Let’s look at the problems that linger on from the early years of the Republic, the dilemma that determines today’s cultural policies. The first one concerns the memory–identity relationship and the Republic’s failure to connect satisfactorily with its own classics and canons. It wasn’t able to connect because it lacked the experience to do so. Everyone was quite familiar with Divan literature and Ottoman music, but when the Republic decided to shift to Western music instead, it imposed the task on a group that became known as the “Turkish Five.” Despite the strict mandate, these composers pursued a powerful synthesis: They adapted folk songs into polyphonic compositions and wrote folk dances in the same manner. They pulled it off, and it was no mean feat. Necil Kâzım went all the way back to Itrî’s music from the 17th century for inspiration. This wasn’t the wrong approach, so where was the mistake? The mistake was ignoring our distinctive and original culture, and that’s what we did for awhile. But these examples show that it’s possible to overcome this mistake, and that our culture is Turkey’s great treasure. The West built on its religious musical tradition to advance all the way to Beethoven and Mozart. We left ours where it was and never sought to transform it. But today we have the wealth offered by two cultures. We can use them together. Not that Western classical music can be learned overnight. But then again, classical Turkish music is an acquired taste, too. Both Bach and Meragi appeal to the same taste and mentality. People aren’t born with a predilection for one over the other. Learning to enjoy music is a matter of culture, as is making music and moving from one style to another. The Republic attempted to do this, but was bound by its own radicalism. Adnan Saygun relates how he and fellow composers were gathered around the table asking themselves why they were there and how they were going to enact the reforms demanded of them. The telephone rang incessantly, he said; it was the Palace asking, “Is the reform done, is this music done, or not?” That was the nature of the need. I won’t call it an imposition, but it was continued insistence. Let me expand on this a little. The most frequently revisited theatrical character worldwide is Hamlet. Everyone does Hamlet. Everyone does ancient Greek classics, everyone does Sophocles and Euripides – what an inexhaustible source. But we don’t make enough use of all those plays by Abdülhak Hamit like Finten and Tarık that were partly inspired by the Western canon. I believe the time has come. Someone will emerge, someone with a new method and approach, and say, “Let’s take a look at them.” There are so many texts from the late 19th century, from the Constitutional Monarchy Era, that will lend themselves to a variety of interpretations and serve as source material. Let’s revisit them. I firmly believe there will be an explosion of interest very soon. I believe it because in the past decade Turkey has caught up with the rest of the world in contemporary art.

Other than the size of venue, there’s absolutely no difference between art created in Turkey today and shown in Istanbul galleries and the art shown in New York galleries. Place these painters and artists anywhere else in the world, and they will stand on their own two feet, as they already do. The practice I’ve mentioned will also happen in time; the accumulation is nearly ready. As for amnesia, well, yes, it could have been different. But that’s history for you; you can’t change the past.

Now the second factor we’ll have to cover is this: Looking for the source of the problems in the past effectively dodges present-day issues. Two principal concepts define the cultural space in the world; one is multiculturalism, and the other is pluralism. If we were to take a stand against multiculturalism by imposing a monolithic, singular, monistic, and mononuclear culture, we would fall far behind socially and in solving our cultural problems, never mind reusing our heritage. It would create a great deal of social trouble. The concept of multiculturalism emerged for a reason: the need to find ways for different cultures to coexist sociologically in the wake of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the breaking down of borders, the migrations and fluidity of the 1990s. Sadly, we’ve moved backwards in world politics today. Islamophobia, anti-migrant attitudes, racism and homophobia linger on at shameful levels despite everything. Not that any of it is reason to drop defending what’s right, defending a utopia.

The second side of this coin is pluralism. It’s obvious that a mononuclear world is no longer viable. That’s why these concepts must be kept in mind when determining policies in the sociological field or in art and culture. Conservatism is a right too. It’s one of the three or four most prominent political ideologies in the world. You can be conservative in your own life or political choices, but within a democratic structure and pluralist environment, you must respect the existence of others as much as your own existence. That’s what Turkey should be focusing on.

Debates over culture in Turkey have actually come to a point that could be called Kulturkampf. This term is the name given to the clash between the Catholic Church and secularists that raged in Europe during the 1870s. Later, the term became “culture wars” and was used to describe the tension between progressives and conservatives in the 20th century. This framework defines every aspect of Turkey’s current cultural state. Yet, the matter is not about religious tension; in our history, the dichotomy has taken the form of East vs. West or local vs. universal. That tension and struggle persist today.

The second reason why we can call our current cultural divide Kulturkampf is the part assumed by, or attributed to, religion. The East­­­–West or local–universal tension that had been shaping our lives since the Reforms of 1839 seems to have taken on a secularist–pious form. These two poles have created a dichotomy in debates sanctioned by the state today as well as in society. How society will form and use its cultural arena will be determined by the direction this debate takes.