52 Men 52 Weeks/ 31 Süreyyya Evren
7/52 for Later
Click to read the article in Turkish/Kurdish
I'm penning this article for a bianet project. 52 men will take the floor to address the issue of male violence and these articles will be published once a week for 52 weeks one after another.
I'm trying to understand the background. When we want 52 men to take the floor and write about male violence, what do we want from these 52 men? The number 52 is a sort of symbolism, cycle to complete a year. It could easily have been one week, and seven articles with one article per day. 52 or seven, it would serve the same purpose. So it is eternal, not a definite number but something that is continuing, that can continue, a reference to continuity, with one end open (for later).
Then, the question is this: What do we want when we want a certain number of men to talk about male violence on behalf of that which is beyond numbers?
I am trying to imagine this by comparing it to a publication that consists of interviews with 52 people selected from the citizens of country X about the invasion, looting and colonialism they carried out in country Y, or the massacre they did against the Q people. Or I'm trying to compare it with a situation where 52 white people whose roots go back to slave owner families are asked to speak about racism against black people. Other political examples also spring to my mind but each of them comes with the burden and distraction of their own context so I'm trying to keep it limited. Do we want the resident of libertarian country A or the libertarian white person to take the floor on such a subject and prove their libertarianism? Like asking them to produce their pass at the door, to show that they are a "bona fide holder" as it were. I don't think so, the purpose should be more than eliminating some among the "bad ones" or attributing privilege to some. It should be about something more than seeing that some can be "less evil" and thus being relieved and easing our fears...
Let's say a white person is talking about the racism they witnessed in a critical incident. We think that this narrative is different than a black person's narrative of the same incident. Is it because it will be like a more "objective", more "impartial" criticism?
An anti-rape movie had become popular when we were in high school. The Accused (1988). A couple of us guys had gone and watched it. The next day, one of the guys who had seen it with us was telling the girls in the classroom about the movie, and he said: "I've thought about it and decided not to rape women ever".
I remember that no one liked this comment (pledge), to put it mildly.
Would the black people like to hear a white person deciding not to be racist ever? I don't think so. I think the main reason of this reluctance is the "possibility" and "desire" of doing it that is kept alive in the expression of "decided not to do it". Maybe there is a need to terminate this possibility.
Another memory. An artist friend, this time it is the 90s and not the 80s I think, had told me that he was walking late at night on İstiklal Street and on the narrow alley next to the French Consulate he noticed that a man was beating a woman, and for a long time he stood there, doing nothing, watching the man beat the woman, knocking her down, punching and kicking her on the ground. And when the beating stopped, when the guy stopped, he also stopped standing, turned around and walked away. With various explanations and questionings of course. If this friend had said, "after the incident on İstiklal Street I decided to be braver in such situations, to take a risk and intervene" would this pledge make us feel better? Would we like to read that for 52 weeks? Why don't we?
It is as if we want there to be not a decision, but a naturalness. A spontaneity... And we want to be given a sign that there might be a spontaneity. If 52 weeks gave such 52 signs, you would read it for 52 weeks. Every black person would read it.
Then, we want a statement that will renew our opinion as to the nature of the white/man. Why? Do we need to think that the bad is not entirely bad? If there is such a need, why?
As far as I can see, basically, the reason is to sustain the possibility of living together, for the next generation. It is not for revenge, but for a revival, for the credibility of a revival.
An ethical proposition that one of the "fathers" of classical anarchism Pyotr Kropotkin loved is hidden in his following riddle: What is the truly moral answer to the question, "why would you rescue a drowning child?" After some deliberation, the answer appears as follows: The most ethical position of all would be "leaping into the water, not through reflection but by instinct", acting "from natural impulse" and jumping into the water with the sole aim of rescuing the child. That is why, confessions and narratives of repression do not reassure us. Just as we would only be startled by a voice that said, "Actually, I also used to burst with the desire to oppress them when I saw a black person; when a woman started talking about separation, I was often very close to beating her but then I held myself back; thoughts of rape crossed my mind so many times before, but I stopped them all, you did not notice it whatsoever, etc."
Do not talk about your desires and the ensuing complicated ethical positions. We are not there. Give me hope that there is a possibility of living together. Show me something that is in your nature. Tell me about something that will come back, that can be fostered, flourished, revived, that can have a future and play a part in our future one way or another because it is in your nature... tell me about something that is unquestionably about you because it is in your nature.
We want there to be heroisms, but without declarations - we do not want stories of heroism. Schindler's list should not be kept by Schindler, so to say.
Neither confessions or narratives of heroism, nor big demonstrations of conscience or admitted disgraces are opening a way.
There is a need to know that there are genuine truths, free of clamor and without declarations.
It is one of the beauties of the 7/52 speaking format, throughout the 52 weeks even if a single man cannot manage to give what he has been asked for, the cycle will still continue. They can be in the wrong to their hearts' content. The format itself is immune to these from the beginning.
If we think that it is an unbelievably humane attempt towards building a future, would we be deemed too human-centered? Then, let us replace the word humane with "life-affirming".
Good anecdotes can also be shared instead of malicious ones, they can also be used as examples. It is also possible to write texts that collect life-affirming moments, attitudes and the moments when people jump into the water without thinking about it. But we do not want to be persuaded into it with good examples. It should be spontaneous and convincing. We should believe that someone jumped into the water without a second thought and saved us from drowning so that we too can believe in our attitude of jumping into the water without a second thought to rescue someone. So that we can thus love ourselves and believe that we also love the other, and gradually also believe that we are loved and can be loved as well...
If the last words are heroes, then I think that is exactly why such articles and article series do not need a last word, they do not need an aphorism, they do not need any big declarations.
I am writing this article for a project of bianet. 52 men will write about male violence and these articles will be published once a week for 52 weeks one after another. (SE/ŞA/APA/SD/TK/IG)
* Images: Kemal Gökhan Gürses