Free Essays - European Studies Essays
Social Nationalism Constitution
Introduction:
The interdependence of social science and conflict resolution may not be doubtable. Even if the value of the research might be denigrated at the micro-level, however at the macro-level it may have an important informing effect for decision makers. It is in this respect that I have undertaken the current work: TWISTED Vision – the Greek-Cypriot nationalism and its idealization.
Greek-Cypriot nationalism as a demand for Enosis (unification) with Greece, began to be a major idea especially after 1960. This is because the 1960 Constitution defined citizenship clearly in terms of ethnic origin, language, culture and religious (Article 1,2,3). These distinctions drew categories of Cypriot citizens, and complexity of what Cyprus identity is. Accordingly, with the socialist party in power in Greece supporting the idea of Enosis (unification), concepts of the Greek nation became stronger for Greek-Cypriots. This ethno-nationalism has been arisen as reason also of “democracy lacks quality” by the 1960 Constitution (Danopoulos, 2004; p.42). As a result of this idea, the Turkish invasion was followed in 1974 which divided the island based on ethnic cleansing; Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot community. However after this event, according to Mavratsas (1997), social analysis has never occurred on what has come up after the Turkish invasion in the Greek part. Consequently, new generation especially, have been raised with the picture that their country is divided into two communities without any type of communication or reunification in their lifetime. Therefore, Greek-Cypriot community has developed complex opinions and strong impressions of the ‘other’ via the schooling, the compulsory army service, the media and in general the social circles in which the relations with the ‘other’, may be translated into a relation between conqueror and the conquered one. Similarly, this perception of the ‘other’ may be challenged with any ‘other’ either the ‘other’ is welcomed as tourist in a way that discriminations would take place in the name of nationalism; in that case the sense of controlling of the territory ownership between host and guest which may be engaged as a relationship between power and powerless one.
Get help with your essay from our expert essay writers...In this sense, this work defined that the role of others has a major part in the re-definition of Greek-Cypriot identity. Many experts in the field of nationalism argued that the existence of the ‘other’ is a major component for the identity. However, the relation between the nation and others is still undefined. Nevertheless, I argued that national identity is defined not only from the people who share common features like history, culture, language etc but also from ‘outsiders’. This is because they can distinguish and differentiate the nation from other nation or other ethnic group. Identity is formed in relationship to difference, as Woodward states “identity is about difference; it is about marking out ‘us’ and ‘them’” (2002; p.viii). In other words, you know who you are, only by knowing who you are not. Therefore, this study points out that national identity can become ‘expressive’ in the case that it goes in contrast with others. On this account, ‘significant others’ is analysed so as to be investigated in which way ‘others’ might lead to the redefinition of the Greek-Cypriot identity.
Introducing, the Critical Discourses method for the analysis of three different incidents, between Greek-Cypriots and ‘others’ by three different newspapers in the second main chapter, studying the emergence of Greek-Cypriot nationalism in relation with the role of ‘others’ in constructing the Greek-Cypriot identity; the sense that is belonging to the Greek nation sharing same values and myths of hospitality.
The effect of this analysis would prove too vast for this work. Accordingly, my aim is to present how and to whom this idealization of Greek-Cypriot identity is endorsed stressing their hospitality, and how it is challenged via limits and exclusions. This could be achieved using the method of Critical Discourses Analysis, a method that studies the relationship between language and social practices. In Wodak words it is related with the “social practice of language behaviour, with the dialectics between society (including its subsystems), power, values, ideologies, opinions expressed and constituted in and about language” (1997:xiv). CDA therefore strives to “uncover and de-mystify certain social processes in this and other societies, and to make mechanisms of manipulation, discrimination…” (Wodak, 1989; xiv). Via this would be able to examine moreover a) how discrimination and intolerance is encoded in the media presentations b) what is the given meaning of ‘Cypriot culture’ and c) how their presentations may elicit negatively attitude against ‘others’ and national sensitivities. Through this, I conclude that the media presentations are being defined the presence of ‘others’ as responsible for the prostration of the developing of Cypriot identity, and the reaction of Greek-Cypriots was reasonable to a threat to ‘Cypriot culture’ stated by the presence of ‘others’ as something culturally different with different values.
I personality believe that this work offers a very important perspective since such pictures go through the post-1974 generation who is responsible for the build of island’s future of “one population” as the current left-wing government engaged. However, I would like to mention that this work may not offer a clear picture of the current perceptions held by this idealization since in Cyprus for first time its history left-wing government is in power; a government with strong relations and history with the ‘other side’. I posit only that this dissertation to constitute an effort to gouge a contingency of subsistence of such ideas.
Methodology:
Critical Discourses Analysis (CDA) is the main method of discourses analysis in this work. CDA is a method that analysis the way discourses are used for specific proposes such as signification, power relations and development of new knowledge (Luke, 1997). CDA is about the words that are used in texts to analyse the sources of power, exploitation, dominance and inequality; and how these sources are related, maintained, reproduced and transformed within specific political or/and historical contexts (Dijk, 1988). In the case of Cyprus however, the political and historical contexts as analysed, do not allow completely the coherence with the value of hospitality as Greek-Cypriot nationalism is explained. Namely:
Three incidents are analysed determining the role that the print media play in the existence of Greek-Cypriot nationalism and the substance of Greek-Cypriot identity and under which cases the metaphor of hospitality exists. In the first incident Arabs were beaten by Greek-Cypriots in Limassol, on the 17th August 1985, the second Cypriot Authorities rescued a group of shipwreckers off the coast of Cyprus in 1998 and in the third one clashes occurred between policemen and Greek Pontius on the 22nd June 2004 in Pafos. Theses incidents were chosen partly at random. It was deemed important that the cases be as balance as possible, representing as wide a range of opinions as possible, within the parameters set up by the newspapers themselves so that the analysis are able to be justified. In contrast, criteria were set in the newspapers: The newspapers that some of their relevant articles analysed are: “Haravgi” (Twilight) which belongs to the left Party, “Simerini” (Today) which could be regarded that adjoins with the right prospects and “Fileleftheros” (Liberal) which could be accounted that keeps a neutral attitude regarding the two parties. Thus, the interaction between these newspapers’ presentation is investigated, instead of their accuracy to the readers; what texts do, instead of what do texts say.
Dijk (1991) argued that CDA reflects the societal norms and beliefs. Indeed, based on the analysis of these newspapers, it was concluded that in Greek-Cypriot society it is said something with the way that it should normally be said in, and there are crucial things that they do not say because society coerce or restrain the media not to refer them. In this sense Olowe (1993) stresses out that “the editor and his reporters on the one hand and their audience constitute an ideological empire”. In other words, it could be stressed that Greek-Cypriot identity is presented in the way we want to present it, with the way we speak, think and act. They could be rules, mental models and social acceptable behaviour in specific relationships used to produce, receive and interpret the message (McGregor, 2003).
An example of that is the 1998 incident where the newspapers referred about the others as “Illegal immigrants” since they ‘broke’ the law of the territory ownership illegally. In this case the media presented the ‘others’ as conqueror and the Greek-Cypriots as conquered one; as a second invasion in the country steering and rebirthing similar consequences with the Turkish military invasion against the Greek-Cypriots. Contrary, in the1985 incident, with the case of ‘rich Arabs’ (tourists) the notion of hospitality implies a home that is ‘open’ to them. In regards to the 2004 incident, Greek-Pontius are marked as threat for the country. In this case Greek-Pontius are welcomed having legal immigrant status, however, different contexts like history, tradition or shared system, is introduced to justify their dissimilarity with the ‘real Greeks’, the population that share the Greek language and Christianity with the Greek nation. Therefore, it could be said that discriminations are able to be presented as reasonable in the name purity and security of the nation. Accordingly, this study concludes that in Cyprus, the notion of hospitality is about the other inquiring and not only of the mastery of the self as a host of the nation.
Apart from that using the CDA method was able to identify the media point of view regarding the incident or group. For instance, with reference to the explanation of how identity is defined in Cyprus, the use of the term Pontius (Liberal) rather than Greek-Pontius (Twilight), Repatriates or Homogeneous also identified the journalist’s ideological position towards this specific incident. These words manifested the underlining semantic concepts used in the definition of the situation.
As a result, newspapers have a crucial role in the society since they may set the limits and the boundaries of what is talked about and how it is talked about. Stuart Allan for example writes that “the language of news encodifies as ‘common sense’ a hierarchical series of normative rules by which social life is to be understood” (p.78). Indeed, this analysis present that the Greek-Cypriot newspapers use a range of textual strategies like ancient Greek notions of hospitality (e.g. “Zeus” – the supreme god of ancient Greek mythology – the name Zeus is related to the Greek word Dios, meaning ‘bright’) stressing in this case the hegemonic of Greek-Cypriots. Moreover they classified the ‘other’ under the notion of ‘rich’ (Arabs) stressing in this case their difference from the Greek-Cypriots; the dominant ideology of classism discrimination. Accordingly, the analysis concluded that a newspaper can be actually worked to construct a codified definition of what should count as the reality of the incident.
It is important to mentioned, at this point, that any such study, related with Greek-Cypriots cannot be free from bias. As I argued Cyprus is a case of failure of political consociation between the two main communities after the Turkish invasion, thus it has been an experiment of partition thus making it a delineative case for partition with its different ‘ideological impact’ for every Greek-Cypriot.
Moreover, one of the main problems I faced was the ‘translation problem’. Greek language uses many metaphors and idioms; especially in this case where they could be used to redefine and reset the Greek-Cypriots identity. Specifically, a Greek word in English often has meanings that request several words. For instance the word “angelos” could translate either ‘divine messenger’ or ‘Jesus’ disciples’. Also, verb tenses or singular and plural, do not exist in English leading to multiple evasiveness even for the writer or the reader. Finally, metaphors and idioms could confuse the actors with different language and culture. It is something that cannot be overcome. However, my conviction of the meaning of such metaphors is presented into bracket in every translated article.
Literature Review:
National identity or identities?:
It is difficult to define nationalism or nation with many experts in the field appearing to be divided regarding their definition. Similarly, it could be assumed as well that a complexity on the definition of national identity is fact and accordingly a definition is important.
Anthony Smith (1991; p.342), defined the nation as a mass of people who share a common economy, history, territory, myths, and legal rights so as to achieve their common goals of autonomy, unity and identity (p.343) via some important networks of association and culture on which the nation can be build (ibid). Smith, Gellner, and Anderson locate the invention of nation, national identity and nationalism in the 18th & 19th century. Specifically, nationalism used to be a European dogma invented in the early 19th century in Germany with Johann Gettlob “addressing to the German Nation” (Smith, 2001; p.63), enhancing, therefore, the concept of nationalism as the one of a community with demographic features, language, religion and culture. For Anderson it was the rise of industrialism, capitalism and the invasion of the printing press. Specifically in Anderson’s mind nationalism and industrialization are reinforcing each other requiring uniformity and homogeneity (ibid). Therefore, the perceiving of heterogeneous members as threat of the modern nation is fact.
In his theory, Anderson noted that nation is an imagined political community “because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, of even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” ( p.6). “The nation is imagined as limited because even the largest of them […] has finite, if elastic, boundaries, beyond which lie other nations” (p.7). “It is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship” (p.7). On this account it could be said that nationalism appears as a need of the people to ‘protect’ them selves. Therefore, nationalism can be given as the security to people by the complexity of modern industrialized society. Thus, nationalism is underpinned on fear and the need to find ‘life-belt’ in uniformity. It works on the other hand as self-preservation. For example, when the in-group is threatened by ‘uncivilized strangers’, then the in-group wants conformity to a ‘common bond’. Consequently, it is created slowly the sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’. This feeling is more significant when the in-group is undergoing danger (Volkan, 1988). Thus, discrimination leads to a greater degree of solidarity and group identification establishing the sense of national identity either of individuals or the nation itself.
This national identity or nation’s identity is constructed by the movement of nationalism. According to Smith (1991) it is an ideological movement that has aimed at creating unity via the same rights and autonomy of a population. Therefore, it could be concluded that we live in a world of nations which are identified by their own cultures and history. This identification determines the uniqueness of a nation among others and on the other hand could be recognised as the beginning of the separation of the population into different groups of national and social identities. Moreover going a step further it could be assumed that since nationalism aims at the unity and autonomy of the nation, then nation (rather than the people) is the source of social and political power, in other word the self-determination.
As a result, it could be assumed that the existence of ‘others’ is a fact in national identity and nationalism. Identity is formed in relationship to difference, as Woodward states “identity is about difference; it is about marking out ‘us’ and ‘them’” (2002; p.viii). Similarly, Cohen, argued in Frontiers of Identity that “a complex national and social identity is continuously constructed and reshaped in its (often antipathetic) interaction with outsiders, foreigners and aliens – the ‘others’. You know who you are, only by knowing who you are not” (1994; p.4). Accordingly, it could be assumed, for example, becoming Cyprus member of the European Union (EU), serves a psychological need of reliving anxieties and responsibilities through the seeking for solidarities of its political problems with Turkey. This need of solidarity could be based on the ethnicity, the religious, the culture etc. Therefore, for Cyprus, EU is working as a fantasy in order to be part of it. Thus, creating the ‘EU culture’ idea, Cyprus is able to maintain unity and solidarity within the EU. This feeling of absorption by EU will be part of the individuals as well. Therefore, the process to find out who we are within this new collective identity of EU is fact.
Gellner (1983) argues that for a nation to operate effectively should share a simple medium of communication. This simple medium could be the newspapers. Print language can enable speakers from different language to become aware of each other. Accordingly, print and paper, become the medium of the existence of the millions who share their language and nation. Anderson (1983) argued that print-capitalism stabilized language giving print language “a sense of antiquity that enhanced the feeling of nationalism” (p.44).
Thus, “Minority, folk and peripheral languages or cultures are effectively squeezed out of the system or are actively squashed to create a single mass national culture" (Woodward, 2000; p.126). However, it is popularly believed that each person has fixed and unfixed identities. In contrast, Foucault points out that ‘identity’ is shifting and temporary clarification. Due to the fact that we interact with many people in our society, we have more than one identity. Thus, it could justified Woodward’s opinion that identity should change in relation to with whom we interact (2000; p.8). For example, many people associate the life of a student, husband and an employee at the same time. However, identity and personality are not in the same stage. Indeed, Woodward (ibid) argues that personality is often common for many people -shy; violent; egoist-. Identity on the other hand, is a “link between individuals and the world in which they live” (2000; p.7); a process of association that seems to be main reason of the argument. On this account, we can see that both associations and also disassociations are major factors within the development of identity - nationalism.
Consequently, this process of national identity stresses the separated nations with their distinguished population, the ‘others’.
Nation and ‘others’:
As mentioned above, ‘otherness’ is linked to the construction of national identity. There is no doubt that everyone constitutes stereotypes in everyday life either negatively or positively. Without preconceived ideas such as “us – them”, we can unfortunately not form our identity. In his work “Thought and Change” (1964; p.167) Gellner based these preconceived ideas on the fear of a shared nationality which is accordingly based on a negative affections; their exclusion form the ‘togetherness’. This exclusion can be defined by ethnicity, race, culture, religion etc.
Smith (1981, 1991) similarly stresses the ethnic origin of the nation. However, he also points out the everyday nationalistic symbolism which according to him, it determines the ‘others’ for the shaping of national identity (1991, pp.75). A great example could be the language or dress style. These are common for one community which could be considered as signs of their identity. At the same time however, these signs could be differentiated that specific community for the ‘others’. On this account, foreign language for the ancient Greeks for instance was a big issue; correspondingly the ancient Greek distorted myth ‘All men who are not Hellenes, are barbarians’. Anderson explains the function of language in relationship with the nationalism arguing that the language puts the roots for national appreciations making people on the other hand aware of so many other people in their particular language field which created the ‘kernel’ of the national ‘Imagined Community’ (1991; p.38). Anderson argues that the invention of these new communities (nations) was reliant upon “a half-fortuitous, but explosive, interaction between a system of production and productive relations (capitalism), a technology of communications (print), and the fatality of human linguistic diversity” (1983; p.42-43). Newspapers, Novels and the printing press were important because they created ‘print-languages’. ‘Print-languages’ were important, for Anderson, because they “created unified fields of exchange and communication,” they “gave a new fixity to language”, and “created languages-of-power of a kind different from the older administrative vernaculars” (1983; p.44-45). Anderson argues that “the convergence of capitalism and print technology on the fatal diversity of human language created the possibility of a new form of imagined community, which in its basic morphology set the stage for the modern nation” (1983; p.46).
Accordingly, under which criteria a group constitutes a nation? It could be deemed that criteria like religion and culture are the most important. Connor (1978) argued that these criteria might be incapable. Therefore nationality cannot be constituted in notions such as religious, geographically location or common language. These are important according to Connor only in the case that we want to sustain national identity (p.389).
Connor strongly believes that the main characteristic that named all nations and therefore the sense of nationality is the axiom of common descent. Indeed, he points out that the psychological structure that keeps the population (or the in-group) together is depended from the common persuasion that they are ethnically related. However it is not necessary for members of the in-group to be ancestrally related. It is enough that they believe that they are (p.376). As a result it could be taken into conclusion that this division of the world dichotomies people as it was mentioned above; into ‘us’ and ‘others’; ‘Us’, as member of the specific nation and ‘others’ as the out-group of ‘our’ community.
However, this definition of nationality by Connor could be criticized due to the fact that it does not take into the account the fact of the territoriality of civic nations, instead is based only on ethnicity. This ‘civic nationalism “maintains that the nation should be composed of all those – regardless of race, colour, creed, gender, language or ethnicity – who subscribe to the nation’s political creed. This nationalism is called civic because it envisages the nation as a community of equal, rights-bearing citizens, united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of political practices and values” (Ignatieff, 1994; p.3-4). Such ‘civic nationalism’ is in contrast to ‘ethnic nationalism’ which assumes that an “individual’s deepest attachments are inherited, not chosen. It is the national community which defines the individual, not the individuals who define the national community” (p.4-5). Despite what it could be blamed with, there is no doubt that Connor encompasses in his analysis the main characteristic of ethnic and territorial nationalism; especially the fact that national identity might put division signs on the world. To put it in another way, someone could argue that knowing who ‘We’ are is not bad but at the same time from Connor’s view, this recognises who are the ‘others’. Specifically he points out that the first feature that the people of a nation realize is what they are not ethnically and then what they are (p.388).
However, as it will be analysed in the next pages of this essay undertaking the case study of Cyprus, I strongly believe that signs such as culture, language, religion, historical events are important not only for this study but also in general since these elements distinguish the in-groups from the out-groups and accordingly divide the whole world. Cultural, traditional, historical affections could take part of this dichotomy between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’. Furthermore could give a shape and form to the dichotomy between the nation and ‘others’ and at the end, a reinforced form. An example for Greek-Cypriots could be the language issue which justifies their demands of belonging to Greece. The Greek language is compulsory for the media and the schooling (but not during breaks). What is analyzed here is the psychological bonds resulting from the harmonious ancestral relation, which occurs from the feeling of relationship.
Accordingly, this feeling takes root when expressing the use of the Greek national anthem and the wave of Greek flag next to the Cypriot one as national symbols of the Greek-Cypriot community in every single governmental building and schools. This could be translated as a way of remembering where we belong, and who we are and who the ‘others’ are. In Billig’s words, who discusses the nowadays transformation of nationalism via the meaning of the word in the contemporary world, the national identity is remembered because it is a part of our everyday life with symbols like money and national emblems (1995; p.38). These are example of “the unwaved flag” of nationalism for Billig (1995; p.35). The wave of Greek flag in Cyprus for instance, is considered to be a model of nationalism - to the Greek roots - and he comes to the conclusion that our nationalism is being unsigned as nationalism and is projected on to others (ibid). The nine blue stripes on the Greek flag are the symbols of the nine syllables of the Greek-slogan “freedom or death”. On the other hand, the essence of sacrifice and blood is expressed through the design of the Turkish flag, which is also used by the Turkish Cypriot community under the same condition such as in the Greek part.
Moreover, common memories of historical events of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots communities in Cyprus are represented in a way that stresses the dichotomy between the two communities; the military parades take place on both sides on the occasion of the most important national festivities. A remarkable statement is given by Graikos, a Cypriot investigator of Cyprus history, who stresses that the Cypriot conflict for Independency from English Colony in 1955 was supported by both communities in the beginning; this part never has been mentioned in the Greek curriculum. In contrast it is presented as a willing only by the Greek-Cypriot, ignoring on the other hand all the Turkish presence (1991). Billig argues that “different factions, whether classes, religions, regions, genders or ethnicities, always struggle for the power to speak for the nation, and to present their particular voice as the voice of the national whole” (p.71). This is in relation to how the national “we” is constructed. More analysis of this is going to be presented in the next chapter.
Such events could be reported as the emergence of both enemies and heroes. The flags, the nation’s glory, which is acclaimed, the fighters’ courage, the live comments, the information about the use of weapons and the global description of the period during which the events were praised when the parade took place, creates an atmosphere, which enhances heroism and excessive love for those who fought to defend the ethnic ideals. These events could be paraphrased as the psychology of nationalism which strikes at extraordinary times of emotional moods. That is why maybe Billig gives ‘bad’ meaning, for such national’s events since nationalism becomes something excess to everyday life. He argued that if the notion of nationalism is applied only to forceful social movements, then it could be seem more likely that the “national identity is part of a more banal way of life in the nation” (p.46)
According to Anderson (1991, p.142), so many love as well as hatred messages could easily be transmitted through them. Nationalism is therefore embraced warmly. However, according to Anderson, hatred comes up in expressions of national feelings (ibid). I consider the feeling of glory and love going together with those of hatred and animosity, at least as far as nationalism is concerned. The reason for this is because the social mechanism leading to a psychological process and painful nationalistic excesses throughout time with the ‘Others’ being inclined to ignorance, might lead to further divisive situations. The Greek Independence Day stresses simultaneously that they celebrate the defeat of the Turkish suppressors. Thus, the sacrifice at the altar of the nation paves the way towards the emblematic immortality, with the hero becoming an idol for the young people who come after him and accordingly historical element could be revived. All of these lead to underline the distinction between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’.
However, how does this separation of national identity may make explicit to the role of the ‘other’ plays in the definition of national identity? Deutsch (1966) said that the issue of the ‘other’ is a useful element to the assumption of nationality. The reason for this is the fact that, to be considered as member of a national community you should communicate perfectly with fellow nationals rather than out-groups (p.98). Thus, it could be said that when the social communication system is effective then, the separation could become stronger. Apart from that the most important thing could be concluded from Deutsch’s point of view that nation is based on the ability to communicate better with one another from the same community is that, nationality cannot be a clear notion. This definition gives us the message that a nation is a group of people who share more common things together, rather than with out-groups. Accordingly the definition of nation includes the term of otherness. Consequently the existence of out-groups is an important issue for the nation so as to keep the unity of the in-group.
This opinion is a fact in my analysis regarding Cyprus. Cypriot national identity has a ‘double-face’ meaning. On the one hand it is based on the commonality with the Greek nation. As a result it is based on the common language that fastens the Greek-Cypriot community together. This can be presented against Connor’s opinion that these elements included the belief of common decent and furthermore to Deutsch’s opinion of communication. Considerably, it is based on set issues that could be considered as ethnic relations such as shared culture, common history which at the end links to ‘mother land’.
On the other hand, Cypriot identity denotes or indicates difference. Via the symbolic meanings of flags or national parades as presented above, Cypriot identity posits the existence of ‘others’, that do not belong to the in-group and at the same time the in-group should be distinguished. As Anderson (1983) characterised them as imagined, national apprehension highlights commonality and difference. To put it in other words, it affects self-realisation even of the in-group or of the out-group. As a result it could be suggested that national identity does not have a true meaning. It could simply be significant to other nations.
The concept of National Identity and the notion of otherness:
It has been presented above that national identity has a ‘double face’ where it is based on the belief of common descent or of common culture like traditions, symbols and communication system that are shared by the members of the community. Moreover it could be said that national identity has connections with specific territories, the so-called ‘mother land’ of a nation. It could be assumed that all national identities are based on a consolidation of some of these elements.
However, could history influence the constitution of a national identity? Cyprus could be a great example as an answer of this question. Cyprus is an independent State even with some restrictions for the first time in 1960. Throughout its long history, the island changed consecutive conquerors. Therefore, its relation with the ‘other’ is likely to be considered, at first view, a relation that has never been the one of equality but a relation between the conqueror and the conquered, facing the relevant consequences in terms of people’s mentality and understanding. However, the Cypriot society, in 1960, coped with a historical reality for the very first time, which is the constitutional recognition of what was/is ‘other’, of its culturally and ethnically different communities, which has eventually become equal. Thus, the political orientations of the local leaders of the two ethnicities (Greek and Turkish), who has not been convinced about the prospective created by this new acquisition, seeking after imposing their model of the so called ‘national sorting out’: in other words ‘Hellenizing’ the island and ‘Making it Turkish’ respectively (Graikos, 1991), have impeded the social evolution of the Cypriots in the post-colonialism. This orientation three years after the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus has led to the bloody bicommunal conflicts, which are likely to be reported as the starting point of the demolition of the ‘Cypriot experimental construction’, causing traumatic experience to both communities and evil consequences until recently. It was deemed absolutely normal that these experiences undermined confidence in the principle of peaceful co-existence among all Cypriots.
Thus, the Greek-Cypriots are divided in warring political camps to be poles apart. The one is in its overwhelming majority leftwing party-(AKEL)- and stresses that ‘We’ are first of all Cypriots and then Greeks and Turkish’. In this sense, this party might be thought of recognising the Turkish community on the island. The second biggest political party is the rightwing party-(DISY)-. It stresses the Hellenic identity of Cyprus and it never refers to the Turkish community as such, until the official accession of Cyprus to the EU process is launched between the Cypriot government and the EU (Mavratsas 1997, 1999; Kitromilidis 1989; p.149-192). Accordingly, the Greek-Cypriot nationalism may be reported as being caused by the feeling of “belonging” to the Greek nation or the Turkish one even if the reason of this by the both political parties might be based on these specific pillars such as the national autonomy, harmony and identity.
As a result it could be taken into the account that the development of Cyprus’ identity (both sides) is constituted by the significant others: ‘I am Greek you are Turkish…Cypriot”. This is because the 1960 Constitution defined citizenship clearly in terms of ethnic origin, language, culture and religious (Article 1,2,3). These distinctions drew categories of Cypriot citizens, and complexity of what Cyprus identity is. Accordingly, with the socialist party in power in Greece supporting the idea of Enosis (unification), concepts of the Greek nation became stronger for Greek-Cypriots (Koutselini-Ioannidou, 1997). This ethno-nationalism has been arisen post-independence period, was the reason also of “democracy lacks quality, unless it is able to produce a constitution that provides for fundamental liberties, minority rights and a set of institutions and checks and balances that limit states power and ensure accountability” (Danopoulos, 2004; p.42).
This dichotomy of Cyprus’ identity is referred moreover, to the concept of threatens of their independence. This is an important element for the development of identity in general since it is based on this assertion threatening the nation could affect the formation or transformation of its identity. According to Papadakis (1997), in Cyprus’ significant other (Turkish Cypriots for instance) is transmitted as a danger for the existence of the nation (Greek – Independently and self-determinately) and not because the Turkish one is bigger or stronger. Moreover I would like to add here that in the case of Cyprus, significant other is a group that endanger the discreteness of the in-group. Indeed, Lemaine (1978; p.22) stressed this fact saying that an identity that is not strong enough could be restored by emphasising senses of otherness and difference. Thus, it could be said that even if Turkish Cypriots share many of Greek traditions or share common historical experiences, at the same time could be perceived as significant other because is able to endanger the unity of Greek-Cypriot, or the opposite.
Apart from that, based on the long history of Cyprus as given above, it could be added that the significant other may categorised those who belong to the same political constitution with the in-group, such as the Turkish Cypriots, but also as analysed in the next chapter those who constitute a different political group such as the immigrants. This group of people might become significant others because of their different culture or language which are considered as a danger of the ethnic and cultural unity of the nation. The nation then based on the same logic as above, might introduce a process of re-confirmation of its identity and look for its re-definition so as to separate the in-group from this new danger of newcomers. In this sense, resetting of the culture and the symbolic and mythical meanings of the in-group is essential elements to appoint these elements that differentiate the in-group from the newcomers. Thereby, this sense can lead to re-definition of the territorial boundaries (Greece for instance regarding the Greek-Cypriot population) of Cyprus or it might re-define them emphasising specific cultural and historical conceptions of its ancient Greek values such as a tolerant and/or hospitable population (subject that studied in the next chapter). As a result it is given the message on the other hand, that immigrants threaten the in-group’s image of harmony, unity and authenticity. Thus, the in-group might be led to re-discover its identity in order to be sure that these symbols and myths are still part of their identity; this sense is going to be analysed further in the next chapter.
Consequently, it could be concluded that even if the significant other is the group of people from the same political constitution or a different political group as analysed above, in general, the aim of the otherness is to re-define the unity and genuineness of the nation from within or the re-discovery for instance of culture and limits via the danger of immigration.
My ambition of this chapter was to identify the different characteristics that are developed between the nation and the notion of ‘otherness’ and the way in which these characteristics modulate the development of the so-called national identity. However, for the case of Cyprus, another one main topic that should be mentioned about nationalism is the element of history as stated above. The history of Cyprus is set off by significant others that may have given its mark to the development of the Cypriot identity. Today in Cyprus, significant others might be a nation or ethnic group that included into the national community and threatens or apprehended to threaten its cultural and ethnical purity. Nevertheless, how Turkish Cypriots (as ethnic group), may be justified as significant others who may threaten the Greek culture and purity of the island?
There are many arguments with regards to this. It is suggested that they could become significant other when their dangerous presence becomes salient (Tailor, 1999). Indeed, it could be recognised during periods of instability such as when the symbolic myths of the in-group are unstable. In Cyprus, significant others are identified (again) when the ‘boundaries’ were opened in 2004 between the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities and both – Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots individuals- evolved the new status quo of reconciliation and reunification between enemies, with the Cyprus national identity in the re-making. After that phase a new political ideology has arisen. The above image of Cyprus today appears to be like a country without a sense of belonging to anywhere but an independent one with one population (without any discrimination of the race – Greek or Turkish), the new political ideology even of left or right wings parties of both sides, serve the sense of belonging by re-pointing and/or restricting its territorial and cultural boundaries (Doob 1964; p. 253). During this period of political and social crisis in Cyprus, it could be seem that similar messages are given to the population. Not only these re-points/restricts unite the people in front of something else, but also they remind them who they are, underlining that ‘we are unique and different’ from them. In other words, it could be said that the significant others in that case could become the pole for the alteration to a new identity of Cyprus. What is mentioned here is that via the conflicts with the ‘other’, the national identity is able to be re-defined in a way that makes it relevant under a new set of conditions or gets it in near to the base of the imaginary one which response better to the symbolic or affective need of its member. How these different groups are justified as significant ‘others’ who may threaten the Greek culture and purity is the main argument of the newspapers analysis.
All in all, what could be concluded is that if the national identity of Cyprus is competed, then the significant others could formulate the boundaries and invigorate the in-group’ sense of belonging. On the other hand, if the identity is subjected to political and social crisis, then the significant other could become the reason of the crisis.
Finding-Analysis
Background:
In the previous chapter has been examined how national identity is defined in Cyprus, which is belonging to Greece and the ancient Greek values myth like hospitality etc. The aim of the present chapter is to present how this idealization of Greek-Cyprus Identity, is endorsed namely stressing their hospitality, and how it is challenged via limits and exclusions.
Indeed, the national myth that the Greek-Cypriot society is hospitable, without the sense of discrimination, was the result of the presentations by Cypriot Greek-medium newspapers, in regards to three incidents that took place in different decades in Cyprus between Greek-Cypriots and ‘others’. Here, it could be assumed that the notion ‘hospitality’, in relation with ‘others’, is depended upon some concepts. Derrida points out that hospitality requests one to be the ‘master’ of the nation (2001). Anderson characterized nations as imagined political communities (1991) which are produced and reproduced via symbolic means. Especially, in the case of Cyprus which in its long-age history had been passed sequentially from many conquerors, the relations with the ‘other’, might be translated into a relation between conqueror and the conquered; while in tourism for instant the notion of hospitality may implies a range of possible homes, a home that is ‘open’ to ‘specific’ foreigners (Gibson & Germann-Molz, 2007). Similarly, the notion of hospitality could be ‘metamorphosed’ in a sense of controlling in a territory ownership, revival nationalistic visions. This controlling however, could be lost from the hand of the ‘master’ when the guest requests for example basic equalities or something more. Then, hospitality can be transformed into hostility in a way of justifying uncivilized ‘others’. This transformation can be explored via the method of Critical Discourses Analysis (CDA). Using CDA is going to examine a) how discrimination and intolerance is encoded in the media presentations b) what is the given meaning of ‘Cypriot culture’ and c) how their presentations may elicit negatively attitude against ‘others’ and national sensitivities. Accordingly, through the CDA, it could be examined how hospitality can be identified or presented via the media.
Theses incidents, as mentioned in methodology, were chosen partly at random. It was deemed important that the cases be as balance as possible, representing as wide a range of opinions as possible, within the parameters set up by the newspapers themselves so that the analysis are able to be justified. In the first incident Arabs were beaten by Greek-Cypriots in Limassol, on the 17th August 1985, the second Cypriot Authorities rescued a group of shipwreckers off the coast of Cyprus in 1998 and in the third one clashes occurred between policemen and Greek Pontius on the 22nd June 2004 in Pafos. In contrast, criteria were set in the newspapers: The newspapers that some of their relevant articles analysed are: “Haravgi” (Twilight) which belong to the left Party, “Simerini” (Today) which could be regarded that adjoin with the right prospects and “Fileleftheros” (Liberal) which could be accounted that keeps a neutral attitude regarding the two parties. Thus, the interaction between these newspapers’ presentation is investigated, instead of their accuracy to the readers; what texts do, instead of what do texts say.
Method:
Presentation of such events emphasise the role that the print media play in the manufacturing and the substance of Cyprus national identity. As it has examined in the first chapter, Cypriot national identity is not strong enough, so the presentation of ‘others’, as dangers for the unity of the in-group, is an important issue (Lemaine, 1978: 22). This might be linked to a process of re-confirmation of the identity and the genuineness of the nation from within or the re-discovery for instance of culture and limits. This is more significant in the case of Cyprus, in regards of its history, where the need of coexistence with the ‘other’ is easier to be presented as a relation between the ‘conqueror’ and the ‘conquered’ one.
Indeed, Dijk (1993) stressed that many studies from different countries have shown that presentations related with racial affairs usually includes a number of stereotypical topics such as:
- Immigration; emphasising on problems, cultural threat, illegality,
- Crime; emphasising on ethnicised crimes like prostitution, murders, violence and thefts,
- Cultural difference such as ‘reluctant’ habits, social problems in racial relations that are assumed as cultural status of minorities,
- And race relations like discriminations and racial attacks which are presented as untoward incident and may related to the presence or behaviour of minorities themselves.
In the last two decades, CDA has appeared as the method to study the relationship between language and social practices (Wodak, 1997). It is related with the “social practice of language behaviour, with the dialectics between society (including its subsystems), power, values, ideologies, opinions expressed and constituted in and about language” (Wodak, 1997:xiv). CDA is crucial method because analyses language that use in situations of discrimination where CDA strives to “uncover and de-mystify certain social processes in this and other societies, and to make mechanisms of manipulation, discrimination, demagogy and propaganda explicit and transparent” (Wodak, 1989; xiv). Going a step further, CDA is “political in intent with its practitioners acting upon the world in order to transform it and thereby help create a world where people are not discriminated against because of sex, colour, creed, age or social class” (Calda, 1996; xi).
Taking a look to discussions of the aims and methods of CDA study by Wodak (1997), Fowler (1979) or Dijk (1993) it could be pointed out that CDA is also social and linguistic. Certain context like the linguistic codes by agencies, lexical choice and metaphors, symbolism and characterizations are studied with other strategies like dichotomization between ‘us’ and ‘them’, exclusion and denial.
Due to the wide range of critical discourse advisement, this essay is going to focus upon the presentation of the press, in the construction and reproduction of dominant ideology of nationalism and ‘classism’ - discriminations. The main reason why on press’ presentation is taken by Fowler (1991) and Hall (1982): because newspapers’ aim specifically is to place news events in a particular context and define their situations. Indeed, taking a look at Dijk’s work (1987, 1991, 1993, 1995), who focuses on western media and democracies, it could be established that dominant ideology like the media have the most significant impact on people’s lives. Dijk argues that the public discourses (media) are controlled by an elite white minority and thus their particular ideologies underline the everyday racism against ‘heterogeneity’ communities (1992: p.3). Therefore, since the media reproducing and representing the elite ideologies and benefits, it could be considered that these selective and specific ‘sources’ define the situation of an event and ‘manufactures a consensus’ in a particular field engineering opinions about a specific ideology.
While it is true to say that the media is not set about the white superiority or obvious and manifest defamatory and scandalous incidents. In fact, these acts are forbidden by Western Democracies. However, Dijk concludes that nowadays’ racism is the everyday negative attitude or opinion and ideology, subtle acts and conditions of discrimination against ‘others’ which when they are repeated and cumulated by the white minority (politicians or academic) (ibid), they have the most significant impact on people’s lives. In Cyprus for example, extreme right-wings’ opinions, like “Tharros” newspaper, or activities of “Golden Dawn” (Xrisi Avgi), a Neo-Nazi organization, have been foredoomed by the media. While nowadays clear racist opinions have been forbidden, “media produced by race-hate organisations…(which)… include overt racism… the favourable media coverage... granted to what are explicitly or openly racist positions and arguments” (Hall, 1990: p.159). Such representations by the media are the racist suggestions by organisations which are being presented nowadays “as a set of unquestioned assumptions” (p.20). The "unquestioned assumptions" are the element of difficulty in discussion. Accordingly, since they could be cumulated or repeated, then they can be the key production for race category based on the profoundly negative social consequences. Consequently, elements like negative opinions and ideologies (direct or indirect) against those minorities ‘co-operate’ to the dominance of the majority group and the inferior position of minorities.
A focus upon Greek-Cypriots discourses is important because discrimination against others and antagonism towards visible minorities (e.g. Turkish Cypriots) is most commonly feeding on the other hand, hate-groups like “Golden Down” or right-wings organizations. It is true to say that extreme racist discourse is no longer acceptable or publishable by Greek-Cypriots’ Media. Apart from “Tharros” newspaper, there is not other similar newspaper in Cyprus. However, it has been replaced by what Barker (1981) stressed as ‘the new racism’. In other words, direct racist expressions against minorities are eschewed and have been replaced on the other hand, with ‘new racetalk’ (Bonilla-Silva & Forman, 2000) which while it is controlled by an elite minority it could be presented as a form of exclusion. What it is mentioned here is that; new racism could define the nation as a unified cultural community, pure and homogeneous. For example, as it would be examined below, Greek medium newspapers want to give a symbolic character in Cyprus presenting a Greek speaking society, Christian and white. Therefore, if someone might want to present the Greek part as Turkish or Russian speaking, then one of the in-group could get frightened.
This symbolic identification might be aimed to stir emotions feeling against logical. Mio (1997) points out that this is more important for issues related with immigration because of its impact in public discourses. For example there is the possibility of immigrants to be the reason of those who are unemployed, the life cost etc. Mio argued that the image presented for immigrants, offset by fears of terrorism or asylum seeking. Accordingly, a symbolism of a native people as a victim or threatened by outsiders is fact, consolidating cultural and historical fears of invasion by strange ‘others’. Consequently, via linguistic codes this confusing issue could be more comprehensible. In the words of Mio “they are also effective because of their ability to resonate with latent symbolic representations residing at the unconscious level” (p.130) which is not logical. Finally he argued that such representations could affect immigrants via specific regulations, and that identifying the role of such metaphors in public policy formation is important because it identified the source and nature of social myth about immigrants.
In the previous chapter examined how Anderson (1991) characterised identity as imagined which is produced, reproduced via symbolic meanings, and how easily could be expressed through the system of mass communication. As a result notions like common history, traditions or shared systems of cultural representations and fears about their existence, are important components in the fabrication of nations and/or a ‘non stable’ Cypriot identity. All of these involve the beginning of difference from other nations and national identities as well; one of the major points in the conceit of the Cyprus national identity and culture as well. Thus, going back to the construction and maintenance of Greek-Cypriot identity and its relation with the significant others, as presented in the first chapter, it could be argued that the presentation such notions by the media has two functions: It creates and asserts the same-ness between Cyprus national identity with the Greek one and therefore as Greeks’ ancestors, we share same values of hospitality etc, thus the rejection of any discriminative behaviour, even politically or culturally, is fact. This idea is so positive in any field of Greek-Cypriot community, that over four decades, sociologists stressing out the contrary, without however any specific impact [e.g. immigration and justice system (Charalambidou, [online] www.enar-eu.org, 2007), education and social (Papadakis, 1995;pp. 54-67) and employments (Trimikliniotis, 2006;pp.3-35)].
Dijk (1993) mentioned that the group in which members share a sense of ‘we-ness’ are presented in a positive way while representing the “other” negatively. Namely, considering the limitation against any discriminative behaviour or talk, and the positive acceptance of any difference and opinion, the contradiction of declining appears as a semantic actuation of positive self-presentation. For example, some strategies which are adopted by the elite minority such as generalization or exaggeration, contrast and comparison, rationalize prejudiced opinions, whereas other strategies, such as litotes, (“not many” or “a few”), and the sincerity, are geared optimal self-presentation and at the same time the mitigation of highly negative evaluations of ‘others’ (the negative part following by…but) (p. 141). These declinations work for the ‘others’ in a negative way.
Accordingly, the idealization of Cyprus Identity as tolerant and without the sense of discrimination, could be identified here: it is related to the move of positive self-presentation, representing Greek-Cypriots as open-minded and modern, sharing on the one hand, the belief that any kind of discrimination no longer exist as a characteristic of their society, in order to clarify the Greek roots of the identity. Therefore, any type of ‘racetalk’ maybe is not able to be identified as type of racism. Consequently, nationalism and racism together are the continuation of the same national axis in Cyprus.
In application.
Thus far, it was examined the capacities of CDA to examine the hidden messages of presentations and how these messages refer. As mentioned in the beginning, the newspapers analysed here, want to present to the eyes of ‘others’, a hospitable natives reinforcing the dominant. This chapter has the potential to present the opposite. The reason is not because personality I reject my Greek identity but I doubt whatever may be doubted: in that case this we are hospitable.
BROADCASTING HOSPITALITY:
The statement by Malkmkjaer (1981) regarding the language as medium of communication is fact. He stresses out that language is not only a ‘pellucid’ medium of communication about the world but also a main part of the social process. So, if language is scheduled upon dispositions of users that are related to their social status as Kress (1990) argued then, statements are expressive of and are organized by an ideological system or system of linguistic terms. Consequently, ideology might set upon many disciplines so as to cover tints of meanings. Ideology on the other hand refers to beliefs and values in regard of social and political life (Olowe, 1993: 8). It is able at the same time to mold the people’s perception and though, giving to them, a constructed and interpreted reality.
Media therefore, are affected and they are not blameless. Olowe (1993) stresses out that “the editor and his reporters on the one hand and their audience constitute an ideological empire”. The newspaper subjects all newsworthy events that constantly come up in social life to rigorous linguistic manipulation to make them suit the ideological expectation of the audience” (p.8). In order to define this process you should analyse, for instance, the association of language and ideology, focusing of nationally important issues and politics (e.g. the belief that Cyprus belong to the Greek nation) and in setting out the media thematic inflexion and nominalization, the belief that only their particular presentation/message exist, as opposed to realism.
As an example of this, below is given the headlines by three different newspapers presentation of an event in 2004, between homogeneous – repatriates (Greek Pontius) and Police. However, to be able to identify the ideology of journalist and newspapers should be taken into the account two main things. First the terms ‘repatriates’ or ‘homogeneous’ for the Greek Pontius from the Soviet Union were adopted by the Greek Government on February 1994 after the Greek Parliament unanimously voted the nomination of 19th May as the "Day of Memory for the Greeks Genocide in the Asia Minor-Ponto". This event is not recognized internationally as genocide, with exception of the Greek State and Cyprus Republic (Tsakiris, 2002: 475-491). Accordingly, the Greek Pontius (people from Euxinous Pontus with Greek region) are henceforth considered as Greek repatriates in the Greek-Cypriot community and they have legal immigrant status. However, considering the analysis regarding the history of Cyprus and the relation with the ‘other’ as relation between conqueror and the conquered one, but also the fact that the Greek Pontius community is the biggest one in Cyprus with the vast majority of them dwelling in Pafos, maybe that is why many Greek-Cypriots deem the Greek Pontius community to be the ‘second invasion’ of ‘foreigner’s people’ in the island after the Turkish invasion in Cyprus. This is often strengthened by the Greek-Cypriots’ newspapers:
The 2004 incident was reported by these newspapers in a front page story under the headlines:
H1: “Pafos has turned into a Volcano: fears of a vendetta after the violent incidents between Greek Pontius and the Police” (Liberal, 23/06)
H2: “Undeclared War of Pontius with the Police in Pafos” (Today, 24/06);
H3: “The police are accused of racism. The responsible minister rejects the categories and he said that the Police are compelled to impose law and order.” (Twilight; 24/06).
Taking a first glance at the articles’ headlines, it could be concluded that the ideological position of the specific media, depict the Greek Pontius as reason of the conflicts and the breakdown of harmony and purity of the Pafian society. The choice of the words Volcano-Vendetta-Fear (H1), Undeclared war (H2), impose law and order (H3) clearly paint the picture of who people think Greek Pontius are, and may offer them an alibi. Using fear (H1) in their presentations, automatically, Greek Pontius are marked as threat and since they are treated, in turn may be threaten and their security. Ahmed concluded that “affective politics of fear result in the right to movement for some and the containment (thus denial of this right) of others” (New Internationalist, March 2005). Thus, it could be said that media were the demagoguery’s aid.
Moreover, it could be considered that the three newspapers report the event as the ‘absolute judge’ since they do not mention in their headlines any evidence of ‘innocence’ for the part of Greek Pontius community. To put it in another way, these headlines are the result of an evaluation rather than of a description of the event. Thus, it could be assumed that the problem has already been determined to the viewers since the headline of an article is the first way which we communicate with a problem. The headlines are strategically used by the journalist, who chooses specific “rhetorical vocabulary” to make impact on the audiences (Taiwo, 2004: p.324) defining and marginalizing at the same time any evidences of discriminations in Pafos, and therefore strengthen the dominant and preferred view of ‘Pafian society’ as tolerant, pluralistic on the Greek Pontius community.
The vocabulary choice stresses or understates the positive or negative point of view of incidents or groups. These kinds of choices not only show the ideological position of journalists or the media but also lead to the specific representation of an incident as was studied. For instance, with reference to the explanation of how identity is defined in Cyprus, the use of the term Pontius (H2) rather than Greek Pontius (H1), Repatriates or Homogeneous also implies the journalist’s ideological position towards this specific incident. In the words of Dijk “words manifest the underlining semantic concepts used in the definition of the situation” (1991; p.53). It is linked to the discourses of nationalism, since it could be empowered or reinstate to the Greek-Cypriot the feeling of controlling in a territory ownership or gives to them a symbolic character of their identity which might be linked to a process of re-confirmation of their identity and the genuineness of Cyprus culture and limits. Indeed, such process is done “in order to conceive new ways of figuring the social relations between citizens, immigrants, refuges, asylum seekers and nation-states” (Germann-Molz and Gibson 2007; p.10).
Apart from that, the other two incidents are analysed here, composed the result in terms of ‘immigrants’ or stressed the issue of ‘difference’ either racial or social classism. The major findings of the research as presented by the newspapers studied are:
The 1985 incident:
- Today newspaper: “Rich Lebanese” in all its editions.
- Liberal newspaper: “Rich Lebanese” in all its editions.
- Twilight newspaper: “Foreigners” and “Rich Arabs” in all its editions.
The 1998 incident:
all the newspapers clearly mentioned the term “illegal immigrants”.
There is no doubt even here, that putting the victim in the category of rich, 10 years after the Turkish invasion and its financial consequences against the Greek-Cypriots, it could be concluded that the reason of fighting has already been determined to the people (money). However, this picture is not painted in regards of the 1998 incidents where illegal immigrant ‘broke’ the “laws of the territory ownership” (Derrida, 2000: 151) of the island.
Accordingly the first conclusion is drawn as follows:
Some evidence is likely to be given as to racism being transposed from the race to the culture. In 1985 the problem consisted in the discriminations between rich foreigners and ‘poor Greek-Cypriots’ deriving from businessmen, which has been entirely opposed in 2004 with Pafos incidents. There, the problem consists in the rich Greek-Cypriots being afraid of the possibility those “outlandish” uncivilised Greek Pontius, consequently their dissimilarity, since their civilisation is considered difficult to be integrated to them. Thus, the intercultural communication phobia is likely to be considered from now on the nucleus of neo-racism.
In the context of Cypriot social and political discourse these terms refer to more restricted or specific meaning. Illegal immigrants (1998)refer to individuals who are minorities and according to the dominant discourses, those without values who do not belong to the unified cultural community. Similarly, with the term rich Lebanese (1985) may refer to those who do not respect our hospitality and/or they expect more from the home that is opened to them. Thus, the redefinition of who has the position of the host in the country may be needed.
ENCODING DISCRIMINATION:
Thus, an essentially racial issue comes to be summarized and argued without reference to its most socially and politically noticeable point, such as:
H4: (1985) “Arabs were beaten by 100 young people. It is shame for us!” (Liberal, para.1).
H5: (2004) “And thus, it is created slowly but surely, in among the common opinion, the feeling of insecurity, xenophobia and finally the racism. And again, our ancient ancestors, who worshipped the Xenio Zeus [hospitable], they bequeathed us a high feeling of hospitality. As a people [Greek], as Cypriots have for centuries been renowned for our hospitality” (Today, para.2)
In contrasts, the journalists avoid to refer to the expression of racism since they do not relate the incident with it. In both cases, there are no evidences that show the opposite. Contrary, they still maintain the myth of Cypriot hospitality and tolerance. The result of this vocabulary chooses is that, the incidents become minimized and the responsibilities of the responsible people are lessened. The palliation is clearly mentioned in example H4 “by 100 people”. This palliation moreover, is imaged in the analysis of xenophobia by Gondor (2006). Even thought here, journalist avoids the discrimination as a main reason of the beating. The use of the words “shame for us” (H4) clarifies or marginalizes the group and make it seems less important. Furthermore it could be assumed that they exclude these 100 young people from the ‘imagined community of hospitable people’ and the community, to which the myth of ‘hospitality’ refers, thus amplifying the larger semantic strategy of rejection (Dijk, 1993; p.250).
However, the H5 example could be assumed that racism and nationalism are reproduced via symbolic logic:
a) Xenio Zeus: refers to Ancient Greek. It could be deemed that it is used to evoke certain emotions – the ancient past ‘roots’ – civilization.
b) And again: It works here like the slogan “Remember” or “Do not forget”. With litotes it is reminded to the other citizens the “our ancient ancestors” - civilization which leads to self-presentation as Dijk explained.
c) Bequeathed: The resetting of the Greek identity.
These metaphors are used as form of exclusion. Speaking about the role of metaphors, Mio (1997) suggested that they underline a symbolic representation to stir emotions and collapse any logical feeling. This symbolic representation is based on the ideology developed by the media in Cyprus which is introduced to cover the prejudices of this system, “under the appearance of naturalness and universality” (Mitchell, 1986). Therefore, putting it into shape via metaphors and image, on the other hand produces a meaningful operation. Accordingly, in Cyprus, metaphor is an ideology, based on political myths, to establish the national ‘one-ness’ of the readers, creating on the other hand, the myth that Greek Pontius or any ‘others’ are inordinate and should be stopped. This belief is assumed by the journalist and it shared by the audiences and consequently remains unexplored and real.
Gibson & Germann-Molz (2007) argued that the idea of hospitality could be used in a way to justifying inhospitality and hostility. Indeed, hospitality requires one to be in the ‘control’ of the nation. Therefore, hospitality as a claim of ownership, the owner must have some kind of control over the guest. In the case that the guest ‘takes over’ the nation via force, then the owner is not any more hospitable because they are no longer in control of the case. Then, hostility takes place in the name of nationalism presenting the ‘others’ as stranger or strange. This could be done easily since hospitality always posits some kind of limits (e.g. borders control) where the ‘other’ can trespass them. Consequently ‘race-talks’ could be arisen and thus racism takes place in the society.
The below articles are examples of this, which on the other hand, defines Cyprus as unified cultural community and thus they could be presented as a form of exclusion.
H6: (2004) “Message must be sent to Greek Pontius that in this land there is state and society that is ready to accept the foreigners” (Today, para.5)
H7: (2004) “[that the vast majority of the Greek-Pontius dwell in Pafos] allows the ghettoization and increases the difficulty of their integration in the society of Pafos, also taking into the account the deeply rooted attitudes and habits that this given [+specific] group of the population has…it is the climax of the social disruption that exists for long time in the city of Pafos ” (Twilight, para.2)
H8: (20/08/1985) “Whatever it happened, the reason is the rape of the young Greek-Cypriots by Arabs in Ayia Napa” (Liberal, para.1)
There representation help to convey the concepts that the ‘others’ are not civilized like ‘us’ by simplified images that enclose in complex points. Indeed, Billig (1993) characterized them as objectifications that are products of discursive interaction and communication, reflecting the broader ideological and social functions of representation. This is an abstract idea against the ‘others’ which it could be argued that it treats people like tools without feelings and rights.
As a result, this specific function of the representation of these incidents is to compose an explanation which disclaim neo-racism and thus reproduce and control the myth of hospitality. For example, H6 gives the signal of the completeness of a society, the formal structures of the peaceful people. Example H7 establishes the definition of “neo-racism” and ‘strangers’ which could be misfit to Pafian society. Example H8 justifies the explanation of hospitality that is legitimizing extreme behaviours and deeds (“whatever it happened”). As a result, based on this analysis it could be argued that the incidents define the nation as a unified community and homogeneous.
MEANINGS RELATED TO ‘CYPRIOT CULTURE’:
Lexical style as understood via the vocabulary selection is an important aspect of the ideological composition of texts. In the case of Cyprus as it has been examined above “the vocabulary of a language or a variety of a language, amounts to a map of the objects, concepts, processes and relationships about which the culture needs to communicate” (Fowler, 1991; p.80). Specifically, Fowler separates the meaning into two parts: Referential and Sense meaning. Referential meaning is established on the actual application of a word to an object in the world; Sense meaning “is given by its place within a system of related terms” (1991; p.81). As a result, words not only classify objects or events, but also locate them within a system of categorization based on commonality and differentiation. These differences could be understood in the contextual use of the terms themselves; for instance the word “immigrant” not only has a specific meaning of minority as was studied above but also gives the identity and purity of Cypriots and ‘Cypriot culture’. While it is true to say that “Cypriots” here might not refer to Greek-Cypriots status in the society. If the definition of ‘neo racism’ is taken into account, it could be argued that the connotation ‘Cyprus’ exclusively refers to ‘Cypriots’ of Greek Christians with the Greek History background and culture and not of Greek Russian Christians with Russian History background and culture (such as the Greek Pontus). Evidence for this is shown below:
H9: (2004) “…it is created slowly but surely, in among the common opinion in Pafos…” (Today, para.1)
H10: (30/08/1998) “You keep for a long time the illegal immigrants in hotels and you are looking after them with money of Cypriots. Have you ever thought how many Greek families have been hurt? (Today, para .2)
H11: (2004) “It is truth that it does not pass day that would not read or that would not hear about some serious episode… that concerns immigrants: Greek-Pontus, Russians, Chinese, and Pakistan and other different nationalities…. Long and here the list” (Today, para.1)
As it was examined above, examples H9, H10 are used as sense meaning. H9 could be assumed that, using the word common opinion automatically rejects the notion of ‘Greek Pontius blood’ (sense meaning). Using the word in Pafos implies that Pafos is the clear city of ‘Greek blood’ citizens ignoring at the same time ‘others’, since the incident by Greek Pontus is concerned with the rest of the population. H10, with the question that placed by the journalist is expressed by its place within a system of related terms as Fowler analysed so as to justify the deportation of illegal immigrant (Today newspaper adjoin with the right-wing). Thus, in Cyprus, the notion of ‘hospitality’, in relation with ‘others’, is depended upon concepts. Because the immigrants trespass the limit of borders control and therefore the sense of controlling in a territory ownership (1998), hostility is fact. However, in the case of 1985 with rich Arabs, newspapers had shown a dislike against the 100 young people who beat the tourists. The Liberal’s article is characteristic:
H12: “Agitators should be stopped” because according to Twilight’s article “there are a lot of social and political consequences” for Cyprus (1998, para.1).
Accordingly, this presentation not only justified that media presentations might be referred to social and political values as Olowe explained above, giving to viewers on the other hand, a contracted and interpreted reality ignoring the real facts, but also, it is justified the way the concept of home is evoked in the ethnics and politics of welcoming the others, a country that is opened to ‘specific’ foreigners, in that case the rich tourists Arabs. Example H11 could be assumed that it is expressly apocalyptical that the journalist not only includes the Greek Pontius in immigrants but also shows that immigrants and illegitimacy go hand in hand, and he is sure – “it is truth” he wrote -. Moreover with his statement “and other different nationalities”, could transfer negative feelings to the other three official communities; according to the Cyprus Constitution of Turkish Cypriots, Latinos and Marinates as immigrants or foreigners in the island; groups with very deeply rooted history in Cyprus. Therefore, it could be assumed that they are repeating the ancient Greek distorted myth ‘All men who are not Hellenes, are barbarians’.
What is mentioned here is that, the ‘imagined identity’ of Cyprus according to the above analysis, is exposed to the public gaze holding the belief that their Greek own cultural tradition is superior to all others appearing as a semantic actuation of positive self-presentation while representing the ‘other’ groups negatively. Afterwards, when they recognize what they are, the national myth of hospitality is repeated and differences are accepted, aiding ancient Greek sayings to evoke certain emotions of ‘their’ civilization.
However, how the notion of the subject is compounded with the textual clause function? Hallidays (1989; p.862-871) adopted a model which is called “Functional Grammar” where he refers to the ways in which authors use lexical to analyze events. The writer mentions the semantic roles of events, namely the verbs used and their association with the event, namely, the nouns. As he concluded, the actors could be identified by their role in the event either as victim or as the cause of the act. For example:
Helenknocks onthe door.
(actor) (event) (victim)
In that case, Helen is clearly the cause of the event. Similarly the victim is known. However if the ‘passive voice’ is used, the responsible person is unknown and could be left unspecified:
The doorwas knocked.
(victim)(event)
On this account, taking the example of the 2004 incident in Pafos, which is contemporary with more references in the newspapers, it could be examined the message which is communicated to the readers. In other words, taking sentences from these articles, it is possible to distinguish the victim and the root of the event.
H13: “[the fact that the vast majority of the Greek-Pontius dwell in Pafos] (actor) allows the ghetto phenomenon to expand and enhances the number of difficulties for them to be integrated (the event) in the society of Pafos (victim),…” (Twilight, para.2)
H14: “Undeclared War (event) of Pontius (actor) with the Police in Pafos (victim)”
(Today, Headline)
H15: “And thus [because of the incident with Greek Pontius] (actor), it is created slowly but surely, in among the common opinion (victim), the feeling of insecurity, xenophobia and finally the racism (the event)” (Today, para.2).
The words into the brackets show the message that left to the readers. In all cases guilty of the incidents or of the feeling of xenophobia has risen in Pafian society, is goes to ‘others’ in that case the Greek Pontius, leaving without determination any responsibilities of the society. This aggressiveness is the same based on the headlines themselves as examined above. Thus, since there is no responsibility for the society to assume, this Greek-Christian with a Greek history society is simultaneously victimised offsetting fears and stigmatization and preparing Greek-Cypriots for flight – retaliation as Ahmed (2005) argued.
However, if someone is going to negate these findings of these incidents saying that in some cases discrimination against the ‘others’ was pointed out by newspapers, it should be mentioned then this was presented as reasonable response to a threat to ‘Cypriot culture’ stated by the presence of others as something culturally different with different values (rich Arabs). Moreover, they were presented not only as threat against ‘Cyprus culture and values’, but also being pictured as responsible for the prostration of the developing of Greek-Cypriot identity. Going a step further, it could be concluded that victimising implicitly the Greek-Cypriot community to afraid of risk of their nation or their social level, links to the culture develops in a direction of authoritarianism. This feeling may be alleged using current threats of Cyprus; characteristic is this statement regarding the 1998’ incident: “Additional information say that members of this immigrants are Turkish officers of Turkish Secret Services” (Today, para.1).
What is likely to be disquieting is that discriminations are generally recanted. Their aim is to present the society as tolerant, without the sense of discrimination, hindering on the other hand, the effort to examine neo racism. Recanting racism enhances the ideological context of ignoring or encourages the prejudices in peoples’ everyday behaviour.
However, it is true to say that the aim of this chapter is not to generalize the image that Cyprus is a country of discriminations. Yet, the horror of classification of people unfortunately, and preconceived ideas, is that some people begin to believe that their security depends on the oppression of others because they believe that in order to have a good life; there must be others whose lives are uncivilized.
Finally, if the immigrants are imagined as a guests (case study of the 2004 and 1998 incidents), the picture of them is presented negatively; first instance is based on the difference between civilized and uncivilized population and on the second incident in anti-immigration discourses in association of the securitization of the Cyprus’ borders and identity (nationalism). However, this limit does not exist if the immigrant is imagined as grateful guest (case study of the 1985 incident) then they could be presented positively in discourses of multiculturalism or of social and political values. Accordingly, it could be concluded that in Cyprus, the notion of hospitality is about the other inquiring and not only of the mastery of the self as a host of the nation.
Conclusion:
The aim of this dissertation was to discuss the context of Greek-Cypriot identity as a feeling of belonging to the Greek nation developed within the Greek-Cypriots. Specifically, it has aim to study the compass in which the identity can be defined as the self-awareness of Greek-Cypriots that share values and myths in common with Greece and how this identity is defined via a process of differentiation from ‘others’. Cyprus and its media ‘war’ with ‘others’ have been used as a case study so as to present the role that ‘others’ might play in the construction of this idealization of identity.
In the first chapter, theories and definitions regarding the national identity and the processes that have led to the appearance of nationalism have been discussed. As it has studied, many theorists identify many different elements as the main characteristics of national identity which stigmatizing it from other types of collective identities. Connor for example stresses to the belief of common ancestry, a peculiar character of identity; Deutsch defined it as a community of productive communication system. Similar, for Anderson it was the rise of industrialism, capitalism and the invasion of the printing press which reinforce each other requiring uniformity and homogeneity.
However, these theories have something in common: the existence of ‘others’, even nation or individual, as main characteristic for the distinguishing and the differentiation each other. However, Kedourie stresses that it is not possible to be deduced what nation exists and what its limits are. This is the conclusion was drawn with regards to the Cyprus problem and the division of the island into two communities based on culturally and ethnically differences. The boundaries between the two main communities nowadays, in Cyprus as was analysed above, are difficult to establish. Thus, each nationality has to vindicate its autonomy and uniqueness in to contrast/opposition to/from the ‘other’.
Therefore, I concluded that Greek-Cypriot identity has ‘double-face’ meaning. It defines the in-group and who is outside of it. It is easy since the history is impressed by the presence of ‘others’, namely the Turkish-Cypriots where by means of their threatening presence have influenced the construction or stability of the Greek-Cypriot identity or the authenticity and/or unity with ‘mother land’.
Cyprus is a very good case of study because Greek-Cypriot identity has been formed via struggle for unification with Greece which led to national 1960 Constitution where defined citizenship clearly in terms of ethnic origin, language, culture and religious (Article 1,2,3). These distinctions drew categories of Cypriot citizens, and complexity of what Cyprus identity is. The Greek-Cypriot identity was shaped in response to the nationalistic feelings of belonging to Greece and the Turkish threat (invasion) which remains alive even through schooling or army service, as popular imagination until the present day.
Based on the second chapter, ‘significant other’ might be categorised not only groups who belong to Cyprus with deeply rooted history (Latinos, Marinates) or homogenous repatriates (Greek-Pontius) but also those who are part of other nation (immigrants). The second chapter had aim to underline the different conflict that are presented between the nation and these ‘others’. It has been concluded that those who are part of other nation are presented as a threat to the purity and homogeneity of the nation and those groups who belong to Cyprus, threaten their very existence (Turkish-Cypriots/Greek-Pontius). However, in some case, Cyprus can be ‘opened’ to ‘specific’ foreigners based on specific classism - the tourisms. In this case, people who are part of other nation is welcomed. Therefore, it is about the other inquiring and not only of the mastery of the self as a host of the country.
Nevertheless, these two categories of ‘others’ might be connected. Thus, for Greek-Cypriots, the Greek-Pontius minority in Pafos is sometimes perceived as a part of in-group or as out-group that related to another nation, namely Turkey or Russia based on their spoken language. Thus, the relationship between Greek-Cypriots and Greek-Pontius is always on ‘tight rope’; it is intricately related to the diplomatic relations between Cyprus and Turkey; e.g. during periods of crisis when their presence becomes salient. During such periods, the ‘other’, on the other hand, assists for re-definition of the identity and unity and the limits betweens their nation and the ‘others’. To put it in other way, via the conflicts with the ‘other’, the national identity is able to be re-defined in a way that makes it relevant under a new set of conditions or gets it in near to the base of the imaginary one which response better to the symbolic or affective need of its member.
The so-called “Cyprus problem” gives the opportunity to Greek-Cypriots to feel united facing the common enemy and reasserting their positive feelings of their Greek identity. Such conflicts between Greek-Cypriots and ‘others’ led to the permutation of the Greek-Cypriot identity by using Greek ancient metaphors (e.g Greek philosophy), myths (e.g. twelve ancient Greek Gods) and symbols (e.g Greek flag) substantial components and items of heritage and going a step further, enhancing the sense of progression and singularity of the nation.
We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.
