstema siyasî ya cîhanê xwe wek bajar-dewlet, netewe-dewlet an împeratoriyên modern birêxistin bike. Lêbelê em dikarin bi hêsanî pêşbinî bikin ku nasnameyên etnîk an neteweyî ku ji bajar-dewletên antîk heta roja me bi hezaran salan dewam kiriye, wê zû bi zû ji holê ranebin.

Etnîsîte, Netewe û Nasnameyên Kolektîf

Di zanistên civakî de, bi gelemperî wek di mijarên din de, di warê netewe û neteweperweriyê de jî ligel pêvajoya tîr a nîqaşê hemramaniyek peyda nebûye. Berê berê divê ev bê diyarkirin, têgehên netewe, etnîsîte û netewe-dewlet gelek nêzî hev in. Lewma di pênasekirina wan de gelek caran teşqele derdikeve. Di vê xebatê de bêtir em ê têgeha neteweyê ya Smith esas bigrin. Ewil, divê qala du boçûnên sereke yên derbarê neteweyê de bê kirin.

Ewên neteweyê wek sazkirinekê dibînin
Ewên neteweyê wek çêbûnekê dibînin

Di vê xebatê de tê îdiakirin netewe wek pêvajoya wêrara civakî ya domdirêj çêbûye, ne ku hatiye sazkirin. Dema qala sazkirinê bê kirin, lazim e qala aktorên wê jî bê kirin; a duyem, sazkirina nasnameyê teqabulî kêmtir wextê dike li gor çêbûnê. Wek mînak, dema em li hin hêmanên nasnameyên neteweyî dinêrin, dîn, ziman an nasnameyên welatî di nav salên dirêj de lê di nav hevbandoriyekê de û li ser qebûleke hilberîneke kolektîf e. Yanê, di nav demeke kurt de komeke bijarte bi yekalî ew saz nekirine. Nasnameyên etnîk û neteweyî di nav hev de ne. Nasnameyên neteweyî di nav du sed salên dawî de, berovajî îdiayên modernîstan, nehatine sazkirin lê ew ji nav pêvajoyeke wêrarê derketiye ku diçe heta serdema antîk û belkî beriya wê jî. Wek Connor dibêje, tevgerên etno-neteweperwer encama pêvajoyeke wêrarê ye. Ev fikra Connor hizra me destek dike: “raveyeke ku zêde nehatiye dîtin wisa dibêje, di nav baskî, bretonî, gallî û komên wek wan de, bilindbûna pêla etno-neteweperwer, merhaleyeke xwezayî û heta texmînkirî ya pêvajoyeke ku du sed sal e dewam dike, nîşan dike.” (Connor, 1994, r.169).1

Jinûvesazkirin jî encax dikare rêxistiniya siyasî ya neteweyî destnîşan bike ya na teqabulî nasnameya neteweyî an çanda etnîk nake. Û aloziyeke din jî (ji bilî deqên zanistî yên cidî), bêyî ku li êwrên neteweperweriyê yên wêrarî an cure an kategoriyên cuda bê nêrîn, bi giştî wek blok tên nirxandin. Di vê nivîsê de wê hizreke nêzî pênaseya netewe û neteweperweriyê ya Smith bê parastin. Smith neteweyê wisa pênase dike: navê civateke mirovan e ku axek/welatekî dîrokî, efsane û bîra dîrokî ya hevpar, çandeke girseyî, aboriyeke hevpar, maf û berpirsyariyên hevpar parve dikin (Smith, 2014, r.32). Pêkhateyên wek ax/welat, zagonên hevpar di pênaseyên teorisyenên din de jî hene.

Di nîqaşên neteweperweriyê de qenaetek din a berbelav heye ku hemû netewe di dem û mekanên cuda de dane ser heman rêyê û xwedî heman taybetmendiyan e. Lê ne geşbûna kapîtalîzmê ne modernbûn ne diyardeyên din î civakî nebûne xwedî heman taybetmedî û merhaleyên mînakên ewil (wek mînak, endustriya Îngilîstanê û ya Çînê bi heman awayî nebûye). Wek diyardeyeke civakî (siyasî û çandî) netewe, li ser xeteke rast (linear) pêş ve neçûye lê pêşveçûna wê li gor zeman û mekanê bi awayên cuda bûye û erkên wê jî cuda bûne. Modelên neteweyê, yên rojavayî yanê yên li ser hîmê sazî û axê (territorial) çêbûne û yên rojhilatî yanê yên xwe dispêrin etnîsîteyê, navbera wan de cudatî hene. Awayê rojavayî bêtir awayê staatsnation e (dewlet-netewe: Fransa, Îngilîstan, Tirkiye), li ser territoriyekê bi riya saziyan (siyaset an dewlet) çêbûye, Kulturnation jî (çand-netewe: Almanya, Italya) terza rojhilatî ye ku li ser hîmê etnîk û qewmî ava bûye (Smith, 2014, r.24). Dewlet-netewe di çarçoveya rêxistîbûna sazîyî de be jî, pîvanên netewebûnê dihewîne yên ku di pênaseya jor de derbas dibe. Ev awayê neteweyê zêdetir encama serdema ewil û rêxistîbûna etniya berwarî ye. Etniya berwarî2 bi giştî rêxîstinbûnek e ku ji aliyê arîstokrasiya etniya tovik tê kirin. Wek mînak, gelek neteweyên wek bermayiyên împeratoriyan peyda bûne (Fransa, Îngilîstan, Ispanya…) bi vî awayî çêbûne. Ji ber ku koma etnîk a tovik ku burokrasiya dewletê, amrazên stratejîk (leşkerî, siyasî û aborî) destê wê de ye, wek koma damezirîner bi îdiaya ku aîdê wê ye dewleta nû radestî koma xwe ya etnîk dike, yanê dewlet-netewe çêdibe. Wek mînak bermayiya osmaniyan tirkan girt ser xwe û wek rêxistîbûneke etnîk a berwarî dewlet û dewlet-netewe bi hev re saz kirin. Etniyên berjor (dikey) jî ne wek terza rêxistinbûna komek bijarte lê awayekî rêxistinbûnê ye ku hemû tebeqe beşdar dibin (Smith, 2014). Pêla duyem a neteweçêbûnê jî bêtir dikare wek teqlîda neteweyên serdema ewil an berteka wan bê dîtin. Em dikarin neteweyên Ewropaya Rojhilat mînak bidin. Neteweyên pêla sêyem ên serdema antî-kolonyal in. Kategoriyên neteweyên pêla duyem û sêyem bi giranî li ser hîmê birêxistinbûnên etniyên berwarî çêbûne. Ji ber ku ew ji amrazên etnîsîteya berwarî bêpar e loma ji birêxistinbûna girseyî pê ve ti şensa wê tuneye. Ji ber ku netewe ji nişka ve li ser dika dîrokê peyda nabe, di nav pêvajoyekê de çêdibe, modela Hroch ku vê pêvajoyê rave dike di êwrên A, B, Cyê de di neteweyên serdema 2. û 3mîn de birêxistinbûnên berjor û berwarî roleke çawa lîstine, vê bi awayekî empîrîk daniye holê. Hroch tevgera neteweyê di nav sê êwran de dabeş dike. Êwra yekem, “neteweperweriya romantîk” (komên biçûk, nivîskar, arîstokrat); êwra duyem, “şiyarbûna neteweyî” (komên mezintir, komele); êwra sêyem, “neteweperweriya siyasî” (tevgera girseyî) (Hroch M., 1985). Wek mînak awayê birêxistinbûna kurdan terza birêxistinbûna etniya berwarî ye. Ferqa di navbera cureyê neteweyên serdema yekem û yên 2em û 3emîn de ne- teweperweriyên van serdeman jî cuda kiriye. Wê serrû be mirov hewl bide netewe û neteweperweriyê ji hev îzole têbigihê. Smith neteweperweriyê bi rehendên wê yên dîrokî û civakî pênase dike: “Neteweperwerî qasî ku parçeyek ji ‘ruhê serdemê’ ye, ewqas jî girêdayî motîf, texeyul û fikrên berê ye jî. Neteweperwerî di gelek radeyan de kar dike û qasî ku îdeolojiyeke siyasî û tevgereke civakî ye, wek awayekî çandê jî dikare bê dîtin” (Smith, 2014, r.118). Netewe û neteweperwerî ku di heyama me de yek ji nîqaşên zêdetirîn biheraret e, li gor hin kesan tiştekî naletî ye û li gor hin kesan jî pîroz tê dîtin. Wek mînak ên naletê li neteweperweriyê tînin dibêjin neteweperwerî:

Bêtifaqiyê dixe navbera gelan, dibe sedema pevçûnên navbera etnîsîte û çandan de.
Li ser navê nasnameyê azadiya him takekes him koman tê tengkirin.
Astengî ye li pêş armanca mirovatî û gerdûniyê.

Lê yên pîroz dibînin jî ji ruwangeyeke erênî li neteweperweriyê dinêrin û dibêjin:

Çanda kêmaran diparêze.
Dîrok û wêjeya winda dide jiyandin.
Rê li ber qeyrana nasnameyî digre.
Li hember tîran kaniya berxwedanê ye, civak û piştevaniya civakî rewa dike.

Mirov heta di nav awayên neteweperweriyê de tesnîfekê neke, bi gelemperîkirineke qebe nikare van îdiayên di leh û aleyhê neteweperweriyê de fam bike. Li jor me gotibû neteweperweriyên serdemên 1, 2 û 3emîn taybetmendiyên wan cuda hene. Lazim e em di nav van idiayan de, neteweperweriyên serwer û ya bindest têxin nav du kategoriyan û dû re analîz bikin. Wek mînak, neteweperwerên neteweyên serwer bi saya îmtiyazên serwerbûnê bêtir îdiayên di aleyhê neteweperweriyê de diparêzên. Lê dema em ji aliyê neteweperwerên neteweyên bindest dinêrin, em ê bibînin ku ev ne rast in. Ji ber ku yê ku tovên bêtifaqiyê diçînin neteweperweriyên navendê ne. Neteweperweriya serwer, çand û nasnameya neteweya bindest înkar dike yan wan asimîle dike û heta tune bike, û ew dibe sedema nîfaqan. Yanê ev ne helwesteke rast e ku mirov rabe liberxwedana yên tên qetilkirin û asimîlekirin sucdar bike û wan wek sedema nîfaqê bi nav bike. Ne rast e ku nasnameya neteweyî rê li ber nasnameyên takekesî digre ji ber ku nasnameya takekesî di nav nasnameya komî şikil digre û tak nasnameya komî bi hev re hildiberînin. Lê ev rast e ku nasnameya neteweyî rê li ber nasname û azadiya komên din digre ji ber ku nasnameyên serwer meylek wan bi vî awayî heye. Îdiaya ku nasnameya neteweyî li ber gerdûnîbûn û yek-mirovayetiyê dibe asteng ji ruwangeya serweran tê ravekirin. Ev gerdûnîbûn, bêyî nirxên neteweyên bindest tevî bibe tenê bi tifaqa yên serwer hatiye çêkirin û li ser pişta yên bindest bilind dibe û li wan tê ferzkirin. Neteweyên bindest di nav gerdûnîbûna serwer de û di nav malbata mirovatiyê de ji xwe re ciyekî nabîne. Berovajiya vê dikare bê îdiakirin, dema neteweyên bindest li hemberî neheqiyên li wan dibe serê xwe radikin û hewl didin di nav malbata mirovatiyê de ji xwe re ciyekî bibînin, dikare bê gotin ku ew gerdûnîbûna heyî ya bêedalet û malbata mirovatiyê bi pêş ve dibin.

Ger em li îdiayên leyhê neteweperweriyê binêrin, elbet neteweyên bindest bi giştî dikevin dû dîrok û wêjeya xwe, di dîrokê li şopên qewmên xwe digerin û hewl didin zêdebariyên (surplus value) xwe yî çandî ji mêtinkaran xilas bikin. Bi taybetî ev di êwra neteweperweriya romantîk de pir zêde ye. Yanê neteweperwerên neteweyên bindest notirvaniya nerît an çandên xwe dikin. Ya na, wê çanda wan bê talankirin û çanda talankirî her tim li ser neteweya serwer tê hisabkirin. Hewldana rizgarkirina nerîtan ji muzexaneyên neteweyên serwer ku bûne gorên etnîk, ne ji ber miraqa wan a tiştên antîka ne, bîlakîs hewldana lêvegerandina malên hatiye dizîn bo xwediyê wan e. Nirxên wan î dîrokî di muzexane û galeriyên neteweyên serwer de tên pêşandan. Bi taybetî wêje û dîroka kurdî yek ji baştirîn mînakên vê talanê ne. Kurd, ji ber ku nasnameya wan ji aliyê neteweyên serwer bi salan e tê tepisandin, bi trawmayeke mezin re rû bi rû mane û li wan hatiye ferzkirin nasnameyeke din li xwe bikin. Ev trawmayê takekesên bixwenebawer û jixwe-biyanîbûyî afirandiye û bûye sedema qeyraneke nasnameyî. Lê yên neteweperwer dikarin vê bixwebawerî û îtibara neteweyî li wan vegerînin û rê li ber vê qeyranê bigrin. Neteweperwerî dikare bi awayekî lez li hemberî tîran piştevaniya etniya bindest qewîn bike. Lêbelê, ev argumentên di leyh de ji bo neteweyên serwer ku notirvaniya neteweyê dikin, derbas nabe. Ji ber ku neteweya serwer bi gelemperî çanda din înkar dike û hewl dide bîra hevpar a bindestan tune bike yan di nav xwe de bihelîne. Bi gotineke din, rê li ber qeyrana nasnameyî, talana çandî û tehequmê vedike.

Dema nasmaneya xurt tunebe, mirov li ber şêmûka qeyranê ye –ne tenê dilgiran e, hema bêje nikare wek bi awayekî asayî tevbigere. Serdemên ku mirov bi gefa windakirina nasnameya xwe re rû bi rû dimînin, wek qeyran tên pênasekirin (Taylor, 2002, r.271).

Lazim e di nav hemû van nîqaşan de em li ser teoriyên modernîst bisekinin ku mohra xwe li wan xistine. Tê zanîn ên modernîst diyardeyên netewe û neteweperweriyê bêtir wek encama modernîteyê dîtine. Her çiqas piştî rexneyên teorisyenên wek Smith û Connor yên modernîst, wek Anderson, Hobsbawm (Hobsbawm & Ranger, 2006), Gellner (Milliyetçiliğe Bakmak, 2016) pejirandin ku kokên neteweyan di antîkîteyê de ne, dîsa jî îdia dikin netewe di eslê xwe de berhem an projeyek e ku ji aliyê bijarteyên modernîst hatiye sêwirandin. Hejmara kesên ku neteweyê wek diyardeyekê ne, lê wek honaka neteweperweran (carna ya burjuwaziyê) dibînin gelek in. Ji ber du sedeman em dikarin li vê tezê îtiraz bikin. A ewil, îdiayeke mantiqî ye. Pêwendiya navbera netewe û neteweperweran dikare bê şibandin pêwendiya navbera masî û masîgirê. Ger masî tunebû wê masîgir jî tunebûya! A duyem, lêkolîna ampîrîk ya Horch ku derbarê neteweyên şiyarbûyî yên Ewropayê de bi berfirehî û berawirdkî amade kiriye, raberî me dike ku di nav pêşengên destpêka nasnameya neteweyî de, di heyamên cuda de, gelek tebeqeyên cuda hebûne (Hroch, 2011).

Anderson û Gellner neteweyê wek projeyeke bijarteyan dibînin. Wek mînak, di ser mînaka “leşkerê meçhûl” re dibêje netewe jî wek cimaetên dînî bi rêya sêwirandinê hatiye sazkirin (Anderson, 1991, rr.20-23). Dibêje bi saya modernîte, xwendin-nivîsandin û çapameniyê çandeke hevpar û hesteke cimaetî çêbûye û ji bo zimanê standart ên îro tên bikaranîn jî dibêje.

Gellner û Anderson bi taybetî di mînakên xwe de cî didin Tirkiyeyê. Beriya her tiştî, neteweya kurd ku mafê bikaranîna zimanê wan ji destê wan hatiye girtin, bi wêjeya devkî nasnameya xwe ya neteweyî bi awayekî xurt didomîne. Her çiqas dirûşmeya “Kurdistana muxayel li vir veşartî ye” bê gotin jî, neteweya kurd ne bo dewletê ne bo Anderson û Gellner ne tiştekî îcadkirî an texeyulkirî ye. A din, gelo modernîst wê çawa rave bikin ku zimanê almanî, fransî yan spanyolî, digel hebûna latîniya xurt, bo çi ji holê ranebûn! Neteweya Anderson û Gellner encax dikare halên pir îstisnayî yên projeyeke honakî ya moderniteyê rave bike. Wek mînak, konsepta neteweyê ya li Tirkiyeyê projeyeke bijarteyan e û hemû gelên xeynî tirkan bî vê sêwirînê wek tirk hatine qebûlkirin.

Wek ku Smith dibêje, girêyeke organîk heye di navbera nasnameya etnîk û ya neteweyî de. Loma modelên neteweyî yên li ser nasnameyên etnîk bilind dibin gelekî bi îstîkrartir in û ji aliyê sosyolojîk ve jî biberekettir in (Smith, 2014, r.73). Neteweyên DYA (USA), Awistralya an Arjantînê ku eweliyatek wan a etnîk tuneye mînakên îstisnayî ne. Lê ev halên îstisnayî dikare piraniya pêşveçûna werarî ya civak, etnîsîte an neteweyên li cîhanê temsîl bike. Ji ber vê, anormalî ne lê geşedanên dîrokî yên rewa divê bibe bingeh ji bo encamên lêkolînên zanistî.

Girîngiya nasnameyê

A rast, modernîst li bende bûn ku aîdiyeta etnîk û nasnameya neteweyî bi refahê bên îkamekirin. Lê modernbûn du serê wê hebûn, li aliyêkî wê bandora hatiniya aborî li aliyê din bandora hişmendiyê hebû. Belki bi saya zêdebûna hatiniya xwe wê ji şerê nasnameyî feraxat bikira lê ji aliyekî ve bi geşbûna aborî re wê hişmendî jî bilind bibûya û bi amrazên cudatir şerê bo mafê xwe bimeşandina. Lê wek wan derneket. Wek ku Nairn gotiye, di eslê xwe de û baş e ku kes eslê xwe yî xwemalî winda nake (Nairn, 2015, r.79). “Ez bawer nakim ku mirovatiyê, ji bo li hemberî macdonaldbûnê, îslamîbûn an bernameyên telewizyonê yên sibehan têk biçin, împeratorî bi erdê ve rakiribin” (Nairn, 2015, r.124).

Tişta li bende bûn nebû, bi modernbûnê re etnîsîte jî modern bûn û di warê nasnameyê de berxwedaneke nedîtî nîşan dan. Heta niha di nav nasnameyên civakî de herî zêde bo nasnameyên neteweyî an etnîk bedel hat dayin. Gelo bo çi mirov an civak ewqas amade ne bo van nasnameyan bedelên giran bidin?

Du rehendên pêkhateyên nasnameya neteweyî hene; yek ji pêkhateyan derûnî yanê rehenda hestî ye, a din pêkhateya sosyolojîk (çandî) û ya siyasî ye. Etnîsîte di çêbûna nasnameyên kom û takekesan de roleke girîng dilîze. Loma aîdiyeta etnîk pêdiviyeke hestî ye. Li gor ramangerê kanadayî Michael McDonald ji aliyê çêkirina nasnameyê fenomena çêbûna komê, bi rêya qebûlditîna hundirîn a komeke etnîkî û çêbûna wê ya di demeke dirêj de gelekî girîngtir û zexmtir e, ji yekitiya armancê, ku komên li ser berjewendiyên hevpar ava bûne li ser xwe dihêle, (McDonald, 1986, r.120).

Piştgiriya di nav komên etnîk de, tevgerîna wan û bi taybetî berdewamiya wê fenomeneke tarîfa wê zehmet e û tenê bi desthilatdariya bijarteyan û teoriyên derbarê berjewendiyan de nikare bê ravekirin. Ev pirsa ku takekesên endamên komeke etnîk in çima, wek mînak, di nav komên çînî an yên din î siyasî de birêxistinî nabin, çima di nasnameya xwe de israr dikin, heta mirinê jî didin ber çavê xwe, divê baş bê lêkolandin.

Antropolog Arnold L. Epstein ku di warê berxwedêriya kêmarên etnîk de dixebite, xwedî konsepteke berfireh a etnîsîteyê ye. Di sêwirîna wî de nasnameya etnîk encama têgihîna hundirîn, û bertek û hevbandoriyên derveyî ne ku li hev bandor dikin. Li gor Epstein, “çanda mahrem” (intimate culture), ji bo nasnameya etnîk roleke mezin dilîze. Wek “tevgera etnîk” hin nirx û helwestên ku di jiyana rojane de xuya dikin, wek nasnameya etnîk bi taybetî di zarokatî û ciwantiyê de tên veguhêztin. Ji ber vê, dîrok bo nasnameya etnîk/neteweyî rola navbeynkariyê dilîze. Di nav vê peywendê de, dîrok derfet dide berdewamiya komê û ya takekes (xwe-bûyîn). Hestên nasnameya etnîk ji merivatiyê, temasên şexsî yên wek derdor/têkiliya bi hevalan re û tora têkiliyên li ser hev siwar dibin pêk tê. Hevbandoriyên bi vî awayî ewlehî, bawerî, qebûldîtin û hesta biqedirbûnê çêdikin (Epstein, 1978). Nasnameyên etnîk/neteweyî wek malbatê nasnameyên esasî ne, yanê ew wan hilnabijêrin. Loma ev nasname ne zû bi zû çêdibin ne bi hêsanî winda dibin. Wek endamtiya tîmeke futbolê an partiyeke siyasî ku em wan hildibijêrin, bi qasî ketina nav wan derketina ji wan jî rihet e (Garip, 2012).

Epstein berxwedêriya koma etnîk bi pêdiviyên hundirîn lê bi taybetî jî bi yên derveyî ve girê dide. Li vir, ji ber ku çi takekes çi kom be li ser çavkanî û hêza pênasekirin/desthilatdariyê di nav rakêşiyê de ne, aîdiyeta etnîk jî dikeve bin bandora kombûnên desthilatdarî û berjewendiyan (Epstein, 1978, r.100).

Dema em di çarçoveyeke fireh de binêrin, ji pênaseya neteweyê ya wan neteweyan em dikarin fam bikin ka çima kom girîngî didin nasnameya neteweyî.

Axeke hevpar: Sedema li pişt romantîzekirina welêt ew e ku ew ax ciyê lêjiyînê yê hevpar e. Yanê ev romantîzm ne xweşkirineke utopîk e, helbesteke ku bo warê jiyanê hatiye terxankirin. Beriya her tiştî ew ji aliyê fizîkî ve tevî dewlemendiyên xwe yên binerd û sererd ciyekî lêjiyanê dabîn dike. A din, ew war e ku çanda hevpar li ser wê çêbûye.

Bîra hevpar û dîrok: Bîra hevpar, mîrata hilberîna kolektîf e ku kom wê di nav berdewamiyekê de dewr digrin. Wek mînak, dîrok û bîra hevpar di nav zimên de hatine kodkirin. Hemû ev nerît, bo mîrata dîrokî, etnîsîte/neteweyê sermiyaneke bêhempa ya zanîn û çandê ye. Ligel vê, ruhê hevpar ê komê, komê û endamên wê li hemberî metirsiyên derveyî diparêze.

Encam

Çawa ku hiqûqa gerdûnî, li ser hîmê edaletê di warê maf û azadiyê de bêyî ku cudatî têxe navbera nijad, dîn û zimanan her kesî dike xwedî mafê wekhev, di warê mafên koman de jî ku takekes tê de şikil digre, maf û azadiya ku huquqa navneteweyî diyar kiriye, çi mezin çi biçûk hemû kom divê wek hev jê îstifade bikin. Ger em etnîsîte an neteweyan wek civatên mezin, cimaetan wek komên biçûk pênase bikin, hemû kom lazim e ji hemû azadi û mafan bi qasî hev îstifade bikin. Çawa ku azadî û mafên bingehîn li ser nayê bazarkirin, nayê dewrkirin û nayê parçekirin, mafên koman ên hevpar jî, wek dîn, ziman, ax hwd. azadî û mafên bi vî rengî ne. Bi qewlê Connor, ji ber ku di qada navneteweyî de hin kom ji van mafên xwe bêpar tên hiştin, pevçûnên etnîk û neteweyî derdikevin. Connor diyar dike ku ji 5000an3 zêdetir komên etnîk hene lê ji van ji sedî 10ê wan, mafê wan dewletbûnê heye. Dest nîşan dike ku alozî ji vir derdikeve û sedema pevçûnan ne ew etnîsîteyên serhildêr in lê bêparhiştina wan a ji vî mafî ye.

Ferqek heye di navbera neteweperweriya ku yên serwer kirine amraza tepisandinê û neteweperweriya rewa ku bo azadbûna bindestan pêwîst e. Teoriyên serdest (Gellner, Andersen, Hobsbawm hwd.) ku neteweperweriyê li gor rojava û bi rêbazên serwer rave dikin, kêmasiyeke wan heye ku nahêlin em vê ferqê bibînin. Teoriyên dijber (Smith, Connor hwd) ku him kêmasiyên teoriyên serdest eşkere dikin him ruwangeyeke nû pêşkêş dikin derbarê netewe û neteweperweriyê de lê kêm kes haya wan ji van teoriyan heye. Ev jî bi awayekî yekser an neyekser bi rêya teorîk xizmeta îdiayên serweran dike ku wan li hemberî têkoşîna bindestan a azadî û nasnameyê saz kirine. Tehekuma teorîk mêtingeriya niha rewa dike lê di heman demê de vê mêtingeriyê ji nû ve hildiberîne. Neteweperweriya kurdî muzdarîb e ji rexneyên him ji hundir him ji derve ku bi rêya referansdayina teoriyên serdest tên kirin.

Neteweperweriya neteweyên serwer, ser navê gerdûnîbûnê bedelê şerê giran ên etnîk li ser pişta neteweperweriya naletî ya xumamî dike û ji aliyekî ve him sucên xwe bin cilik dike, ji aliyekî ve jî nahêle neteweyên bindest derkevin ser dikê. Neteweperweriya serwer tevgereke bêmilkkirin/bêkokkirin û bênasnamekirinê ye. Talana welat û çandê mînakeke baş e bo vê. Medeniyeta çandên zincîrkirî tê xespkirin û ji medeniyetê tên derxistin. Tişta hatiye serê çanda aztek, maya, afrîka û kurdan ev e. Loma notirvanên neteweyên serwer, li ser navê lanetkirina neteweperweriyê beriya ku wek “biricimkirina şeytên” dest bi biricimkirina notirvanên nerîtan bikin, hewcedariya wan bi ayîna “derxistina şeytanê hundirê xwe” heye. Taylor xwe dispêre mecbûriyeta kategorîk a Kant û dibêje her insan yekta ye û resen e û lazim e her kes ji vê yektabûn û reseniya di xwezayê de heye sadiq bin û rêz bîgre. Helbet vê tehemula beramber wek tiştekî luks ne lê wek pêşmerca bihevrejiyanê dibîne. Lê vê tenê bo takekesan nabêje bo koman jî diparêze (Taylor, 1993).

Neteweperwerî di destê neteweyê bindest de amraz/îdeolojiyeke girîng a azadiyê ye. Erkeke wê ya girîng heye bo vejandin an zelalkirina hişmendiya neteweyî ku tê xwestin bê xesandin. Komên ku hişmendiya wan a etnîk/neteweyî hatiye xesandin xwebaweriya wan kêm e, di baxçeyê hişmendiya kesên din de dîl hatine girtin. Loma dikarin afirîneriya xwe jî winda bikin. Wek ku bo neteweperweriya hemû bindestan pêwîst e, divê neteweperweriya kurd jî di nav vê çarçoveyê de li ser bê fikirîn, wateya xwe ya heqîqî bibîne û zemîna wê ya meşrû bê dîtin.

Nîşe: Ev nivîs bi saya derfetên madî û manewî yên Weqfa Lêkolînên Civakî (Sosyal Araştırmalar Vakfı) hatiye nivîsandin. Spasdar im bo wan.

1 “One explanation that has been overlooked is that the surge of ethnonationalism among Basques, Bretons, Welsh, and other such groups reflects a quite natural and perhaps even predictable stage in a process that has been underway for approximately two centuries” (Connor 1994: 169).

2 Smith, bo birêxistinkirina etnîk a berwarî filistînî, normandiyayan dide, bo bêrêxistinkirina etnîk a berjor jî îrlandî, baskî û katalanan mînak dide (2014, 91). Divê bo birêxistinkirina berwarî kurd jî wek mînak bê dayin.

3 Kymlicka, Will (1995) The Rights of Minority Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press. “Introduction:” rr.1–27.

ÇAVKANÎ

Anderson, B. (1991). Hayali Cemaatler. (I. Savaşır, Trans.) Istanbul, Türkiye: Metis.

Connor, W. (1994). Ethno Nationalism. Princeton.

Epstein, A. L. (1978). Ethos and Identity: Three Studies in Ethnicity. London, Engl;and: Tawistock.

Garip, S. I. (2012). Ethnische Konflikte im Vergleich:Baskenland-Kurdistan. Berlin, Almanya: Lit Verlag.

Gellner, E. (2016). Milliyetciliğe Bakmak. (N. Soyarik, & Ö. Saltuk, Trans.) Istanbul, Türkiye: Iletişim.

Hobsbawm, E. J., & Ranger, T. (2006). Geleneğin Icadi. (M. M. Şahin, Trans.) Istanbul, Türkiye: Agora Kitaplığı.

Hroch, m. (2011). Avrupada Milli Uyanış (1 ed.). (A. Özdemir , Trans.) Istanbul, Türkiye: iletisim.

Hroch, M. (1985). Das Erwachen kleiner Nationen als Problem der komparativen sozialgeschichtlichen Forschung. In H. A. Winkler, & H. A. Winkler (Ed.), Nationalismus. Konigstein, Deutschland.

Jahn, E. (2015). Politische Streitfragen (Vol. weltpolitische Herausforderungen). Wiesbaden, Almanya: Springer.

Kymlicka, Will (1995) The Rights of Minority Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press. “Introduction”.

Mcdonald, M. (1986). Collective Rights and Tyranny. University of Ottowa Quarterly , 56, 115-120.

Nairn, T. (2015). Miliyetçiliğin Yüzleri (1 ed.). (S. Kırdar, & M. Ratip, Trans.) istanbul, Turkiye.

Smith, A. D. (2014). Milli Kimlik (7 ed.). (B. S. Şener, Trans.) Istanbul, Türkiye Iletisim.

Taylor, C. (1993). Multikulturalismus und die Politik der Anerkennung.

Taylor, C. (2002). Wie viel Gemeinschft braucht die Demokratie. Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.

Li Hemberî Notirvanên Neteweyê Notirvanên Nerîtê

Vejandina Zimanê Îbranî

Nûrealîzma Îtalî, Yilmaz Guney û Hêvî

Tehlîlek di Peywenda Teorîya Monomîtê de li ser Çîroka “Meymûn Xanim û Mîrze Memûd”

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Li Hemberî Notirvanên Neteweyê Notirvanên Nerîtê

Related Posts

Vejandina Zimanê Îbranî

Nûrealîzma Îtalî, Yilmaz Guney û Hêvî

Tehlîlek di Peywenda Teorîya Monomîtê de li ser Çîroka “Meymûn Xanim û Mîrze Memûd”

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply