 |
| Turkish students from South Azerbaijan protesting at Tehran universities: "Let the Turkish language be official!" |
In this resistance, only those identity elements rooted in the history of Azerbaijan are reproduced and explained. Essentially, a shared image of the past and self is formed in the public consciousness of Azerbaijani society. Language, territory, common history, and shared culture are the elements that foster convergence and reduce divergence within the society. These cultural-historical elements give meaning to identity, deepen it, and internalize it. Among these, language is the most effective element—it is the foundation of major transformations in several regions of the world, such as Bangladesh and Catalonia.
Prat de la Riba, the most prominent theorist of Catalan nationalism, states:
"Catalonia is a long chain of successive generations that are connected through the Catalan language and traditions, in the land where we live, coming and going one after another."
Catalonia, as a cultural society organized around a common language and history, is not a fictional phenomenon but the product of a continuous historical process that is constantly being renewed—even if nationalist movements reconstruct their identity banners with symbols specific to each historical context and depending on their political agendas. [1]
Language, as the most naked and profound manifestation of culture, is the easiest path to reproducing a cultural system and the strongest fortress of that culture in resisting its deniers. Naturally, during this phase, other forms of symbol-making also emerge to portray a native utopia—symbols that visualize concepts like deep-rootedness and resistance for the collective mind, such as Koroğlu and Sattar Khan in Azerbaijan. However, overemphasizing or introducing symbols lacking historical depth will hinder the development of collective belief.
Homogeneity and solidarity among activists in this phase emerge through the course of the struggle. The mere act of struggling for common and shared goals creates an invisible network of activists.
The goals of this stage of the national struggle in Azerbaijan, in preparation for the next phase, include: preserving and promoting the pillars of identity; accentuating points of divergence and lines of distinction from other similar identities; overturning the system and value judgments of the target society; and multiplying the number of individuals who begin to see themselves with a different view from the current one based on shame and disgrace. These actions and the reversal of value systems generate a sense of anger toward the discriminatory system within parts of society and lead to the formation of communities. These communities are often cultural in nature and represent a way of participating in a process in which common interests are discovered and defended. Initially, these communities are driven by emotion and motivation, but over time, they become rational and belief-based.
It should be noted that these communities are not necessarily the benchmark for the general public's opinions. Rather, they are a portion of the target society who will lay the foundation for tomorrow’s liberation movements. Thus, this phase of the struggle is the most sensitive and decisive, and any deviation from it could impose heavy costs on the present and future of the national movement.
After this, the increasing number of people alongside collective awareness demands a new blueprint for struggle. A large number without organization is a risk for deviation. At this point, a vision of the collective future will bring people together. A shared political agenda and goals lead to a transition to proto-nationhood—a stage referred to as programmed identity. This responsibility can only be fulfilled by cohesive organizations and institutions. Grassroots organizations that have matured culturally and informationally are structured, and due to the breadth of choice in the realm of political and value-based activism, these organizations themselves become effective.
This stage of identity is more visible and naked than the previous one because the entire movement becomes a significant player in the political geography, capable of dividing or at least sharing power. In this stage, the dominant view among identity carriers is that the struggle must either continue within the system or against the system. With the eruption and overflow of this consolidated identity, and considering the political nature of the movement, new symbols will emerge reflecting the desire to share or divide power. These symbols are in fact conventional forms that give external shape to the content and meaning of the entire movement. Their sole necessity is as emblems of resistance and struggle, representing public alignment against a system that denies the truth of the movement and for political identification in the power struggle. It must be emphasized that even in this phase, it is only the people—the target nation—who can develop the movement and transform it into the dominant discourse and who choose, replicate, and solidify its external symbol, which could even be a color.
In light of the above, the writer believes that the Azerbaijani national movement, despite all its recent successes, is still in the identity of resistance phase. Therefore, the unveiling of any symbol lacking historical depth is considered an unfortunate act. This perspective also applies to the selection of the red color as the symbol of struggle for the Azerbaijani national movement. The color red, due to historical challenges, does not reflect symbolic qualities aligned with the nature and current stage of the national movement. Historical justifications provided by its supporters, such as the struggles of Babak, do not provide adequate justification for its historical depth. That is because the color red has carried variable meanings throughout Azerbaijan’s colorful history—meanings that are deliberately omitted here. In short, current orientations related to the Azerbaijani national movement cannot be analyzed or explained based on their association with the color red. It is a form without content and expresses no consistent idea or thought in visual form.
Moreover, this action will influence its current and future functions. Altering the character of current civic spaces and hijacking them for undefined political goals undermines their educational function, renders them susceptible to security risks, and diminishes participation in gatherings vital for the individual and collective flourishing. It appears that the majority of these participants are not true carriers of national thought and have only, through a functional and positive process, increased the apparent visibility of such ideas. Any premature and ill-considered action could disrupt their identity foundation. Therefore, this kind of premature fever of symbol-making, which hinders the successful attainment of democracy within the Azerbaijani national movement, is considered the illegitimate offspring of idealism and reduces the popular nature of the movement’s liberation ideology to a mere conventional form.
Of course, the rulings of the aforementioned symbol-makers may be valid for choosing a symbolic color in other movements in different countries. For example, the green color in Ireland’s anti-colonial struggle. But the key point here is that the green color, in the centuries-long Irish resistance against British colonialism, has been and still is a symbol of anti-colonialism. The historical richness of the color green in Ireland portrays an anti-colonial essence and narrates it with meaningful form.
All things considered, at this moment, the defining symbol of Azerbaijan’s national struggle is the Azerbaijani Turkish language, and advancing or expanding it does not require choosing a color as the symbol of the struggle. The color red merely reflects a temporary and transient organizational façade of part of the national movement, and choosing it is inconsistent with the creative momentum of the movement's future initiatives.
Hence, opposing such efforts is a positive act, and committing to it is seen as a duty and responsibility. We believe that truth becomes more vivid and alive through the friction of our own beliefs with those of others, and this deepens both the theoretical and practical foundations of truth. This belief aligns with our commitment to achieving democracy and practical pluralism. Any other approach merely facilitates a transaction between falsehood and truth.
“To suppress opposing opinions with immoral labels essentially means we, and those who agree with us, have become judges of what counts as ‘undeniable truths’—judges who pass verdicts without hearing the defense and without even allowing testimony.” [2]
Such repugnant judgment drives a wide range of activists toward apathy and, at times, conservatism—those who, in avoiding immoral labels, abandon all essential responsibilities and interests of the movement. Therefore, such actions cannot be called democratic. We do not consider democracy as a one-time act or a dictated event. Otherwise, Nazi Germany would have been the most democratic Germany. We believe democracy is a process, and if this process is incomplete or stillborn, it will destroy the future of a nation and of humanity.
Sources:
[1] Manuel Castells; The Information Age; translated by E. Aligholian, A. Khakbaz, H. Chavoshian; Tehran: Tarh-e No, 2001
[2] John Stuart Mill – On Liberty
تب نمادسازي
Original Farsi Article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120222152649/http://ruzbeh-s.blogfa.com/post-5.aspx