Kira Kosnick. Migrant Media: Turkish Broadcasting and Multicultural Politics in . New Anthropologies of Europe Series. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007. x + 240 pp. $22.95, paper, ISBN 978-0-253-21937-4.

Reviewed by Dani Kranz

Published on H-SAE (March, 2011)

Commissioned by Abby L. Drwecki (Indiana University)

The year 2010 witnessed a heated debate on these generalizations and outlined ’s the issues of integration, multiculturalism, and shortcomings in terms of immigration policies. Muslims in Germany. In December 2010, a study Emotions continue to run high on this recurring conducted by researchers from the University of debate in Germany. Turkish immigrants in Ger‐ Münster found that a majority of Germans view many are a problematic issue for German politics, negatively. Multiculturalism in Germany and for parts of the German population. has failed, claimed the German chancellor Angela In Migrant Media, Kira Kosnick ofers some Merkel in October 2010. With her remark she highly interesting clues about the lifeworlds of aimed at capitalizing on the debate concerning Turks in the country. To elucidate these life‐ the failed integration of Muslim immigrants, worlds, and it is important to stress that there are which was triggered a couple of months earlier by a multiplicity of lifeworlds, Kosnick focuses her Thilo Sarazzin. In his highly polemic book, ethnography on Turkish Broadcasting and Multi‐ Deutschland schaft sich ab (2010), Sarazzin, at cultural Politics in Berlin, as the subtitle reveals. this point on the board of the Bundesbank, Beginning in the early 1990s, Kosnick conducted claimed that Turkish and Arab immigrants do not ethnographic research among migrant media pro‐ integrate into German mainstream society, that ducers in Berlin. She occupied the position of a indeed they are not capable of integration, and journalist for a radio station, Radio MultiKulti, that Jews are genetically diferent, among other which allowed her to gain insider knowledge of statements. While criticism of his diatribe was program production at this station. According to abundant, it hit a nerve in Germany. Why are Kosnick, Radio MultiKulti defnes itself as a sta‐ Turks and Arabs not integrated in the mainstream tion with voices that have a (foreign) accent. It was a question asked by some, others asked why stresses that the voices with foreign accents, that they appeared nonintegrated, and some rejected is, migrants, represent themselves, and that oth‐ H-Net Reviews ers do not speak for them. This is exactly where station Kosnick researched to gain further in‐ Kosnick’s critical undoing of migrant broadcasting sights into the conficts of the Turkish community begins: who speaks for whom, with which agen‐ and discourses of power. da, to which (imagined) audience, and embedded Before analyzing the diferences between into which hegemonic discourses of power? OKB and Radio MultiKulti, Kosnick introduces the To answer these important questions, Kosnick important notions of “culture” and “cultures.” The starts with an overview of migrant broadcasting. crucial diference lies in the defnition of the for‐ In line with the German policy of defning (Turk‐ mer as high culture and the latter as ethnic cul‐ ish) migrants as guest workers who would sooner ture. The station Kulturradio focuses on broad‐ or later go back home, initially this broadcasting casting classical Western music styles. Other mu‐ was aimed at ofering help and information for sic styles, one could say high-culture contribu‐ their temporary sojourn, and supplying some tions from countries defned as non-Western, are news about their native homes. This early policy nearly absent on this station. Non-Western pro‐ concerning program content shows that there was ductions have their space in the ethnic niche cov‐ little interest in integrating Turkish migrants into ered by Radio MultiKulti. Broadcasting on either German society, because the migrants’ supposed channel is thus defned by hegemonic discourses point of reference was . However, while that refect still existing attitudes concerning the the conservative German government of the West and the rest: Radio MultiKulti is for ethnic 1980s encouraged home migration, it could no broadcasting, while Kulturradio is for broadcast‐ longer be overlooked that many Turkish migrants ing “non-ethnic,” as in naturalized, Western styles had settled in Germany. By way of this fait accom‐ of music. Artistic merit does not play a role in this pli, broadcasting networks reconsidered their distinction, which reifes perceptions of white‐ policies: the Turks were given a new reference ness. However, this distinction reinforces the dif‐ point of identifcation--localized migrants, or in ference between Turks and Germans. It leaves Kosnick’s words “Berlin Turks” (p. 73). As Kosnick one party in the ethnic (low) culture corner, while stresses earlier in the book, policymakers ignored the other assumes the position of de-ethnicized the transnational connections of the immigrants; (high) culture. This distinction not only recreates the fact that Turkey and Germany functioned as the discourse that drives cultural policy but also reference points was not part of the hegemonic disables any recognition of transnational cultural discourse that underpinned the production at Ra‐ production that takes Germany and Turkey as ref‐ dio MultiKulti. This fnding leads her to ask about erence points, and, as Kosnick outlines, drives the construction of migrant voices, and the “com‐ artists who refect their transnational experience munity” for which they speak (p. 78). She asks as in their art “to seek their fortunes abroad” (p. well why some migrant voices carry more power 102). than others and questions the authenticity of The essentialization of culture versus cultures these voices (in particular, who defnes them as from the German side is not all that infuences the authentic?). These questions bring Kosnick back content of Turkish media. Content is important to to her earlier point concerning community con‐ the German (as well as the Turkish) nation-state; struction. She contends that the “Turkish commu‐ both countries attempt to marginalize voices that nity” is multi-accented, and that the accented are not desirable. Feedback between the voices of voices of Radio MultiKulti signify diferences and Turks in Turkey poses a within the Turkish community. Yet the migrant problem to the Turkish-nation state: Turks in Ger‐ voices on Radio MultiKulti do not cause ofense many might well be out of line with the policies of like those on the Ofener Kanal Berlin (OKB), a

2 H-Net Reviews the (then) secular government, and argue for dif‐ that many, if not most, of her respondents are lit‐ ferent policies. Similarly, in Germany tle observing Muslims. However, their self-defni‐ broadcast to other , as well as to tion as Muslim recreates a discourse of otherness the Kurdish diaspora beyond either country. The on a diferent, supernatural, level.[1] It also recre‐ stage for these voices is mainly OKB. While Radio ates a discourse that since 9/11 has gained a MultiKulti gives clues about the diversity of Turk‐ strong foothold with the German mainstream as ish voices, OKB shows that “Turks” are anything the discussion triggered by Sarazzin shows. Fur‐ but a community in Germany. The two radio sta‐ thermore, her short discussion “Muslims in Eu‐ tions have diferent agendas concerning Turkey. rope” is based on the United Kingdom, not Ger‐ At OKB, Alevis promote their matters, Kurds ar‐ many. The Muslim population in the United King‐ gue for those important to them, and Islamists ad‐ dom is mainly from South Asia, not from Turkey. dress their own audiences. This means that each Such issues as citizenship are dealt with diferent‐ group tries to reach out to an audience favorable ly in the United Kingdom than in Germany, and to their politics. A quotation from an OKB produc‐ discourses of marginalization also run along dif‐ er puts this succinctly: “They [Radio MultiKulti] ferent lines. While Kosnick’s point on Muslims in have the good guys, we [OKB] have the bad guys” Europe is important, the book would have been (p. 152). OKB challenges German cultural policy stronger had she developed this point earlier and and the dominant notions--to localize immi‐ in more depth. Belonging to Umma (global com‐ grants--on which it is based. munity of Muslims) as opposed to being a citizen By way of thick ethnographic descriptions, or resident of Muslim faith of a specifc country Kosnick provides detailed insights into broadcast‐ are signifcant in current afairs, regardless how ing production and practices in Germany, she elu‐ nonobservant single Muslims might be.[2] Howev‐ cidates the policy framework that defnes access er, despite this shortcoming, which is based on to media outlets, she highlights the multiplicity of the changes of geo-politics since Kosnick carried voices of Turkish migrants, and she examines im‐ out her main research, her contribution is impor‐ portant questions regarding transnationalism and tant. Again, I hope that voices like Kosnick's will self-defnition (Selbstzuschreibung) versus ascrip‐ be heard in German debates on Turkish migrants, tion (Fremdzuschreibung). For these reasons, her and that she continues her work in these policy- work contributes not only to the anthropology of relevant areas. media, but also to other areas of anthropology, Notes such as community and migration studies. Her [1]. See, for example, Peter L. Berger, The Sa‐ work is truly timely, as it ofers answers to ques‐ cred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of tions that German politicians are now (again) ask‐ Religion (New York: Anchor Books, 1967). ing with populist overtones. I hope that expert [2]. John R. Bowen, “Does French Islam Have voices, such as Kosnick’s, will be heard in this de‐ Borders? Dilemmas of Domestication in a Global bate, and that they will be included in the devel‐ Religious Field,” American Anthropologist 106, opment of policies that do not go past “Turkish no. 1 (2004): 43–55. migrants” but include them in the discussion. Un‐ fortunately for realpolitik, Kosnick addresses the ascription via Islam in only four short pages (pp. 194-198). Maybe this is the case because she con‐ ducted her research prior to 9/11, which marks a shift in the discourse concerning Muslims in Ger‐ many, or maybe this is because Kosnick is aware

3 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-sae

Citation: Dani Kranz. Review of Kosnick, Kira. Migrant Media: Turkish Broadcasting and Multicultural Politics in Berlin. H-SAE, H-Net Reviews. March, 2011.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=30713

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

4