Walls of Silence: Translating the Armenian Genocide into Turkish and Self-Censorship

Maksudyan, Nazan

doi:10.1080/03017600903205781

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Relatively little conceptual work has been done in the societal context, in spite of the fact that this phenomenon has been observed to be quite prevalent, mainly in the mass media or in other societal‐cultural agencies (Antilla, ; Elbaz, Nets‐Zehngut, Magal, & Abutbul, in press; Kenny & Gross, ; Lee & Chan, ; Nelkin, ). For example, Maksudyan (), who analyzed translations of history books into Turkish, demonstrates how writers, translators, and editors in Turkey censored themselves when addressing information involving the genocide of the Armenians during World War I either to avoid public censorship or to gain approval from the dominant sector in society. He argues that self‐censorship occurs “when the cultural agent censors the work [a publication with the narrative] voluntarily, in order to avoid pubic censorship or in order to achieve approval from the dominating sector in society” (p. 638).…”

Section: The Nature Of Self‐censorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐Censorship as a Socio‐Political‐Psychological Phenomenon: Conception and Research

Bar‐Tal

2017

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self‐censorship of information, defined as an act of intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from others in the absence of formal obstacles, serves as an obstacle to the proper functioning of a democratic society, because it prevents free access to information, freedom of expression, and the flow of information. It is of key importance in societies, as it blocks information that may shed new light on various societal issues. Nevertheless, it is recognized that in certain cases self‐censorship is necessary. The present article provides a comprehensive conceptual framework for self‐censorship and examines it from various angles with empirical examples. It describes its nature and psychological foundations, the motivations that underlie it, the conditions that facilitate its practice, its societal and individual consequences, and, finally, its measurement challenges.

show abstract

Section: The Nature Of Self‐censorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐Censorship as a Socio‐Political‐Psychological Phenomenon: Conception and Research

Bar‐Tal

2017

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Self-censorship is a broad and general phenomenon that is manifested throughout the world in many forms and contexts. It has been addressed in the realm of media (e.g., Antilla 2010); academic work and cultural products (e.g., Maksudyan 2009); organizations, focusing on whistle-blowers (e.g., Morrison and Milliken 2000); and in families, focusing on secret keeping (e.g., Petronio 2010). But it has been relatively overlooked in the societal context (for notable exceptions, see Hayes, Glynn, and Shanahan 2005; Horton 2011).…”

Section: Self-censorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-censorship of Conflict-related Information in the Context of Intractable Conflict

Shahar

Hameiri

Bar‐Tal

et al. 2016

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-censorship is of great importance in societies involved in intractable conflict. In this context, it blocks information that may contradict the dominant conflict-supporting narratives. Thus, self-censorship often serves as an effective societal mechanism that prevents free flow and transparency of information regarding the conflict and therefore can be seen as a barrier for a peacemaking process. In an attempt to understand the potential effect of different factors on participants’ willingness to self-censor (WSC) conflict-related information, we conducted three experimental studies in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Study 1 revealed that perception of distance from potential information recipients and their disseminating capabilities lead to higher WSC. Study 2 replicated these results and also showed that fulfilling different social roles has an effect on the WSC. Finally, study 3 revealed that the type of information has a major effect on WSC.

show abstract

“…Věnují se tak arménskému nebo tureckému diskurzu (např. Bilali 2013;Dixon 2010;Maksudyan 2009;Cooper, Akçam 2005;), zahraničně-politickým vlivům na tvorbu těchto diskurzů (např. Açar, Rüma 2007), či dopadům jednoho nebo druhého diskurzu na mezinárodněpolitické dění, zejména pak co se týče vstupu Turecka do EU (např.…”

Section: úVodunclassified

“…Ke způsobu, jakým turecká veřejnost vnímá masakry Arménů, k nimž došlo na počátku 20. století, navíc přispívá nedostatek informací, pramenící jednak z autocenzury a jednak ze všeobecné neochoty zabývat se věcmi, které nejsou oficiálně podporované (Maksudyan 2009). Tomuto informačnímu vakuu rovněž značně napomáhal fakt, že až do novely z roku 2008 bylo obhajování uznání deportací Arménů za genocidu trestné podle § 301 (Algan 2008(Algan : 2238(Algan -2239.…”

Section: Odmítání Genocidy: Turecký Pohledunclassified

Uznání genocidy Arménů jako téma politického diskursu Arménie, Turecka a vybraných zemí EU

Souleimanov¹,

Ehrmann²,

Kopeček³

2013

SEPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The issue whether to legally recognize the tragic events of 1915 in Eastern Anatolia as a genocide remains a key political issue which drives an edge between Armenia and the Republic of Turkey. Through their European diaspora communities, the issue has also entered the domain of the European Union (EU), becoming even more controversial as Turkey is in the process of hotly contested EU accession talks. The present article uses the instruments of discourse analysis to focus on the current perceptions of the Armenian genocide in the various countries involved, specifically within the EU, Armenia and Turkey, in order to explore the political rationale behind the commitment of various states to recognize or deny the aforementioned historical events as an act of genocide. After providing a brief historical overview of the 1915 events, we analyse internal EU perceptions of the “reality” of the Armenian genocide recognition, primarily in relation to Turkey's accession efforts. We then focus on the domestic discourses in Armenia and Turkey, with the goal of shedding light on the rationale behind both Yerevan's encouragement of genocide recognition and Ankara's unwillingness to recognize the genocide, as well as on the political implications of recognition and denial.

show abstract

Walls of Silence: Translating the Armenian Genocide into Turkish and Self-Censorship

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Self‐Censorship as a Socio‐Political‐Psychological Phenomenon: Conception and Research

Self‐Censorship as a Socio‐Political‐Psychological Phenomenon: Conception and Research

Self-censorship of Conflict-related Information in the Context of Intractable Conflict

Uznání genocidy Arménů jako téma politického diskursu Arménie, Turecka a vybraných zemí EU

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About