FOCUS 92

Introduction: Governmentalities of Heritage UNESCO has taken up a number of new Governmentalities of Alevi measures since the beginning of the mil- Cultural Heritage: On Recognition, lennium in its endeavor to safeguard the Cultural Heritage of humanity. While for- Surveillance, and “Domesticated mer UNESCO activities on Cultural Heri- tage were exclusively directed at “tangi- Diversity” in Contemporary ble” cultural and “natural” sites, the more recent steps were taken in order to en- hance an awareness of Intangible Cultural Heritage (or ICH), such as oral traditions, rituals, or traditional crafts. A former focus on monumental heritage and natural sites Benjamin Weineck was criticized by scholars and practi­tioners as paying too little attention to diverse and Although the term Cultural Heritage comes to terms with the tension be- multiple forms of human creativity, which carries a rather positive connotation— tween this formal recognition, ongoing are expressed in a variety of practices and bringing together notions such as safe- political surveillance, and the very spe- traditions (Coombe 375). Accordingly, the guarding and human creativity—critical cific notions of diversity that have been shift to ICH is: investigations have underlined the vari- put into play. With reference to Fou- recognizing that communities, in partic­ ous strategic, economic and political ra- cault’s (as well as Rose’s) analysis of con- ular indigenous communities, groups tionalities inscribed in this term. temporary government as “govern­ and, in some cases, individuals, play an In 2010 UNESCO categorized the Alevi mentality,” Cultural Heritage can be important role in the production, safe- ritual sequence, semah, as Intangible grasped in its ambivalent (but not nec- guarding, maintenance and re-creation Cultural Heritage and as such it was in- essarily conflicting) form of govern­ of the intangible cultural heritage, thus scribed in the Turkish National Inventory mental liberation and control. The paper helping to enrich cultural diversity and for Intangible Cultural Heritage, al- thus enlarges the analytical scale of think- human creativity. (UNESCO Conven­ though Alevis are oftentimes marginal- ing about Cultural Heritage in its correla- tion) ized by the Turkish state due to its Sunni- tion with identity-formation, as well as the Turkist conception of belonging. The politics of recognition and governance. The UNESCO Convention for the Safe- celebration of an Alevi ritual as enrich- guarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage ing Turkey’s “cultural diversity” thus ne- Keywords: Alevis; Turkey; Diversity; Heri- places the bearers of the particular tradi- cessitated an analytical approach that tage; Governmentality; Ritual tions in the center of any safeguarding ac-

Middle East – Topics & Arguments #03–2014 FOCUS 93

tivity—which, according to Merkel, “can be In order to grasp both the aspect of safe- lar groups” in ICH discourse on the one understood as a sincere attempt to con- guarding and empowerment, as well as hand, and as a socio-religious tribute to their empowerment and to cor- the particular (and most likely nationalist) problem of (nationalist/Islamist/neoliber- rect earlier elitist approaches” (68). Other notion of cultural difference that heritage al) government on the other requires a scholars underline the importance of ICH policies enact, I consider it useful to draw way of thinking that must come to terms for the formation and assurance of group upon an idea of government that captures with the ostensible tension between and identities (Wulf 86) or its capacity for en- some ratio of the liberating and limiting alleged binary equations of liberation and abling “vernacular” groups to figure in an modes of political intervention vis-à-vis control, inclusion and exclusion, empow- “agentive way to act upon one’s own the population. The late Michel Foucault erment and containment. world” (Brosius and Polit 2). and his successors, particularly Nikolas This paper seeks to analyze the emer- In 2010, the Alevi semah-dance—a se- Rose, have characterized contemporary gence of—or, better put, the construction quence from the cem-ritual1—was declared government less in terms of ruling by law of—an Alevi heritage in Turkey as such a to be ICH and as such inscribed in the or discipline. Dissociating the exercise of form of political conduct, which on the Turkish National Inventory for Intangible political power from domination, they em- one hand meets the Alevi communities’ Cultural Heritage as “fostering and enrich- phasize how (neo)liberal forms of conduct aspirations for recognition. Yet the charac- ing traditional music ” rather shape, guide, direct, or govern pop- ter of the strategies and technologies ap- (UNESCO Nomination file 6). Alevis make ulations by recognizing and enhancing plied, in concert with UNESCO as power- up about 15 to 30% of Turkey’s population, the individual’s capacity for acting upon ful actor in the assemblage of government, yet are not legally recognized as a reli- him- or herself (Foucault, Biopolitik 97). render very specific political understand- gious community in their own, as Sunni- Since liberalism requires individual free- ings and mentalities of cultural difference Turkist notions of belonging were—and dom of the subject, the government’s re- to be legible, firm, and true. This way of still are—salient in many aspects of Turkish sponsibility is not to suppress, but rather thinking about government—in terms of polities and politics. The recognition of an to promote certain forms of subjectivity: the relation of specific political knowledge Alevi ritual as Cultural Heritage, enriching Accordingly, laissez faire and freedom are embodied in any political action or strat- Turkey’s “cultural diversity,” thus begs an perceived of as a specific way of political egy—is called “governmentality.” It is my analytical approach capable of encom- economy or political intervention rather argument that references to Cultural Heri- passing Alevi aspirations for recognition, than the “antithesis of government” (Rose tage may indeed forge coherence within underlying governmental understandings 69). The way in which Foucault and Rose the groups concerned—which would be of nationhood and diversity, and their mu- consider freedom to be a form of political desirable under liberal notions of citizen- tual interrelations. conduct can inform an analysis of the pol- ship and minority issues. Yet the language Therefore, this paper analyzes Cultural itics on Cultural Heritage and its liberal no- of UNESCO and the specific understand- Heritage as a tool for the assemblage of tions of empowerment in several ways: ing of diversity it enacts prescribe to the governance and “diversity management.” The focus on empowerment of “vernacu- communities a knowledge about them-

Middle East – Topics & Arguments #03–2014 FOCUS 94

selves as being commodified and of “do- and takes for granted the inventive char- blage” (Coombe 379) of multiple, mesticated diversity” (Göner 127), which acter of language and any conceptual decentralized practices of conduct, which severely limits their capacities for both po- practice for reality—a reality that is of makes it possible to grasp intersecting na- litical participation and resistance. course always a specific political reality, tional and transnational governmental which makes things and objects govern- forces (Turkey – UNESCO), as well as the Methodological Considerations able or that constitutes them as a problem subjects that act in this field of discursive Many scholars have emphasized how her- to be acted upon. possibilities and constraints. An analysis of itage regimes, with their complex array of This analysis of the governmentalities of governmentality also considers the cre- actors—heritage promoters of civil “indig- an Alevi heritage in Turkey thus investi- ative ways in which subjects take up initia- enous” groups, national politicians and gates the notions and governmental un- tives and behave toward these political bureaucrats, intergovernmental regimes— derstandings of religious and cultural dif- strategies. Governing, in this sense, is the bring to bear new forms of political con- ference and belonging that produce the art of combining techniques of domina- duct and subjectivity (Harrison 7; Tau­ political practice. Neither does it ask, for tion and freedom and an ability to set pro- schek 20). Hall highlights the evaluating example, if an empowering element of cesses into motion “through which the self character of Cultural Heritage policies as heritage policies succeeded or not, nor is is constructed or modified by himself” inherently classifying and arranging: Her- it a hermeneutical investigation of the (Foucault, “Hermeneutics” 204). itage thus represents not only the desire “real objectives behind a certain strategy” Intangible Cultural Heritage, which explic- and practice of preserving certain aspects (Rose 56). Rather, such an analysis at- itly addresses the bearers of objects and of the past, but constitutes “the symbolic tempts to grasp the practices’ own ac- practices that are to be turned into heri- power to order knowledge, to rank, clas- counts of reality by scrutinizing the forms tage, not only acknowledges “the impor- sify and arrange, and thus to give mean- of political order and subjectivity that are tance of communities, in particular indig- ing to objects and things through inter- enacted by this governmental knowl- enous communities” in the creation and pretative schemas” (88). These particular edge and by the political strategies it in- reproduction of the heritage of humanity formations of knowledge and mentalities forms. As policies on Cultural Heritage (UNESCO Convention), but also considers of government are embodied in the in- rely on classification and arrangement, it ICH to be inherently “community based”: struments, strategies, and politics ap- is asked what kinds of operations are un- intangible cultural heritage can only be plied. The approach of a governmentality dertaken to render an Alevi ritual practice heritage when it is recognized as such of heritage tries to grasp this interrelation into Cultural Heritage of a polity that con- by the communities, groups or indivi- of knowledge and power, and the spe- tinuously reproduces Sunni-Turkist ideas duals that create, maintain and transmit cific governmental understandings that of nationhood. it—without their recognition, nobody are inscribed in political strategies, prac- An important and analytically powerful as- else can decide for them that a given tices, and programs (Rose 2). Therefore, pect of governmentality analysis is its un- expression or practice is their heritage. this approach relies on discourse analysis derstanding of government as an “assem- (UNESCO Heritage)2

Middle East – Topics & Arguments #03–2014 FOCUS 95

This form of governance thus also relies wise, the specific form of political conduct be represented as a religious group in its on the activity of these “communities, called governmentality does not deny a own, these activities subscribe to the he- groups or individuals” to decide on their possibly emotional value of heritage, but gemonic framework of religion which re- own terms about their Cultural Heritage, rather makes use of it in a creative form quires, for example, a single written sa- which contributes to the notion of heri- and takes into account the will and capac- cred text. The aspect of consent to a tage as empowering these communities ity for its subjects to safeguard their heri- hegemonic knowledge about oneself is vis-à-vis state actors (Merkel; Wulf; Brosius tage. As will be shown, this does not turn central to this Gramscian approach to and Polit). An analysis of the governmen- out to be a mere functionalist approach to power and doubtlessly useful in coming talities of heritage investigates the ways in government, which may turn its subjects to terms with the politics of representation which government shapes its subjects’ as- toward any desirable direction without on Alevis in Turkey. Although these pirations of recognition and harnesses fearing resistance or problems of “translat- thoughts on hegemony and an ostensibly their capacity for self-directed conduct to ing” programs into action. On the con- voluntary consent to it (as its central char- meet certain political ends. The question trary: There are certainly spaces and pos- acteristic feature) also constitute to the at stake here is how, for example, forms of sibilities of resisting governmental will and backdrop for this paper’s analytical frame- knowledge and “interpretive schemas” conduct, and parts of the Alevi movement work, the approach followed here differs (Hall 88) on Cultural Heritage are adopted in Turkey do have the capacity to continu- from a focus on hegemony in that it ana- by these groups and individuals taking up ously challenge the nationalist, Sunni- lyzes liberal government’s conduct as the the UNESCO language of heritage and its Turkist dominance. Yet there is reason to practice of being made up of “citizens ca- underlying notion of empowerment to doubt whether the UNESCO language of pable of bearing a kind of regulated free- foster construction of their identities. Cultural Heritage is able to empower and dom” (Rose; Miller 174). This understand- What kind of subjectivity, what kind of po- represent the marginalized. This problem ing comes to terms with the UNESCO’s litical order and what concepts of the na- is also raised by Göner (129), who employs perception of empowerment of “commu- tion are portrayed in these aspirations for a Gramscian reading of the Alevi associa- nities,” their intelligibility, and their repre- identity, and struggles for recognition and tions’ activities in their quest for recogni- sentation. Since Butler so powerfully un- belonging? tion: She refers to the activities of some derlined an inescapable alliance of I certainly do not deny the emotional value Alevi organizations, like the Karacaahmet representation and coercion in Gender of ICH and its potential for preserving Foundation in her example, as codifying Trouble, critical investigations must be threatened practices and objects for the the diverse Alevi belief system(s). The no- careful to attend to such narratives of rep- purpose of safeguarding and constructing tions of order and codification embedded resentation and empowerment. Also in identities. The analysis taken up here also in these endeavors, according to Göner, the context of Heritage Studies, many does not aim to deconstruct Alevi Cultural appropriate the very normative percep- scholars have emphasized the inherently Heritage as a mere strategic tool made up tions of religion held by the members of political and bureaucratic character of her- by bureaucrats to meet certain ends. Like- the majority, i.e. Sunni Muslims. In order to itage regimes and their capacity for iden-

Middle East – Topics & Arguments #03–2014 FOCUS 96

tity politics and nationalist aspirations for the actors, groups, or communities con- mosques and imams, for example, are identifying and inscribing belonging cerned should extensively participate in able to obtain public finance, Alevi cem (Smith “Archaeological Theory”; Ash- the application process (UNESCO Crite- evis are defined as “culture houses” and as worth). Analyzing and criticizing the con- ria). This very aspect should raise a flag re- such are not publicly fundable.4 In fact, this struction of a particular Turkish Alevi- garding the institutional requirements aspect of aspired-for equal citizenship Bektaşi heritage and the paternalistic shaping heritage construction: As state (eşit yurttaşlık) is one of the main issues in discourse involved may also empower fur- actors are the ones in charge of applying the struggle for recognition of Alevi com- ther critical reflections on ongoing subtle to the UNESCO (in collaboration with “civ- munities in Turkey, as well as in the dias- forms of surveillance and less subtle forms il” actors), it is their specific concepts of pora (Sökefeld 229). Additionally, Alevi of physical violence in the field of identity Cultural Heritage that may be accepted by children are required to participate in Sun- politics and national engineering. UNESCO. Heritage thus most likely be- na-conform religious education at school comes an instrument of a nationalist agen- (din ve ahlak dersleri),5 and mosques are Alevi -Bektaşi Cultural Heritage: Issues da: In her work Uses of Heritage, Laura- built in Alevi villages (Göner 118). On the and Actors jane Smith underlined how political other side of these assimilationist policies Every year, a committee consisting of discourse on heritage has the potential to toward Alevism are a bevy of Alevi-Bektaşi members elected by the UNESCO Gen- underpin certain communities’—spe­ cultural organizations which, in accor- eral Assembly judges state parties’ pro- cifically, those in political power—concepts dance with the UNESCO Criteria, were posals for inscribing elements onto the of history, nationhood, and belonging (11). also included in the application processes “Representative List of Intangible Cultural This functional and strategic notion that for their Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, Heritage” (UNESCO Convention). In 2010 heritage is “created as needed” (Ashworth Nomination file 14).6 And yet tolerating the it granted the semah-dance, a sequence 26) is analytically useful in coming to terms work of these Alevi-Bektaşi NGOs does of the Alevi-Bektaşi cem-ritual, the status with an Alevi-Bektaşi Cultural Heritage. not render the communities recognized as of ICH.3 There are five criteria that must be Alevi communities in Turkey are in an am- religiously different subjects on a level that met in order to be granted inscription, bivalent position: A Kemalist interpreta- is institutionally equal to Sunni . among which is that the element “will con- tion of the nation links Turkishness to Sun- This ambivalence is also connected to the tribute to ensuring visibility and aware- ni Islam, which excludes both Alevis as question of whether Alevism is considered ness of the significance of the Intangible non-Sunni Muslims, as well as Kurdish- “culture” or “religion.” Recently, Massicard Cultural Heritage and to encouraging dia- speaking Alevis. As such, the Law on Der- (107) has emphasized how Turkish polities logue” and that it will be included in the vish Lodges (Tekke ve Zaviye Kanunu) of like the Presidency of Religious Affairs (Di- National Inventory for Intangible Cultural 1925 forbade all forms of religious orders yanet) or the Ministry of Education con- Heritage (UNESCO Criteria). Although and associated ritual practices, clothing, tinuously avoid referring to Alevism as a state parties are those that must apply for and titles. This has also had wide implica- “religious minority.” In textbooks for the nomination, one of the criteria is also that tions for Alevi ritual practice: Whereas aforementioned compulsory religious ed-

Middle East – Topics & Arguments #03–2014 FOCUS 97

ucation in school for example, Alevism is clusion that 99.2% of the Turkish popula- ments of Alevi-Bektaşi ritual practice. Din- rendered merely a mystical “interpretation tion is Muslim (XXX). Inner-Islamic differ- çer stresses how rural urban migrations in Islamic belief” (107) and is not consid- ence is acknowledged along the lines of and the geographical diffusion of Alevi ered as a school of belief in its own right schools of thought, i.e. Maliki, Hanafi, communities have had an immense im- (mezhep). The differences between Sunni Shafiʿi, Hanbali, and, additionally, the Shi- pact on the communities’ ritual practice Islamic and Alevi religious practices are, in ite Caferi (XXX). since about the 1950s (35). Her fieldwork line with the argumentation of the Presi- Both of these measures—culturalization revealed that in urban cem-rituals (in Izmir dency of Religious Affairs, explained as and annihilation—are examples of a type and ), in which Alevis from various cultural specificities due to geographical of political conduct toward Alevis that ar- regions with different mother tongues and spread and the Alevis’ inhabiting rural ranges and classifies a certain under- varying concepts of ethnic belonging par- landscapes far from urban centers (104). standing of cultural difference and reli- ticipate, the semah as one of the “twelve As another aspect of this policy of cultur- gious deviation. Although they allow for services” of the cem-ritual played a pre- alization, the Diyanet positioned itself as a and promote some form of Alevi cultural dominant role in relation to the other ritu- promoter of Alevi cultural history and expression, other, less-subtle forms of al sequences (37). Motika and Langer also knowledge when it published texts like control continue to exist: The Ministry of emphasize that in the public performance the hagiographies of the saint Hacı Bektaş the Interior regularly directs private televi- of rituals, some sequences are either omit- in the series of Alevi-Bektaşi Klasikleri sion stations on how to cover, for exam- ted or reduced to mere symbolic acts (99). (Massicard 104). Likewise, since 1990 the ple, cultural events like the Hacı Bektaş Since the various forms of Alevism do not Ministry of Culture and Tourism took over Festivalı or the Newroz celebrations, in- possess a canonizing religious apparatus, management of the annual Hacı Bektaş cluding what kind of vocabulary to em- the religious character of the ritual is of- Festival that takes place at the Bektaşi ploy (Massicard 92). tentimes downplayed when participants tekke near Nevşehir (139). The rituals per- The Alevi-Bektaşi semah-dance, which of different geographical, ethnic or lin- formed there are also broadcast live on TV, was rendered UNESCO ICH in 2010, also guistic backgrounds gather for a ritual but are promoted as part of Turkish heri- corresponds to this notion of a cultural (Massicard 130). Likewise, when turned tage, cultural diversity, and folklore, de- rather than religious characterization of into a common Alevi-Bektaşi Cultural Her- linked to any notion of religious or theo- the Alevi-Bektaşi belief system: Although itage, the various forms of the ritual are logical deviance from Sunni Islam. the ritual sequence depicts the Alevi- interpreted as an “evident sign of the rich- Furthermore, the word “Alevi” does not Bektaşi understandings of God’s relation- ness in semah culture” (UNESCO Nomina- appear at all in the 250-page volume on ship to human beings, this religious aspect tion file 4) and not, for example, as an evi- Religious Life in Turkey, issued by the Di- has come to be ever more “de-sacralized” dent sign of the richness of diverse yanet in the beginning of 2014.7 The men- (Massicard 131). The semah-dance, as one theological reflections other than those of tioned study assimilates Alevism within part of the Alevi cem-ritual, has gained Sunni Islam. the realm of Islam, and thus draws the con- considerable importance over other ele-

Middle East – Topics & Arguments #03–2014 FOCUS 98

Additionally, it is Intangible Cultural Heri- There is yet another aspect of heritage ter of Alevism (25). Although Alevis and tage that is sought in the recent UNESCO policies that may provide insight into Bektaşis share many ritual practices and conventions. Thus, the institutional chan- forms of political knowledge about Ale- belief systems, and as such may be con- nels to articulate the demands of heritage vism as Turkish folklore, concerning the ceived of as a single community, the term and identity require a focus on rituals, as naming as “Alevi-Bektaşi” of the Cultural Alevi-Bektaşi also makes opaque the insti- opposed to tangible artifacts of the past. Heritage. Strikingly, only four of the eigh- tutional, social, and geographic differenc- This stress on semah as Alevi-Bektaşi heri- teen NGOs involved in the heritage con- es of both of these groups. A strong em- tage is an example of how socio-religious struction operate under the heading phasis on an Alevi-Bektaşi synthesis may developments within the Alevi communi- “Alevi,” while others use names referring thus be read, according to Dressler, as a ties are underpinned by the UNESCO dis- to the Saint Hacı Bektaş or to tribal asso- means of strengthening a certain Turkish- course on Cultural Heritage: In this re- ciations such as tahtacı (UNESCO Nomina- Alevi agency in the Turkish public sphere spect, Massicard quite aptly speaks of tion file 13). These denominations again by weakening the notion of social and cul- “external- and self-folklorization” (130) be- bear witness of the ambivalent standing of tural differences between Turkish and cause “culture,” on the one hand, serves as Alevis in Turkey, and to the specific char- Kurdish speaking Alevis in striving for the the “most consensual way of Alevi organi- acter of a certain form of understanding of nationalist quest of unity (25). zations to foster belonging” (134). As Turk- cultural difference: In the 1990s when most ish political discourse denies Alevism be- of these organizations were founded, it Heritage and Determining Diversity ing thought of as a religious group of was generally not allowed to draw on The support for an Alevi-Bektaşi Cultural considerable size, some of the Alevi- names that could suggest a possible sep- Heritage is in accordance with a discourse Bektaşi organizations explicitly promote aration of the Turkish nation along reli- that renders Alevism a cultural facet of cultural common denominators—such as gious, social, or ethnic lines (Sökefeld 231). Turkishness which, in turn, does not prin- the saz, poetry, or the semah—to amalgam- Yet it was and is tolerated that these orga- cipally deviate from Sunni Islam. This spe- ate various Alevi communities with differ- nizations may represent Alevi interests. cific understanding of Alevism as folklore, ing notions of religious and ethnic coher- The tight bond between “Alevi” and “enriching” Turkey’s cultural diversity, is af- ence (130). On the other hand, this cultural “Bektaşi” in many of these denominations firmed and put into play by the very mech- understanding of Alevism as Turkish folk- and, in fact, in the naming of the ritual in anisms of Cultural Heritage management lore corresponds to the patterns and un- question as “Alevi-Bektaşi” heritage, also that include the element in question in the derstandings of the Diyanet about Ale- denotes a certain form of state-controlled, “National Inventory of Cultural Heritage.” vism, accommodating the very discourse domesticated difference: As Dressler has The inscription signifies specific under- that denies Alevis in Turkey their own reli- pointed out, the term Alevi-Bektaşi is used standings of difference, but does not clash gious education at public schools or state- mostly by Turkish-speaking Alevis, which with the preserving and empowering na- funded locales for religious devotion (cem excludes Kurdish Alevis and with that the ture of heritage. On the contrary: It valo- evis) analogue to mosques. notion of the politically subversive charac- rizes this understanding of difference,

Middle East – Topics & Arguments #03–2014 FOCUS 99

commodifies it, and renders it true by in- CEM Vakfı, as only two examples, are list- agency “to act upon one’s own world” scription. The policies of Cultural Heritage ed among the “Concerned Communities (Brosius and Polit 2). UNESCO’s discourse thus bear the limiting notion that though organization(s)” in the UNESCO Nomina- on Cultural Heritage provides language, it recognizes and celebrates Turkey’s and tion file (13), although both of them differ frames of reference, and infrastructure for the world’s cultural diversity on the one in their understanding of Alevism. The for- identity demands and recognition. Yet this hand, this does not translate into de facto mer has a rather state-critical, leftist out- very notion of the “self” must be called practice on the other. Recognition is thus look, while the latter represents a form of into question if we are to criticize the pa- only granted under the rubric of belong- Alevism within Islam and accords to cur- ternalistic political practices of represen- ing to a cultural minority that enriches Tur- rent Turkish polities (Massicard 49). In or- tation in the context of an Alevi-Bektaşi key’s cultural diversity, but that is—as heri- der to bring such different actors together, Cultural Heritage. At this point, it is useful tage—detached from serious political the common Alevi heritage semah is also to recall a central element to the kind of questions such as, for example, religious defined and appropriated to the different political conduct that was analyzed here politics. Ashworth called this aspect of needs: Distinguishing between içeri and as governmentality: Rose argues in his heritage policies “museumification” and dışarı semah, the nomination file concep- Powers of Freedom that it is impossible to “vernacularization”: Transforming, for ex- tualizes two ways of reading the ritual se- “counterpose subjectivity to power” (55). ample, the dervish lodge in the city of Hacı quence: one more secular than the other. Linking practice and the conduct of sub- Bektaş into a museum makes it into folk- It is stated that içeri semah should be held jects and government in a web of power lore, detaches its subjects and their beliefs in small circles only with faithful people at- relations may also serve to help come to from the present, and renders them insig- tending, whereas the dışarı semah under- terms with the both empowering and lim- nificant in current struggles of political lines the cultural/folkloristic character of iting aspects of Cultural Heritage de- participation and resistance. Heritage as the dance (UNESCO Nomination file 5). scribed above. The promotion of a certain such has the power to signify as unimport- The process called “museumification” is kind of cultural diversity, as “domesticated ant ideas and practices that “could poten- thus accompanied by an appropriation diversity” (Göner 127), accords to this spe- tially challenge or distract a dominant ide- which renders the semah as representa- cific form of political conduct: Policies on ology” (Ashworth 33) or challenge tive both for the Alevi-Bektaşi associations Alevi-Bektaşi Cultural Heritage do not hegemonic demarcations of belonging. and for the Turkish state, to which it be- work as a kind of political power that Strikingly, although the various sharehold- longs as Cultural Heritage. would forbid, deny, or punish a certain er Alevi associations in the making of the This perspective challenges the liberal, form of Alevism by law or coercion. It rath- ICH vary considerably in their political, re- activating, and empowering notions that er exercises its power via an assemblage ligious, and cultural outlook, they never- Intangible Cultural Heritage brings to of strategies that enhance and activate theless unite under a common Alevi Cul- bear. Of course it seems that policies of self-conduct, encouraged by the preserv- tural Heritage. Even such different actors ICH provide “indigenous communities,” to ing, safeguarding, and self-directed no- as the Pir Sultan Abdal Association and the use the UNESCO language, with the tion of heritage, along with UNESCO’s lan-

Middle East – Topics & Arguments #03–2014 FOCUS 100

guage of empowerment. Massicard the perspective on minority politics of di- to serve in a way she characterized as the points to this very “external and self-folk- versity management in the Republic of “creative but not repressive nature of the lorization” (130) in the practice of Alevi- Turkey. Göner has characterized these di- new hegemonic discourse” (130), which is Bektaşi identity politics. Indeed, it corre- verse stages and forms of minority politics a form of political conduct that relies on a sponds with a form of political conduct in on Alevis in Turkey as “difference repres- variety of actors and draws on the seman- which the technologies of government sive” and “difference blind.” In her argu- tics of enhancement and empowerment meet the technologies of the self—a form ment, the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) consti- rather than repression. In the same way that refers to the “empowering” element tutes the beginning of these modes of that the EU demands of recognizing Ale- of ICH discourse, as it places responsibil- thinking about minorities, since the treaty vism as a cultural/religious minority inter- ity on the side of the individual, or the “in- only grants non-Muslim religious groups sected with national policies and pro- digenous communities.” such as Jews and Christians the status of duced a discursive frame of reference, the Yet the “vernacular” actors involved in the minorities (112). Turkey’s polities, such as UNESCO’s endeavors to promote Cultur- process are not merely physical bodies the Diyanet, thus embody forms of repres- al Heritage also possess a certain capac- that may be imbued with a certain desir- sion in that they represent a Sunni-Turkist ity to enhance citizens and civil groups in able form of conduct, identity, or self- idea of the nation. She further argues that efforts to preserve their cultural practices awareness. The selection of semah as her- European Union (EU) demands of recog- and artifacts. Yet bureaucratic and institu- itage and its naming as Alevi-Bektaşi nizing Alevis as a religious or cultural mi- tional limits as well as specific govern- heritage underpin political and socio-eco- nority during the negotiations about Tur- mentalities heavily shape this process, nomic developments “within” the Alevi keys EU membership8 opened up a new and limit the liberating and empowering movement, and which are far older than space to articulate and promote Alevism nature of such politics. The “creative but heritage policies, which additionally were in Turkey, as it invoked a new notion of cul- not repressive nature of the new hege- not set in motion by these political pro- tural diversity and minority rights. Al- monic discourse” quite aptly encompass- grams alone. Yet these interrelated pro- though this undermined the former “dif- es the practice of Alevi-Bektaşi Cultural cesses of governmental strategies ad- ference blind” and “difference repressive” Heritage in Turkey, as their heritage sub- dressing and meeting the technologies of nature, Göner also underlines how state scribes to a notion of alterity promoted by the self are what characterize governmen- policies supported only a certain notion of state-loyal institutions. tality as a form of political power. Alevism—i.e. Alevi-Bektashism, freed of a Analyzing governmentalities of heritage potentially Kurdish character and the po- Concluding Remarks thus allows going beyond an understand- tential of political subversion. This new ap- The politics of Alevi-Bektaşi Cultural Heri- ing of politics in binaries such as domina- proach includes “difference but at the tage in Turkey benefit from intergovern- tion and freedom, and also characterizes price of domesticating” it (127). mental endeavors to promote and to safe- political power as dispersed among many Göner’s article was published in 2005, guard humankind’s creativity and diversity. different agents (Rose 2). It thus enlarges long before the politics of heritage came UNESCO provides a discursive frame to

Middle East – Topics & Arguments #03–2014 FOCUS 101

Benjamin Weineck which individual citizens and (“indigenous”) An analysis of the governmentality of her- “communities” themselves may act. From groups may refer in order to protect ob- itage reveals the particular political men- this perspective, the assemblage of gov- is a researcher at the Universities of jects and practices perceived to be in dan- talities and understandings of cultural di- ernment produces the very subjects and Bayreuth and Heidelberg. He studied ger of extinction. The policies of Intangible versity which are embodied in the very specific understanding of difference that Middle Eastern Studies in Mainz, Ankara Cultural Heritage explicitly address civil policies that promote these values. A form it comes to represent. The capacity “to act and Heidelberg where he obtained and not state actors for their purposes, of government that includes these domi- upon one’s own world”—as formulated by his MA in Ottoman History in 2013. His which various scholars see as a step toward nant readings of reality harnesses the self- empowering notions of ICH—may thus be current research is focused on both empowering those groups, and undermin- conduct of its population within these dis- grasped as consent to a prefigured con- historical and contemporary issues of ing formerly state-oriented approaches to cursively drawn lines of possibility. A cept of belonging rather than agency. As Alevism and the Alevis’ relationship to monumental heritage sites. pursuit of consent to this very order is at- a result, the recognition of an Alevi-Bektaşi the Ottoman and the Turkish state. Undoubtedly, such intergovernmental bod- tained through liberal empowering no- Cultural Heritage fails to translate into the email: benjamin.weineck@ ies and their politics of Intangible Cultural tions of agency and of safeguarding a legal-political realm, and turning semah ori.uni-heidelberg.de Heritage may help to promote some form heritage perceived to be in danger. Like- into Cultural Heritage maintains its un- of visibility for vernacular groups, or for oth- wise, this form of conduct also heavily equal status vis-à-vis Sunni Muslim forms er actors and their cultural assets. Though, shapes ideas of what may be thought and of worship. Attempts to reach an equality as this analysis has shown, it is doubtful that said about Alevi-Bektaşi communities in of partners in the context of Sunni-Alevi these instruments help to raise awareness Turkey: As Turkey’s Cultural Heritage, they relations, or in any “vernacular politics,” on the social and political problems faced are perceived of as a folkloric rather than thus have to rely on other, less predeter- by these very groups: The recognition of an a religious group that may subvert estab- mined vocabulary than the liberal empow- Alevi-Bektaşi Cultural Heritage in Turkey lished ideologies. “Recognizing” this heri- ering notions of intergovernmental actors. neither translates into legal recognition of tage is accompanied by forms of appro- A focus on government through enhance- Alevism as a group that religiously differs priation that make this Alevi-Bektaşi ritual ment of certain desirable forms of con- from Sunni Islam, nor does it challenge the representable and recognizable in the first duct taken up here thus uncovers the pow- homogenizing nationalist discourse with its place. The meaning and consequences of er relations between government and stress on Sunni-Turkist ideas of nationhood. this recognition are powerfully prefigured subjects, and the inseparable tie between The specific institutional settings in heritage by the very language of UNESCO and by recognition and surveillance. regimes, in which states remain the most the dominant understanding of pluralism important actors in the carving out of heri- salient in Turkish nationalist discourse. ––› tage, diversity articulated through Cultural Thus, equipping the nation-state with a Heritage in Turkey remains “domesticated” central role in the definition of its “vernac- in that it is accommodated to the polity and ular” heritage provides an opportunity to to the requirements of hegemonic sets of strongly shape and codify the understand- knowledge on diversity. ings of this vernacular, upon which the

Middle East – Topics & Arguments #03–2014 FOCUS 102

––› Notes 4 See, for example, the clear 6 These are: Alevi-Bektaşi 8 In fact the EU has shifted its comment of Prime Minister Federasyonu, Hacı Bektaş demands and its language Erdoğan on this issue: Veli Anadolu Kültür Vakfı on demarcating difference 1 The cem-ritual is a “Whichever Alevi I meet Genel Merkezi, Hacı Bektaş over the course of time: As congregational ritual in Alevi says, we were Muslims. The Veli Kültürve Tanıtma Dressler has shown, the EU ritual practice. It consists of prayer place for Muslims is Dernekleri Genel Merkezi, Pir since 2007 has refrained various sequences, of which the mosque. Alevism is not Sultan Abdal Kültür Derneği from defining Alevism as the dance sequence semah is a religion [din]. Therefore Genel Merkezi, Pir Sultan a religious minority, as the but one part. For an overview one cannot compare [Islam Abdal 2 Temmuz Kültürve questions of Alevism being on Alevi rituals, see Langer and Alevism]. If we made Eğitim Vakfı, Karacaahmet a religion or a culture, or “Alevitische Rituale”; for an this distinction, why should Sultan Eğitimve Kültür Vakfı, being a religious tradition ideal-typical description of we divide Turkey? One is a Cem Vakfı Genel Merkezi, within Islam or outside of the ritual, see Karolewski. house for prayer; the other is Dünya Ehl-I Beyt Vakfı, Ankara it, continue to be intensely a culture house. Cem houses Cem Kültür Evlerini Yaptırma discussed by Alevis 2 The idea about fostering cannot receive the same Derneği, Hüseyin Gazi themselves (13). communities for the sake of [financial] assistance that the Derneği, Hubyar Sultan Alevi governing is aptly termed mosques receive. If there Kültür Derneği, Hacı Bektaş ––› by Rose in his Powers of is somebody who wants to Derneği, İstanbul Alevi Kültür Freedom as “government support cem houses this Derneği, Tahtacı Kültür Eğitim through community” (167). cannot be hindered” (quoted Kalkınmave Yardımlaşma in Sökefeld 245, highlights Derneği, Turhal Kültürve 3 The term “Alevi-Bektaşi” and additions there). Dayanışma Derneği, Gazi is not mine, but used by Üniversitesi Türk Kültürüve various organizations from 5 After a European Court Hacı Bektaş Veli Araştırma this spectrum in heritage of Human Rights decision, Merkezi, Alevilik Araştırma discourse. See UNESCO pupils may be exempt from Dokümantasyonve Uygulama nomination file No. 00384. the lessons. Yet every pupil Enstitüsü (UNESCO requires for this a court Nomination file13). order in his or her own right, which makes such an 7 Türkiye’de Dinî Hayat exemption both expensive Araştırması. Diyanet İşleri and institutionally lavish. Bakanlığı, Ankara, 2014. I thank the anonymous reviewer for this hint.

Middle East – Topics & Arguments #03–2014 FOCUS 103

––› Works Cited Dressler, Markus. “Was Karolewski, Janina. “‘Ayin-i Motika, Raoul, and Robert Türkiye’de Dinî Hayat ist das Alevitentum? Die Cem’. Das alevitische Langer. “Alevitische Araştırması. Ankara: Diyanet Ashworth, Gregory J. “Heritage aktuelle Diskussion und Kongregationsritual: Kongregationsrituale: İşleri Bakanlığı, 2014. Print. in Ritual and Identity.” Brosius historische Traditionslinien.” Idealtypische Beschreibung Transfer und Re-Invention and Polit 19-38. Ocak und Dedelik: des ‘İbadet ve Öğreti Cemi’.” im transnationalen Kontext.” UNESCO. Text of the Institutionen religiösen Langer, Motika, and Ursinus Langer, Motika, and Ursinus Convention for the Brosius, Christiane, and Karin Spezialistentums bei den 109-131. 73-107. Safeguarding of Intangible Polit, ed. Ritual, Heritage Aleviten. Ed. Robert Langer, Cultural Heritage. Paris: and Identity: The Politics of Hüseyin Ağuiçenoğlu, Raoul Langer, Robert. Rose, Nikolas. Powers of UNESCO, 2003. Web. 29 Culture and Performance in Motika, Janina Karolewski. “Alevitische Rituale.” Freedom: Reframing Political April 2014. a Globalized World. London: Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2013. 13- Aleviten in Deutschland. Thought. Cambridge: Routledge, 2011. Print. 35. Print. Identitätsprozesse einer University Press, 1999. Print. ---. Criteria. Criteria and Religionsgemeinschaft in Timetable of Inscription on ---. “Ritual, Heritage and Foucault, Michel. Die Geburt der Diaspora. Ed. Martin Rose, Nikolas, and the Representative List of the Identity in a Globalized der Biopolitik: Geschichte Sökefeld. Bielefeld: Peter Miller. “Political Intangible Cultural Heritage World.” Brosius and Polit 1-18. der Gouvernementalität II. Transcript, 2008. 65-108. Print. Power Beyond the of Humanity. Web. 29 April Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, State: Problematics of 2014. Butler, Judith. Gender 2007. Print. Langer, Robert, Raoul Government.” The British Trouble: Feminism and the Motika, and Michael Journal of Sociology 43.2 ---. Heritage. What is Subversion of Identity. New ---. “About the Beginning of Ursinus, ed. Migration und (1992): 173-205. Print. Intangible Heritage? Web. 29 York: Routledge, 1990. Print. the Hermeneutics of the Self.” Ritualtransfer. Religiöse Praxis April 2014. Political Theory 21.2 (1993): der Aleviten, Yesiden und Smith, Laurajane. Coombe, Rosemary 198-227. Print. Nusairier zwischen Vorderem Archaeological Theory ---. Nomination file No. J. “Managing Cultural Orient und Westeuropa. and the Politics of Cultural 00384. Semah, Alevi-Bektaşi Heritage as Neoliberal Göner, Özlem. “The Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2005. Heritage. London: Routledge, Ritual. Web. 29 April 2014. Governmentality.” Heritage Transformation of the Alevi Print. 2004. Print. Regimes and the State. Ed. Collective Identity.” Cultural Wulf, Christoph. Regina F Bendix, Aditya Dynamics 17.2 (2005): 107- Massicard, Elise. The Alevis in ---. Uses of Heritage. London: “Performativity and Dynamics Eggert, and Arnika Peselmann. 134. Print. Turkey and Europe: Identity Routledge, 2007. Print. of Intangible Cultural Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, and Managing Territorial Heritage.” Brosius and Polit 2012. 375-87. Print. Hall, Stuart. “Whose Diversity. London: Routledge, Sökefeld, Martin. Struggling 76-94. Heritage? Un-Settling the 2013. Print. for Recognition: The Alevi Dinçer, Fahriye. “Alevi ‘Heritage’, Re-Imagining Movement in Germany and Semahs in Historical the Post-Nation.”Cultural Merkel, Christine M. “Useable in Transnational Space. New Perspective.” Dans Müzik, Heritage. Ed. Laurajane Pasts—Creative Futures: York and Oxford: Berhahn Kültür, Folklora Doğru. Smith. London: Routledge, How Normative Recognition Books, 2008. Print. International Council for 2007. 87-100. Print. Opens New Horizons for Traditional Music. 20th Publicly Committed Scholars.” Tauschek, Markus. Kulturerbe: Symposium Proceedings. Harrison, Rodney. Heritage: Brosius and Polit 55-75. Eine Einführung. Berlin: ISSN: 2196-629X Istanbul: Boğazici University Critical Approaches. London: Reimer, 2013. Print. urn: nbn:de:hebis: Press, 2000. 32-42. Print. Routledge, 2013. Print. 04-ep0003-2014-45-21646

Middle East – Topics & Arguments #03–2014