Hacettepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences Department of Translation and Interpreting TRANSLATION AND POLITICS OF IDENTITY TÜRKİYE IN THE EYES OF EUROPE (1999-2008) Fatma AKSOY Ph.D. Dissertation Ankara, 2024 TRANSLATION AND POLITICS OF IDENTITY TÜRKİYE IN THE EYES OF EUROPE (1999-2008) Fatma AKSOY Hacettepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences Department of Translation and Interpreting Ph.D. Dissertation Ankara, 2024 ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL The jury finds that Fatma AKSOY has on the date of 06.06.2024 successfully passed the defense examination and approves her Ph.D. Dissertation “Translation and Politics of Identity: Türkiye in the Eyes of Europe”. Prof. Dr. Berrin Aksoy (Jury President) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hilal Erkazancı Durmuş (Main Advisor) Prof. Dr. Aslı Özlem Tarakçıoğlu Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yeşim Sönmez Dinçkan Assist. Prof. Dr. Elif Ersözlü I agree that the signatures above belong to the faculty members listed. Prof. Dr. Uğur Ömürgönülşen Graduate School Director YAYIMLAMA VE FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI BEYANI Enstitü tarafından onaylanan lisansüstü tezimin/raporumun tamamını veya herhangi bir kısmını, basılı (kağıt) ve elektronik formatta arşivleme ve aşağıda verilen koşullarla kullanıma açma iznini Hacettepe Üniversitesine verdiğimi bildiririm. Bu izinle Üniversiteye verilen kullanım hakları dışındaki tüm fikri mülkiyet haklarım bende kalacak, tezimin tamamının ya da bir bölümünün gelecekteki çalışmalarda (makale, kitap, lisans ve patent vb.) kullanım hakları bana ait olacaktır. Tezin kendi orijinal çalışmam olduğunu, başkalarının haklarını ihlal etmediğimi ve tezimin tek yetkili sahibi olduğumu beyan ve taahhüt ederim. Tezimde yer alan telif hakkı bulunan ve sahiplerinden yazılı izin alınarak kullanılması zorunlu metinlerin yazılı izin alınarak kullandığımı ve istenildiğinde suretlerini Üniversiteye teslim etmeyi taahhüt ederim. Yükseköğretim Kurulu tarafından yayınlanan “Lisansüstü Tezlerin Elektronik Ortamda Toplanması, Düzenlenmesi ve Erişime Açılmasına İlişkin Yönerge” kapsamında tezim aşağıda belirtilen koşullar haricince YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi / H.Ü. Kütüphaneleri Açık Erişim Sisteminde erişime açılır. o Enstitü / Fakülte yönetim kurulu kararı ile tezimin erişime açılması mezuniyet tarihimden itibaren 2 yıl ertelenmiştir. (1) o Enstitü / Fakülte yönetim kurulunun gerekçeli kararı ile tezimin erişime açılması mezuniyet tarihimden itibaren ... ay ertelenmiştir. (2) o Tezimle ilgili gizlilik kararı verilmiştir. (3) ……/………/…… Fatma AKSOY 1“Lisansüstü Tezlerin Elektronik Ortamda Toplanması, Düzenlenmesi ve Erişime Açılmasına İlişkin Yönerge” (1) Madde 6. 1. Lisansüstü tezle ilgili patent başvurusu yapılması veya patent alma sürecinin devam etmesi durumunda, tez danışmanının önerisi ve enstitü anabilim dalının uygun görüşü üzerine enstitü veya fakülte yönetim kurulu iki yıl süre ile tezin erişime açılmasının ertelenmesine karar verebilir. (2) Madde 6. 2. Yeni teknik, materyal ve metotların kullanıldığı, henüz makaleye dönüşmemiş veya patent gibi yöntemlerle korunmamış ve internetten paylaşılması durumunda 3. şahıslara veya kurumlara haksız kazanç imkanı oluşturabilecek bilgi ve bulguları içeren tezler hakkında tez danışmanının önerisi ve enstitü anabilim dalının uygun görüşü üzerine enstitü veya fakülte yönetim kurulunun gerekçeli kararı ile altı ayı aşmamak üzere tezin erişime açılması engellenebilir. (3) Madde 7. 1. Ulusal çıkarları veya güvenliği ilgilendiren, emniyet, istihbarat, savunma ve güvenlik, sağlık vb. konulara ilişkin lisansüstü tezlerle ilgili gizlilik kararı, tezin yapıldığı kurum tarafından verilir *. Kurum ve kuruluşlarla yapılan işbirliği protokolü çerçevesinde hazırlanan lisansüstü tezlere ilişkin gizlilik kararı ise, ilgili kurum ve kuruluşun önerisi ile enstitü veya fakültenin uygun görüşü üzerine üniversite yönetim kurulu tarafından verilir. Gizlilik kararı verilen tezler Yükseköğretim Kuruluna bildirilir. Madde 7.2. Gizlilik kararı verilen tezler gizlilik süresince enstitü veya fakülte tarafından gizlilik kuralları çerçevesinde muhafaza edilir, gizlilik kararının kaldırılması halinde Tez Otomasyon Sistemine yüklenir * Tez danışmanının önerisi ve enstitü anabilim dalının uygun görüşü üzerine enstitü veya fakülte yönetim kurulu tarafından karar verilir. ETİK BEYAN Bu çalışmadaki bütün bilgi ve belgeleri akademik kurallar çerçevesinde elde ettiğimi, görsel, işitsel ve yazılı tüm bilgi ve sonuçları bilimsel ahlak kurallarına uygun olarak sunduğumu, kullandığım verilerde herhangi bir tahrifat yapmadığımı, yararlandığım kaynaklara bilimsel normlara uygun olarak atıfta bulunduğumu, tezimin kaynak gösterilen durumlar dışında özgün olduğunu, Doç. Dr. Hilal ERKAZANCI DURMUŞ danışmanlığında tarafımdan üretildiğini ve Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Tez Yazım Yönergesine göre yazıldığını beyan ederim. Fatma AKSOY iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hilal Erakazancı Durmuş, my supervisor, for her invaluable guidance, encouragement, and unwavering support throughout this journey. Her expertise and patience have been instrumental in the completion of this thesis. I am also profoundly grateful to the jury members, Prof. Dr. Berrin Aksoy, Prof. Dr. Aslı Özlem Tarakçıoğlu, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yeşim Sönmez Dinçkan, and Assist. Prof. Dr. Elif Ersözlü, for their insightful comments and constructive feedback. Their contributions have significantly enriched this work. I would also like to express my deep appreciation to Professor Annie Brisset, Emeritus Professor from the University of Ottawa, Canada. I began my journey with her, and she has been a great mentor. I learned so much from her, and her guidance has had a lasting impact on my academic and personal growth. My heartfelt thanks go to my family. To my dear daughter Defne, whose love and smiles provided me with endless motivation; to my mother Gülsüm, and my father Celal, for their boundless love and encouragement; and to my sisters Eylem, Emel, and Mazi, for their constant support and understanding. I extend my deepest appreciation to my life partner Emre, whose love and companionship have been a source of strength and comfort throughout this challenging process. Special thanks are due to all my MTB family from Hacettepe University. Your camaraderie and support have been a vital part of this journey. I am especially grateful to my dear friend Sevgi for her unconditional support and encouragement, which have been indispensable. Thank you all for being part of this journey and for your unwavering belief in me. v ABSTRACT AKSOY, Fatma. Translation and Politics of Identity: Türkiye in the Eyes of Europe (1999-2008), Ph.D. Dissertation, Ankara, 2024. This thesis examines the English and French translations of Turkish literature, viewing the world translation system as a transnational cultural system, following Johan Heilbron (1999, 2010). It aims to explore how the Turkish identity is (re)framed in the mass media, considering Türkiye’s historical background and its socio-political dynamics with Europe. Using Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory (1990, 2012, 2013), particularly his concepts of communication, autopoiesis, systemic differentiation, and observation, the study analyzes translations in their broader socio-political context. It also employs social narrative theory by Margaret Somers and Gloria Gibson (1993, 1994) to understand media discourse from 1999-2008. The thesis focuses on the discourse surrounding two bestselling novels by prominent Turkish writers: Snow by Orhan Pamuk and The Bastard of Istanbul by Elif Şafak. It analyzes the narrative strategies in press articles and the paratextual elements of translations in the British and French subsystems of the European system, aiming to uncover how translation and media representations shape the portrayal of Turkish identity. The findings suggest that the ‘narrative of difference’ based on comparing Europeanness and Turkishness centers on the ‘bridge’ metaphor, indicating the hybridity of Turkish identity as both Eastern and European. The study emphasizes that the European perception of Türkiye and Europe’s self-referential reproduction (systemic autopoiesis, survival, and autonomy) are influenced by mass media representations of Türkiye. These representations, constructed through translational and paratextual data, highlight the differences between Europe and the Turkish Other. The thesis concludes that this narrative influences the global reception of Pamuk and Şafak. Pamuk is widely regarded as an internationally consecrated writer, often considered a classic, especially within the French subsystem, while Şafak’s status in the global literary landscape leans more towards popular literature, with relatively less recognition in the British and French subsystems. Keywords Translation sociology, world translation system, social systems, social narratives, the representation of Turkishness, mass media, European system vi ÖZET AKSOY, Fatma. Çeviri ve Kimlik Politikaları: Avrupa’nın Gözünde Türkiye (1999-2008), Doktora Tezi, Ankara, 2024. Türk edebiyatının İngilizce ve Fransızca çevirilerine odaklanan bu tez, Johan Heilbron’un (1999, 2010) tanımına dayanarak, dünya çeviri sistemini ulusötesi kültürel bir sistem olarak görmektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, Türkiye’nin tarihsel arka planı ve Avrupa ile ilişkisini şekillendiren sosyo-politik dinamikler ışığında, Avrupa sisteminin temel gözlemcilerinden olan medyanın Türk kimliğini nasıl (yeniden) çerçevelediğini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çeviri sosyolojisi çerçevesinde, Niklas Luhmann’ın (1990, 2012, 2013) Sosyal Sistemler Teorisi’ni (SST) ve özellikle iletişim, autopoiesis, sistemik farklılaşma ve gözlem kavramlarını kullanmaktadır. Ayrıca, Margaret Somers ve Gloria Gibson (1993, 1994) tarafından geliştirilen Sosyal Anlatı Teorisi’nin analitik araçları kullanılmaktadır. Bu çerçeve, belirli bir zaman diliminde (1999-2008), belirli medya söylemi türlerinde neyin nasıl iletildiğine ışık tutmaktadır. Çalışma, Türkiye’nin önde gelen iki yazarın çok satan iki romanı hakkındaki söyleme odaklanmaktadır: Orhan Pamuk’un Kar ve Elif Şafak’ın Baba ve Piç eserleri. Bu eserler üzerine geliştirilen yan metinler, Avrupa sistemi içerisindeki (İngiliz ve Fransız alt sistemleri) basın makalelerinde kullanılan anlatı stratejilerini ve çevirilerin metin dışı unsurlarını analiz edilerek, çeviri ve medya çerçevelemelerinin Türk kimliğinin temsilini nasıl şekillendirdiğini ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, Avrupa’nın Türk kimliği imgelerinin ve Avrupa’nın kendine atıfta bulunan yeniden üretiminin (sistemik autopoiesis, hayatta kalma ve özerklik) Türkiye’nin çok yönlü medya temsilleri tarafından sağlanan çevresel gözlemlerden etkilendiğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu temsiller, Avrupa ile Öteki olarak nitelendirilen Türkiye arasındaki farklılıkları vurgulayan çeviri ve yan metin verilerine dayalı olarak inşa edilmektedir. Bulgular, Avrupalılık ve Türklük karşılaştırmasına dayanan ‘farklılık anlatısının’, Türk kimliğinin (hem Doğulu hem Avrupalı) melezliğine işaret eden ‘köprü’ metaforuna odaklandığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca, bu baskın anlatının Pamuk ve Şafak’ın küresel alımlanmasında daha da kavramsallaştırıldığı sonucuna varmaktadır. Pamuk, uluslararası alanda kutsanmış bir yazar olarak tanımlanırken, özellikle Fransız alt sisteminde klasikleşmiş edebiyat kavramı çerçevesinde ele alınmaktadır. Şafak’ın küresel edebiyat sistemindeki statüsü ise daha çok popüler edebiyata doğru evrilirken, yazar İngiliz ve Fransız alt sistemlerinde nispeten daha az kutsanmıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler Çeviri sosyolojisi, dünya çeviri sistemi, sosyal sistemler, toplumsal anlatılar, Türklüğün temsili, medya, Avrupa sistemi vii TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL ............................................................................. . i YAYIMLAMA VE FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI BEYANI................................. ii ETİK BEYAN ................................................................................................................ iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... iv ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... v ÖZET ............................................................................................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. vii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ x INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1 CHAPTER I THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................. 7 1.1 SOCIOLOGY OF TRANSLATION ......................................................................... 8 1.2 SOCIAL SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO TRANSLATION .................................... 12 1.3 BASIC CONCEPTS OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS THEORY ...................................... 13 1.3.1 Mass Media as a Functional System ................................................ 18 1.4 BRITISH SUBSYSTEM VS. FRENCH SUBSYSTEM ......................................... 25 1.5 NARRATIVE THEORY ......................................................................................... 29 2 CHAPTER II EUROPE’S OBSERVATION OF THE TURKISH IDENTITY 34 2.1 DIACHRONIC OBSERVATION: PAST REPRESENTATIONS ......................... 37 2.1.1 Pre-Republican Era ........................................................................... 39 2.1.2 Post-Republican Era ......................................................................... 44 2.2 SYNCHRONIC OBSERVATION: CONTEMPORARY REPRESENTATIONS . 49 2.2.1 The Corpus on News Articles .......................................................... 50 2.2.2 First Degree of Reading ................................................................... 54 2.2.3 Second Degree of Reading ............................................................... 62 2.2.4 Convergence and Divergence in French and British subsystems ... 107 2.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................................................................ 114 3 CHAPTER III OBSERVING TRANSLATION IN AND FROM TÜRKİYE121 3.1 TRANSLATION IN TÜRKİYE: OBSERVATIONS ON EUROPE .................... 125 viii 3.1.1 Translating Modernity .................................................................... 125 3.1.2 Translation Bureau as a Means of Cultural Importation ................ 149 3.2 TRANSLATION FROM TURKISH: SYSTEMIC “IRRITATION” ................... 152 3.2.1 Public Diplomacy as a Means of “Irritation” ................................. 154 3.2.2 Translations from Turkish into French and English ....................... 168 3.2.3 Concluding Remarks ...................................................................... 179 4 CHAPTER IV EUROPE’S OBSERVATION OF TRANSLATIONS FROM TURKISH .................................................................................................................... 183 4.1 SYSTEMIC “RESONANCE”: BACK TO EUROPEAN OBSERVATIONS ...... 185 4.2 CASE STUDY #1: ORHAN PAMUK .................................................................. 191 4.2.1 Translations of Orhan Pamuk’s works into English and French .... 192 4.2.2 Snow: An International Bestseller .................................................. 197 4.2.3 Analysis of peritextual elements: Book Covers ............................. 198 4.2.4 Analysis of epitextual elements: Reviews and Interviews ............. 202 4.2.5 Convergence and Divergence ......................................................... 238 4.3 CASE STUDY #2: ELIF ŞAFAK ......................................................................... 241 4.3.1 Translations of Elif Şafak’s works into English and French .......... 242 4.3.2 The Bastard of Istanbul: Self–translation at play ........................... 247 4.3.3 Analysis of peritextual elements: Book Covers ............................. 248 4.3.4 Analysis of epitextual elements: Reviews and Interviews ............. 253 4.3.5 Convergence and Divergence ......................................................... 273 4.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................................................................ 275 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 279 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 289 APPENDIX 1. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF TRANSLATIONS FROM TURKISH INTO FRENCH (1999-2008) ................................................................................................. 316 APPENDIX 2. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF TRANSLATIONS FROM TURKISH INTO ENGLISH (1999-2008) ............................................................................................... 322 APPENDIX 3. ETHICS BOARD WAIVER FORM ............................................... 326 APPENDIX 4. ORIGINALITY REPORT ................................................................ 328 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Significant dates in Turkish-EU relations ......................................................... 50 Table 2. Selected newspapers for the analysis of the public discourse in Europe .......... 53 Table 3. Dominant topics regarding Türkiye in the British and French press ................ 58 Table 4. Distribution of selected news articles according to the year of publication ..... 59 Table 5. Significant initiatives of the Turkish Republic in terms of public diplomacy 156 Table 7: Orhan Pamuk’s works in Turkish, English and French .................................. 193 Table 8: Elif Şafak’s works in Turkish, English and French ........................................ 243 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Cover of the British weekly The Economist, 23-29 October 2010 .................. 61 Figure 2. Cover of the French weekly Courrier International, 6-12 May 2004 .............. 95 Figure 3. Turkey in all its colours ................................................................................. 166 Figure 4. Percentage of subjects in French translations ................................................ 173 Figure 5. Translations from Turkish into French (1999-2008) ..................................... 174 Figure 6. Percentage of subjects in English translations ............................................... 176 Figure 7. Translations from Turkish into English (1999-2008) .................................... 178 Figure 8. Book Covers of Snow in Türkiye................................................................... 199 Figure 9. Book Covers of Snow in France .................................................................... 199 Figure 10. Book Covers of Snow in the UK.................................................................. 201 Figure 11. Book Covers of The Bastard of Istanbul in Türkiye ................................... 249 Figure 12. Book Covers of The Bastard of Istanbul in France ..................................... 249 Figure 13. Book Covers of The Bastard of Istanbul in the UK .................................... 252 1 INTRODUCTION The sociology of translation is an interdisciplinary research field that investigates the complex interplay between translation practices and their social contexts. It looks at how translation functions not just as a linguistic activity, but also as a social process that both impacts and is impacted by diverse social, cultural, and political influences. By applying sociological theories and methods, this field aims to comprehend how translations are shaped by and also shape power dynamics, cultural interactions, and identity representation. Niklas Luhmann’s concepts, such as “social system” and “communication”, are very much in line with the sociology of translation since they offer a framework for understanding how societies operate and self-organize through communicative processes. According to Luhmann, social systems are formed by the interactions and communications among systems, rather than by individuals themselves (1990). By viewing society as a network of communications, Luhmann’s theory provides a comprehensive lens to analyze the complexities of social interactions, institutions, and the evolution of societal norms, making it highly pertinent not only for fields like sociology and anthropology, but also Translation Studies. The sociology of translation is an interdisciplinary domain that investigates the complex interplay between translation practices and their social contexts. It looks at how translation functions not just as a linguistic activity, but also as a social process that both impacts and is impacted by diverse social, cultural, and political influences. By applying sociological theories and methods, sociology of translation aims to unearth how translations are shaped by and also shape power dynamics, cultural interactions, and identity representation. The aim of the thesis is twofold. First of all, my purpose is to pinpoint the dominant narratives about the Turkish identity after its candidacy to the European Union, and to sketch the state of the European system (i.e., the socio-political context in Europe). The present study, which scrutinizes the public discourse on the Turkish identity, is thus motivated by an attempt to understand the background against which translations are produced and to inquire whether topics selected by the European media 2 have an influence on the discourses embedded in and around translations from Turkish either during the selection or the introduction processes of these translations into the European system. An equally important objective in the present part of the thesis is to provide a promising research programme enabling us to approach the corpus both conceptually/theoretically and empirically: by juxtaposing Luhmannian concepts (e.g. “social system”, “autopoiesis”, “communication”, “observation”, “structural coupling”, and “irritation”) with narrative analytical tools, this study seeks to engage Social Systems Theory with the analysis of texts within their broader socio-political context. The advantages of such a perspective is twofold. On the one hand, “[t]he abstraction we gain with the concepts like observation and description […] has, above all, the advantage of making us independent of historical limitations and specific social situations” (Luhmann, 1998, p. 79-80), thus enabling to observe seemingly different systems – whether psychic or social – as well as to apply SST concepts to diverging discourses such as the discourse promoted in the press, in politics, in literature, and the like. On the other hand, a socially-oriented narrative theory (Somers and Gibson, 1993 and 1994) allows us to approach the texts constituting corpus on news articles within their specific situatedness both in time and space by pinpointing the narratives about Türkiye as well as the framing strategies activated by the system of the mass media. The focus of this thesis is placed on the introduction process of translations, that is, on their contextualization by the systems responsible for the presentation and dissemination of texts in their new social milieu. The contextualization on the part of the readers would be equally interesting but would make the object of another full-length study. It would necessitate the cognitive dimension to be taken into consideration, as well. Rather than adopting a psychological point of view, I choose to subscribe to a sociological perspective in the present endeavour and I exclusively concentrate on what is communicated by the European system through the mass media. Wolfgang Teubert argues that “once we accept that the object of corpus linguistics is to make sense of what is said in the discourse, we move away from the psychological or mental perspective of linguistics which is underlying the paradigm of cognitive linguistics” (2007, p. 57). Accordingly, I am trying to make sense of what is said in a certain type of communication at a certain period of 3 time from a sociological point of view, mainly, though not exclusively, from a social systemic perspective. Luhmann’s definition of communication which consists of the triad: information, utterance and understanding the diachronic dimension of meaning has to be taken into consideration along with the synchronic dimension. Communication encompasses everything that has been uttered in the discourse so far, therefore is synonymous to paraphrase in a certain way (Teubert, 2005, p. 6). Since meaning is context-dependent and temporary, new elements are continuously added as we (re)produce narratives. For instance, a ‘Turk’ is more than its meaning in the dictionary; it means more than a person from Türkiye or of Turkish descent. The meaning of the word ‘Turk’ encompasses all the attributes used in the communication process, even if one believes that these attributes do not reflect reality or that they contradict each other. The constructivist nature of Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory (2012, 2013) reminds us that there is no reality out there dissociated from discourse. Reality resides in discourse and one can only reach it through language or other communicational forms. Similarly, we cannot access the minds of individuals; only discourse as materialized in verbal or visual forms can be reached. And finally, we can only grasp fragments of this materialized form of discourse and not its totality. This thesis examines Europe as a self-referential system, emphasizing how its self- production (autopoiesis) dictates its interactions with its environment, more specifically Türkiye. Europe functions as a self-referential communication system using a “European/non-European” binary code, highlighting the Luhmannian notion that such systems are defined by binary distinctions that govern their operations and processing of information (Luhmann, 2000, p. 17). Europe’s perspective aligns with the Luhmannian idea of an observer, identifying “the Other” – in this case, Turkish identity – through systemic differentiation. From a social systemic perspective, mass media operates as an autopoietic system, potentially causing irritation in other communication systems like Europe through its selective translation (i.e., translation agents’ selection of particular works, authors, and/genres for translation) and reframing of the Turkish context. This thesis investigates the concept of a European system, focusing on two of its subsystems: France and the United Kingdom. The research spans a decade from 1999 to 2008, a period marked by the significant milestone of Türkiye’s candidacy approval 4 for the European Union in 1999. This historical context provides a fertile ground for exploring how Turkish identity has been represented within the European system. The core of this study revolves around two major analyses, with a particular emphasis on the role and importance of mass media in the representation processes. The first is a comprehensive examination of press articles from France and the UK that specifically address Turkish identity. By analyzing a substantial corpus of media content, this research aims to uncover the narrative strategies and thematic patterns employed by the press to frame Türkiye and its people. Given the media’s significant influence on public opinion and policy-making, understanding these patterns is crucial for grasping how mass media shapes perceptions of Turkish identity within these European nations. The second analysis delves into the paratextual elements of two best-selling novels by Turkish writers: Snow by Orhan Pamuk and The Bastard of Istanbul by Elif Şafak. These novels have been selected as case studies because of their prominent status as bestsellers both in Türkiye and across various European countries, which has resulted in extensive media coverage. This widespread acclaim and attention make them highly influential in shaping representations of the Turkish identity within European contexts. Analyzing the paratextual elements, namely epitextual and peritextual elements such as book covers, reviews, and interviews associated with these works in the French and British print media allows for a deeper understanding of how translation can strategically impact the framing of Turkish identity, revealing the power dynamics and cultural exchanges between the European system and its environment. Through these analyses, the thesis seeks to uncover the mechanisms by which translation and paratexts (i.e., media representations) contribute to the (re)framing of Turkish identity in Europe. Additionally, it aims to illuminate the power dynamics at play between the European system and its environment, highlighting the complex interplay between translation, identity politics, and cultural exchange. This investigation not only enhances our understanding of European-Turkish relations but also provides insights into the broader phenomenon of how cultural identities are negotiated and constructed in an increasingly interconnected world society. 5 Composition of chapters: Chapter I scrutinizes the theoretical and methodological framework underpinning this thesis. It begins with an overview of how sociological approaches have contributed to translation studies, emphasizing the integration of social context in understanding translation processes. Following this, I present the basic principles and concepts of Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory and the sociological use of narrative theory, elucidating their relevance to translation studies. The chapter then summarizes the application of Social Systems Theory and its pertinent concepts within translation studies, highlighting its utility in analyzing the dynamics between translations and their sociocultural environments. Finally, I explain the specific use of Social Systems Theory in this thesis, detailing the originality of my project. This includes methodological insights such as the rationale for focusing on France and the UK, the time delimitation, and the emphasis on mass media as a crucial observer in the interplay between translation and cultural representation. Chapter II examines the discourse surrounding Türkiye’s potential accession to the European Union as represented in the European press, with a focus on identifying dominant narratives about Turkish identity following Türkiye’s EU candidacy. It explores the socio-political context within Europe to understand the significance of these narratives. The study investigates how the mass media serves as the eyes of the European system. The chapter aims to answer two main questions: What topics are covered by the mass media regarding Turkish identity, and how is the prevailing narrative structured? It seeks to determine the predominant narratives disseminated by the British and French press, the diverging framings of these narratives, and the arguments used to support these processes. Chapter III investigates how translation has profoundly influenced the transformation of Turkish society and the creation of a unique national identity, distinct from its Ottoman past, and how translation is used to project Türkiye’s identity on the international stage. It also includes a quantitative analysis reviewing Turkish-into-French and Turkish-into- English translations, examining the translational contexts of France and the UK to highlight similarities and differences. At the heart of this investigation lies two crucial research question: How do individual translation choices collectively result in dominant translational preferences regarding the choice of texts and authors? In what ways has 6 translation influenced and continues to influence Türkiye’s cultural and social fabric, both within the country and globally? In Chapter IV, Europe is presented as an observer that constructs the identity of the Other – here, the Turkish identity – through self- and other-reference, which refer to internal comparisons with other identities, with foreign news articles, translations, reviews, and interviews. The focus is on how translation products are strategically used to influence the reception of Turkish identity within the European system. Key research questions include: What stories and portrayals do the media and translations from Turkish into English and French offer about the Turkish identity? How are the selected Turkish translations evaluated and represented in the British and French contexts? Were these literary works judged solely on their artistic merit, or did other factors, such as cultural or political considerations, affect their reception? 7 1 CHAPTER I THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The focus of this study is on how translations are introduced and contextualized by those responsible for presenting and sharing texts in a new social setting. The process of contextualization by readers is also of interest but would require a separate study considering cognitive dimensions. The author takes a sociological perspective and emphasizes understanding communication rather than a psychological viewpoint. The concept of parole-linguistics is referenced, highlighting the importance of making sense of discourse from a social systemic perspective. If we wish to understand the stakes involved in translation, we need to look inside the texts as well as outside them as both aspects are interrelated. In other words, we need to adopt a multifaceted analytic model: when analysing the importation and exportation of cultural products, which constitutes the macrostructure, it is necessary to combine it with the examination of microstructures, that is, texts. From this perspective, the social situatedness of these products, which travel by means of translation, becomes extremely important. Contextualization however, is not a clear-cut process. Context is a highly ambiguous term. Which aspects of a situation fall within context, excluding other aspects? Which elements influence the production and understanding of a text or speech? It goes without saying that one cannot fully grasp the context since it is very much like a continuum. It is therefore difficult to isolate moments of a discourse from the previous or subsequent ones. The continuity inherent in discourse does not facilitate the work of the researcher interested in setting the context and detecting the situational aspects of a given phenomenon. Linguistic and cultural transfers are not only determined by the translated system but also by the translating system – as argued in Descriptive Translation Studies. Moreover, the introducers of translations (literary agents, editors, translators, etc.) as well as their receivers, those who read and make use of them, can by no means be isolated from this contextualization. More importantly, the way these different groups perceive and interpret the transferred texts and what function they ascribe to them will ultimately influence how readers make use of them. Then, to ‘fully’ grasp the context, the background of these 8 different actors (agents, publishers, translators, commentators, readers, etc.) is also crucial. Furthermore, it is always possible to relate one situation of the context to another, that is, to relate one situation to the more general social discourse, which means that one has to take intertextuality and interdiscursivity into account. It is precisely this historical and social dimension of discourse which makes it so complex. Based on this larger perspective of contextualization, the following pages will scrutinize the contributions of the sociological approach in Translation Studies and will offer a summary of the two theories juxtaposed within the framework of this thesis: mainly Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory, and the socially informed Narrative Theory conceptualized by Somers and Gibson (19993 and 1994). 1.1 SOCIOLOGY OF TRANSLATION The sociology of translation studies the social dimensions and consequences of translation activities. This interdisciplinary field explores how translation is influenced by various social, cultural, political and economic factors and, conversely, how it affects and/or reflects social configurations and interactions. Key themes in this field encompass power dynamics, cultural exchange, identity negotiations, language politics and the role of translators as mediators between different communities. From a sociological perspective, translation is not only a linguistic practice; translation is also recognized as a social phenomenon. Translators are considered active actors whose choices are shaped by and contribute to shaping the contextual environment in which they operate, as well as their social status, values and perspectives. Moreover, the translator is only one of the actors involved in the translation process. By considering the different actors involved in the translation process, the sociology of translation explores how translated texts contribute to the shaping and dissemination of ideas, knowledge and identities in different cultural and social spaces. Translations have the potential to influence perceptions of other cultures, challenge dominant narratives and promote cross- cultural understanding. They can also serve as tools of empowerment or resistance for marginalized communities seeking to be heard in the global arena. In general, the sociology of translation offers a critical perspective on the complex interplay between translation practices and social dynamics. By examining translation 9 through a sociological lens, scholars can better understand how language and culture intersect with broader social processes and how translation can both reflect and reshape power relations and social structures in different contexts. In her introduction to Constructing a Sociology of Translation, Michaela Wolf emphasizes that since the 2000s there has been a remarkable development in the “sociological perspective”, especially in relation to translation studies (2007, p. 13). This evolving perspective has now merged with what is commonly referred to as the “sociology of translation” and in the 15 years since the book was written, there has been a significant increase in theoretical writings as well as case studies (Sapiro, 2008; Tyulenev, 2012; Erkazancı Durmuş, 2020; Brisset & Rodriguez 2020). Under this broad umbrella, various branches of sociological research have emerged, each shedding light on different aspects of the translation phenomenon. First, as Wolf notes, one strand of translation sociology, drawing on the classical sociological tradition, focuses on the actors involved in translation production (2007, pp. 14-15). This perspective examines translators as social actors situated in specific cultural, political and economic contexts. It examines in depth their motivations, constraints and actions in mediating between source and target languages and cultures. By examining translators’ social backgrounds, networks and professional practices, this approach reveals the complex interplay between power dynamics, status differences and ethical considerations inherent in translation activity. In particular, it draws on the theoretical framework of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (see Gouanvic and Schultz 2010). Second, another strand of translation sociology focuses attention on the translation process itself (Wolf, 2007, pp. 15-16). This perspective focuses on the social interactions, negotiations and power struggles that occur during the act of translation, exploring how translators negotiate linguistic, cultural and ideological barriers as they transfer meaning from one linguistic and cultural context to another. By analyzing translation strategies, choices and challenges, this research series aims to illuminate the complex dynamics involved in bridging linguistic and cultural divides. In examining the translation process, it recognizes that texts are not only linguistic products but also deeply embedded in social discourses. A three-dimensional model of translation can help conceptualize this complex relationship. The first dimension includes the source text and its cultural context. The second dimension focuses on the translator as an intermediary between texts and their 10 social contexts, influencing the interpretation and perception of the translation. The third dimension involves the target text and its reception within the target culture, where it acquires new meanings and resonances. This model emphasizes the dynamic nature of translation and the importance of understanding the social context of texts in intercultural communication (see Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2008). Finally, the third strand, known as the “sociology of the cultural product”, aims to examine the broader social consequences of translated texts (Wolf, 2007, pp. 16-18). This approach focuses on how translations contribute to the construction and negotiation of social identities, norms and values and shape social perceptions, representations and discourses. By analyzing the reception, circulation and impact of translated texts, this approach aims to reveal how translations influence intercultural relations, cultural politics and globalization processes. It also seeks to understand how translation plays a multifaceted role in explicitly or implicitly shaping various aspects of society, such as social identity, representation, social roles and ideologies. In other words, it emphasizes the complex relationship between translation and social dynamics by demonstrating that translation affects broader social phenomena (see Shavit, 2002). To the three different dimensions mentioned above, one more can be added: the perspective pioneered by Gisèle Sapiro and Johan Heilbron in particular, which approaches translated texts not only as socio-cultural products but also as economic products. Heilbron and Sapiro laid the foundation for this field of study in a systematic way in the early 2000s. In their article entitled “Outline for a sociology of translation: Current issues and future prospects” (2007), they emphasize that the interpretive perspective, which is widespread in translation studies, and the economic perspective, which is accepted and practiced among sociologists, and which is more dominant in society but less common in translation studies, have points that cannot be illuminated by the economic perspective alone. And both approaches tend to simplify the existing complexity in slightly different ways (Heilbron and Sapiro, 2007, p. 94). Instead of focusing on the uniqueness of a text and its author, the economic approach classifies translated books as products that are subject to production, distribution and consumption based on national and international market principles. However, viewing translated books as mere commodities fails to take into account their cultural significance and the unique strategies involved in producing and selling them: 11 The international translation system can be defined as a structured ensemble of articulated relationships demonstrating various shared mechanisms. By utilizing statistical data related to the international translation book market, the structure of these transactions can be broadly explained. (Heilbron ve Sapiro, 2007, s. 94) In the light of statistical data representing international translation movements, one of the most striking results is that the asymmetrical positioning of languages is reflected on translation flows between languages. At this point, it is useful to remind the basics of Abraham De Swaan’s International Language System, which proposes that language is a key factor in the formation and maintenance of social structures and relationships on a global scale. He argues that language serves as a tool for creating common bonds and facilitating communication among diverse groups in different societies. According to De Swaan, the international language system is characterized by the use of specific languages for certain purposes and contexts, highlighting the power dynamics and social hierarchies embedded within linguistic interactions. This framework underscores the importance of language in shaping interactions and relationships in the international arena (De Swaan, 2001, p. 23). Abraham De Swaan’s International Language System categorizes languages into three main groups: hyper-central, central, and peripheral languages; which highlights how language is not just a means of communication but also a key determinant of social, economic, and political relationships on a global scale (De Swaan, 2001, p. 45). Hyper-central languages are typically used in international contexts, such as diplomacy, international business, and global media. These languages hold significant power and influence in the world system, with speakers of hyper-central languages often having a privileged position in transnational communication and interactions. English is a prime example of a hyper-central language, given its widespread use in international relations, trade, and cultural exchange. Central languages, on the other hand, are languages spoken in countries that play key roles in the global economy or politics. They are influential within certain regions or specialized domains but may not have the same global reach as hyper-central languages. Examples of central languages could include Spanish in Latin America or Mandarin Chinese in East Asia. Peripheral languages are spoken in countries that have less influence on the global stage and are often marginalized in international communication. These languages are typically 12 confined to specific geographical regions and lack widespread use beyond their borders. Speakers of peripheral languages may face challenges in participating in global discourse and may be at a disadvantage compared to those who speak hyper-central or central languages. In this context, Heilbron explains the main concern of the sociology of translation as follows: [T]he most general issue in the sociology of translation [is] the translation of books considered as an international system. The objective is to present a structural analysis of the international flows of translated books, and to demonstrate why such an analysis is indispensable for understanding the actual process. Two more specific questions are central in this respect. How can one account for the uneven flows of book translations between various language groups? And how can one explain the varying role of translations within different language groups? In proposing an answer to both questions, the various activities involved are considered to be interdependent and are therefore best understood as constituting an international or even a world-system. (1999, p. 431-432) In his work, Heilbron (1999) also offers a perspective that challenges traditional notions of society as being confined within the boundaries of the nation-state. Drawing from the theoretical frameworks of Adam Smith, Auguste Comte, and Karl Marx, Heilbron argues for a reconceptualization of society as a transnational entity that spans beyond national and state borders. This redefinition encourages a shift in focus within the social sciences towards understanding the world system as a transnational society, emphasizing the interconnectedness and interdependence of individuals and institutions on a global scale. It prompts a reevaluation of the concept of ‘society’ and challenges the prevailing paradigm that associates society solely with the nation-state. Heilbron’s call for a broader, more inclusive understanding of society paves the way for a reexamination of societal structures and dynamics within the context of an increasingly interconnected global community (Heilbron 1999, p. 19), which is somehow in line with the Luhmannian conceptualization of ‘world society’. 1.2 SOCIAL SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO TRANSLATION As explained above, the sociology of translation is a dynamic field that explores how translations influence social interactions, relationships, and structures. Luhmann’s theory of social systems and communication provides a framework for analyzing the role of 13 translations in shaping and maintaining communication. By focusing on how translations mediate communication between different social spheres and systems, Luhmann’s theory helps elucidate how translations contribute to the (re)construction of social ‘reality’. 1.3 BASIC CONCEPTS OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS THEORY Niklas Luhmann’s notion of world society revolves around the idea that the global community is deeply interconnected and interdependent, with communication playing a vital role in facilitating cross-border interactions. Luhmann argues that traditional nation- states are insufficient for addressing the complex issues of today’s global environment. He suggests that the formation of a world society transcends individual state boundaries, encompassing a network of diverse social systems that operate on a global level (Luhmann, 1998, p. 733). Luhmann emphasizes that world society is characterized by increasing interconnectedness and interdependence among various societal systems, including politics, economy, culture, and communication. This growing interrelation has led to global challenges that require cooperative responses and coordination among different actors on the global stage (Luhmann, 1998, p. 735). He asserts that world society does not have a central governing authority; instead, it functions through a decentralized web of communication and interaction across distinct social systems and regions. Furthermore, Luhmann highlights the crucial role of communication in shaping world society, noting that global communication networks are essential for connecting individuals, organizations, and countries worldwide. Through these communication channels, information is disseminated, perspectives are shared, and decisions are made that influence the functioning and development of world society (Luhmann, 1998, p. 748). Luhmann’s notion of world society underscores the importance of understanding global interconnectedness and the complex interactions that occur on a global scale, emphasizing the need for effective communication and cooperation to address the challenges facing contemporary global society. Through an emphasis on communication and differentiation, Luhmann’s theory of social systems furnishes a framework for comprehending the intricacy and dynamism of societal frameworks. It illuminates how systems maintain their coherence and continuity while adjusting to external 14 transformations, securing their ongoing existence in a complex and evolving setting. From this perspective, social systems are depicted as dynamic entities that harmonize internal stability with external adaptability, shaping and being influenced by the broader social milieu (Luhmann, 1995, p. 25). Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems is a fundamental aspect of his systems theory, which perceives society as an intricate network of interconnected systems functioning independently yet interacting with one another. Luhmann posits that a social system is characterized by its capacity to establish and uphold boundaries through communication, distinguishing itself from its surroundings (Luhmann, 1995, p. 12). These boundaries are not physical but operational, determined by the specific codes and communications that define the system’s internal processes. Luhmann asserts that social systems are self-referential and autopoietic, meaning they are self-generating and self-sustaining through their communicative activities. Each social system, such as politics, economy, or education, adheres to its unique logic and codes, which shape its communications and engagements (Luhmann, 1995, p. 17). For instance, the economic system operates based on the payment/non-payment code to conduct transactions, while the legal system functions on the legal/illegal code to resolve disputes. Communication plays a pivotal role in the operation of social systems, facilitating information exchange and action coordination within the system. Luhmann underscores that social systems are non-hierarchical and comprise numerous functionally differentiated subsystems that collaborate to ensure societal stability and adaptability (Luhmann, 1995, p. 21). These collaborations are governed by structural coupling, where systems mutually influence each other through persistent, reciprocal irritations and resonances without compromising their operational independence (Luhmann, 1995, p. 23). The concept of social systems centers on the idea that society is composed of interconnected systems that function independently. He posits that these systems, such as politics, economy, and education, are self-referential and communicate using specific codes and symbols (Luhmann, 1995, p. 54). Rather than being hierarchical, these systems operate as distinct entities that interact to maintain the overall stability of society. Luhmann highlights the crucial role of communication in the formation and maintenance of social systems, as it facilitates the exchange of information and the coordination of 15 actions (Luhmann, 1995, p. 78). This communication enables social systems to adapt and evolve in response to external changes, ensuring their persistence in a complex and dynamic environment. Luhmann further elaborates on his theory by introducing the concept of functional systems, which are specialized systems serving specific purposes within society. Examples include the legal system and the healthcare system, each with its own unique codes and communication methods that allow them to perform their functions effectively (Luhmann, 1995, p. 102). According to Luhmann, these systems operate autonomously, driven by their internal logic rather than external control. By focusing on their specific roles and maintaining internal coherence, functional systems enhance society’s overall complexity and differentiation, aiding its continued functioning and adaptation to evolving conditions (Luhmann, 1995, p. 115). Through his exploration of functional systems, Luhmann provides insight into the complex interactions between different societal components and their contributions to the broader social structure. Niklas Luhmann’s theory on communication plays a vital role in his concept of social systems, underscoring that communication involves distinct phases: information, utterance, and comprehension. Luhmann argues that communication commences with the selection of information, which embodies a specific piece of knowledge or data. This information is then transformed into an utterance, the act of conveying the information through speech, writing, or other forms of expression. Subsequently, comprehension occurs when the recipient interprets the utterance and assimilates it into their cognitive framework. Luhmann asserts that these stages are essential for the self-referential nature of social systems, enabling systems to independently generate and reproduce meaning. Each phase in the communication process enhances the system’s capacity to manage complexity and ensure continuity, underscoring the central role of communication in the operation and development of social systems. Through this multi-step process, Luhmann highlights the fluid and iterative nature of communication within societal frameworks (Luhmann, 1995, p. 142). Following this research program based on Luhmann’s definition of communication, the diachronic dimension of ‘meaning’ has to be taken into consideration along with the synchronic dimension. Communication encompasses everything that has been uttered in the discourse so far, therefore is synonymous to paraphrase in a certain way (Teubert, 16 2005, p. 6). Since meaning changes is context-dependent; it is provisional, new elements are gradually added as we write or speak. For instance, a ‘Turk’ is more than its meaning in the dictionary; it means more than a person from Türkiye or of Turkish descent. The meaning of the word ‘Turk’ encompasses all the attributes actualized in the communication process, even if one believes that these attributes do not reflect reality or that they contradict each other. The constructivist nature of SST reminds us that there is no reality out there dissociated from discourse. Reality resides in discourse and one can only reach it through language or other communicational forms. Similarly, we cannot access the minds of individuals; only discourse as materialized in verbal or visual forms can be reached. And finally, we can only grasp fragments of this materialized form of discourse and not its totality. In addition to communication, Luhmann integrates the notion of autopoiesis to elucidate how social systems maintain themselves, survive, and evolve. Drawing from the field of biological sciences, autopoiesis refers to a system’s capability to reproduce and sustain itself through its own processes. Luhmann posits that social systems are autopoietic as they create and uphold their structures through communication, perpetually generating and reproducing their own components (Luhmann, 1995, p. 189). This self-generative characteristic enables social systems to adjust to environmental changes while upholding their fundamental identity. Autopoiesis highlights the autonomy and self-reliance of social systems, emphasizing their ability to develop internally without external influence. Through the integration of autopoiesis with his communication theory, Luhmann establishes a comprehensive framework for comprehending the self-sustaining and adaptable nature of social systems (Luhmann, 1995, p. 191). Another important concept is observation, a foundational aspect of his systems theory, delineating between first-order and second-order observation. First-order observation involves directly perceiving and describing phenomena based on the observer’s immediate experience and perspective, without questioning the act of observing itself (Luhmann, 1995, p. 93). In contrast, second-order observation focuses on observing the observer, examining the processes and distinctions that inform how observations are made (Luhmann, 1995, p. 95). Expanding on the concept of observation, Luhmann introduces the idea of form, which revolves around the act of making distinctions. According to Luhmann, every observation 17 entails differentiating what is included within a form from what is excluded from it, establishing a boundary that gives meaning to the observed phenomenon (Luhmann, 1995, p. 101). Form goes beyond identifying elements within a system, emphasizing the process of differentiation as fundamental to meaning-making. By emphasizing the importance of drawing distinctions during observation, Luhmann highlights the selective and constructed nature of perception and understanding within social systems. Luhmann contends that this process of drawing distinctions is crucial for the self- referential functioning of systems, enabling them to delineate their internal structures, differentiate themselves from their surroundings, and facilitate communication and adaptation (Luhmann, 1995, p. 103). Through this framework, Luhmann offers a deeper understanding of how social systems construct reality and maintain their coherence in the face of complexity. Niklas Luhmann’s concept of structural coupling pertains to the interaction between different systems, wherein they influence each other while preserving their individual operational closure. According to Luhmann, structural coupling occurs when multiple systems establish stable relationships that enable them to coordinate their functions without sacrificing their autonomy (Luhmann, 1995, p. 212). This phenomenon underscores how systems can form interdependencies by sharing certain structures or communication patterns that allow them to respond to each other’s changes and disturbances. Luhmann employs the concept of structural coupling to elucidate the coexistence and mutual development of systems such as the economy, law, and education. For example, the legal system and the political system are structurally coupled, as legal decisions impact political actions and vice versa, while each system retains its unique operational logic and code (Luhmann, 1995, p. 214). This coupling is facilitated through common reference points, like laws and policies, which establish a shared basis for interaction without amalgamating the systems. By emphasizing structural coupling, Luhmann demonstrates that although systems are operationally closed – being self-referential and maintaining their boundaries – they are cognitively open, enabling them to be influenced by and react to their surroundings (Luhmann, 1995, p. 216). This dual capacity permits systems to adapt and evolve in response to external stimuli while upholding their individuality and operational 18 coherence. Structural coupling plays a pivotal role in the complexity and resilience of social systems, enabling them to sustain their functions and engage effectively within the broader societal milieu. Furthermore, Luhmann’s concept of structural coupling incorporates the concepts of irritation and resonance, which are fundamental in understanding the dynamics of how systems interact and impact each other. Irritation signifies the disruptions or disturbances caused by one system to another when their operations intersect. These irritations do not directly govern or dictate the behavior of the affected system, but rather serve as triggers for the system’s internal processes to respond and adapt (Luhmann, 1995, p. 219). On the other hand, resonance refers to the degree to which these irritations are perceived and addressed within the system. It reflects the system’s capability to detect, interpret, and integrate external disruptions into its functions (Luhmann, 1995, p. 221). The interplay between irritation and resonance is critical for structural coupling, as it dictates how effectively systems can adjust and co-evolve. When a system is irritated by another, its resonance – its ability to sense, interpret, and incorporate external disturbances – determines whether it will adapt constructively or overlook the perturbation. For instance, market fluctuations caused by the economic system may irritate the political system. The political system’s resonance with these economic changes influences how policies are modified in response (Luhmann, 1995, p. 223). This dynamic equilibrium allows systems to remain independent yet responsive, fostering a stable yet flexible interaction framework. By integrating irritation and resonance into the concept of structural coupling, Luhmann illustrates how systems uphold their uniqueness while engaging dynamically and evolving within a complex societal context. 1.3.1 Mass Media as a Functional System All of our knowledge about society and the world around us is acquired through the mass media, as stated by Niklas Luhmann in his book The Reality of the Mass Media, first published in German in 1996. Although Luhmann emphasizes that there is no hierarchy among functional systems in terms of domination or dependence, the mass media occupy a privileged position within the functionally differentiated modern society, mainly due to the impetus communication technologies have gained since the beginning of the new 19 millennium. In his analysis of the mass media, Luhmann argues that in order to understand their functioning it is necessary to look at “the reality of the mass media in a dual sense” (Luhmann, 2000, p. 3). The first refers to how they operate, i.e., how information is filtered by them, and how communication occurs through them. Whereas in the second, the term is used “in the sense of what appears to [the mass media], or through them to others, to be reality” (Luhmann, 2000, p. 4, emphasis in the original). This duality attributed to the system of the mass media constitutes the central focus of the present part of the thesis as well: how does a given reality appear to the system of the mass media and how is that specific reality presented to the readers? More specifically, how is the Turkish identity depicted in the European media and why do certain representations dominate over others? To put it in SST terminology, which side of ‘reality’ is included in the system and which side is left outside the communication process, that is, which side of the form is marked and which side is left unmarked and why? Finally, what are the operations and distinctions privileged by the mass media in this process? In an attempt to provide answers to the above set of questions, the thesis analyses the debate over the accession of Türkiye to the European Union and the reviews of novels from Turkish writersd, as manifested in the European press. In that sense, the system of the mass media, as emphasized in the introduction, will be considered as the eyes of the European system. The latter needs a subsystem to fulfil this function and the mass media is well suited for such a task, mainly because every intrasystemic and/or intersystemic communication is somehow dependent on the functional system of the mass media when representations of society are at stake – except for the direct interaction between two or more psychic (human) systems. This is to say that to communicate beyond spatio- temporal restrictions, the European system – and indeed any type of social system – must have recourse to the mass media. Keeping in mind that “society is a social system that is constituted by communications and only communications” (Luhmann, 1990, p. 207) and recalling the motto of Social Systems Theory that “only communication can communicate” (Luhmann, 2002, p. 156), no psychic system can be conceived of as fully integrated in a given functional system, and this is also valid for texts – which are the core material of the present thesis. In other words, “[s]ociety is not composed of human beings, it is composed of the communication 20 among human beings” (Luhmann, 1990, p. 30) and psychic systems can only participate in a social system as long as they communicate according to the specific code of the latter, that is, as long as they translate their consciousness into the language of the receiving system. As such, books, newspapers or television do not belong to a given functional system. They do not constitute the mass media either. Rather, mass media are comprised of communications, which only occasionally use “the technology of dissemination” (Luhmann, 2000, p. 2). [T]he term ‘mass media’ includes all those institutions of society which make use of copying technologies to disseminate communication. This means principally books, magazines and newspapers manufactured by the printing press, but also all kinds of photographic or electronic copying procedures, provided that they generate large quantities of products whose target groups are as yet undetermined. Also included in the term is the dissemination of communication via broadcasting, provided that it is generally accessible and does not merely serve to maintain a telephone connection between individual participants. (Luhmann, 2000, p. 2) Two crucial conclusions can be drawn from the above passage. First, because “[c]ommunication only comes about when someone watches, listens, reads – and understands to the extent that further communication could follow on” (Luhmann, 2000, p. 4), the mass media obviously have to reach more than just one psychic system; on top of that, they have to reach masses. Second, communication carried out within the system of the mass media is always interrupted by printing or broadcasting technologies and therefore different from the face-to-face interaction experienced by psychic systems in that “[t]he organizations which produce mass media communication are dependent upon assumptions concerning acceptability” (Luhmann, 2000, p. 3). For this reason, they can never be certain of who reads or watches them, and most importantly, they can never be certain about how their utterances have been understood/misunderstood. This is to say that they have to rely on their selective memory in the selection and utterance of environmental themes. According to which criteria do social systems, and particularly the mass media, engage in different selection processes? Mass media as a functional system have their own environment, in which other systems and subsystems exist. They differentiate themselves from other social systems by referring to distinctions built within themselves, that is, by referring to their own 21 observations and operations. Mass media are characterized by the unlimited capacity to disseminate topics of interest, which constitutes the practice of its function. However, they cannot disseminate everything and/or anything in their environment. The possibilities available in the environment need to be filtered, an operation allowing the system to reduce the environmental complexity. In that sense, self-reference/self- observation and other-reference/other-observation are crucial operations for the system to fulfil its principal function of news making and news dissemination. Before moving to the conditions and consequences of self- and other-reference for the mass media, the notion of systemic reference should be further clarified: The concept of “reference” should be defined in a way that moves it closer to the concept of observation. With it, we would like to designate an operation composed of the elements distinction and indication (in Spencer Brown’s sense). This concerns the indication of something within the context of a (likewise operatively introduced) distinction from something else. Referring becomes observing when the distinction is used to acquire information about what is indicated (which generally requires distinctions that are understood more narrowly). Normally referring is accompanied by an interest in observation and thus by an interest in acquiring information. (Luhmann, 1995, p. 440) This statement explains why systems, the mass media in the present case, develop an interest in its own environment. The former observes the latter to search for intrasystemically relevant information. It then refers to itself in order to selectively utter the selected information, a recursive phenomenon constantly repeated. Self-reference, the most central aspect defining systems, is guaranteed by the system’s binary code, a double-sided form continually reproduced by the system itself. This binary code “is sufficient to determine which operations belong to the system and which operations (coded differently or not coded at all) are going on in the environment of the system” (Luhmann, 2000, p. 17). The code allows the system to draw communicative distinctions and gives the system the competence to decide what will be marked and what will remain unmarked, that is, which information will find resonance within the system, hence uttered by the system, and which elements will stay in the environment. The binary code enabling the mass media to draw such a distinction is information/non-information. By proceeding in this way, the system attributes positive or negative values to information with regard to its internal selective processes. The fact that certain pieces of information enter the system while others stay in the environment means that a horizon of possibilities 22 is available out there in the environment. Therefore, the environment is particularly crucial for the mass media. Like every other system, it has to refer recursively to its environment in order to function properly. In other words, self-reference has to be interrupted or refracted by other-reference. Otherwise, the circularity of the system would result into nothing other than absolute tautology. As dynamism is an indispensable factor for the survival of systems, a tautologous mechanism would not permit the system to change or evolve over time. For the system of the mass media, other-reference, i.e., reference to the environment, takes place by means of topics. Indeed, topics “serve the structural coupling of the mass media with other social domains” (Luhmann, 2000, p. 13). The system of the mass media is thus dependent on other social systems, which provide information for the former. Furthermore, “[i]t is the topics of communication which ensure that the mass media, in spite of their operational closure, do not take off, do not leave of society” (Luhmann, 2000, p. 12). This assumption about social systems is especially significant for the mass media system in that the latter has the function to set or guide the agenda without growing too distant from the general concerns of the world society. Only informationally valuable and publicly attractive communication can pass through the boundary and can be appropriated by the system. Self-reference and other-reference lead to self-observation and other-observation to make sense of the world we live in. Thus doing, systems transform the inherent complexity of the environment into a more understandable and reachable, that is, into a more structured complexity. They observe the observations of other functional systems not only for the selection of information but they also operate selectively while producing utterances about the selected topics in that they also choose to present them in particular patterns. By uttering the selected information, the mass media are constantly initiating new information to be understood (or misunderstood) by other systems. As it is the case for politics working selectively “both with regard to the selection of fields of problems and with regard to the formula for their analysis” (Luhmann, 1990, p. 78), while disseminating their observations, the mass media use their own filtering mechanism not only in the selection of what to cover but also how to cover what has been selected to be part of the agenda. These two selective processes, followed by a third selection on the part of readers, is the reason why “communication cannot be understood as a ‘transference’ of 23 information, reports or elements of meaning from one side to another” (Luhmann, 1990, 207). The code of the system and the distinctions informing this very code that are actualized in the communication process determine which themes will be “in part overexploited” in the communication process and which ones will remain “in part unexploited” (Luhmann, 1990, 207.). However, it does not end here. Once selected for coverage, some aspects of the theme may be highlighted while others may be kept in the dark, the latter constituting the blind spot of the observing system. It should be clear thus far that the mass media rely on their environment for the selection of information but these cannot be interpreted as inputs from the environment but only as irritations. The system of the mass media only “give form to [their] medium” (Luhmann, 1990, 210). Only internal operations can determine how the medium will be processed and uttered for subsequent communications. The medium at stake for the mass media is the public opinion, which allows the system’s structural coupling with its respective environment consisting of a variety of social and psychic systems. The public opinion is thus an important element from the environment to which the system of the mass media refers in order to set its own communicative boundaries. The analysis of public discourse on the possible inclusion of Türkiye to the European system indicates that the topic is extensively covered. Following Luhmann’s logic though, this controversial issue is not the product of the mass media per se. It can even be advanced that it is primarily political, because it is the political system, that is, the political operations within each and every member state of the EU, which will decide whether Türkiye should and will eventually be a full member of the EU. The topic is only taken up by the mass media and moulded in a particular way, that is, in a different way when compared with other functional systems such as politics, economy, law, science, and the like. In this case, one may legitimately ask: if it is the political system that has the final say in the decision-making process, why should we be interested in the observations of the mass media and the public opinion itself? The answer is pretty straightforward: “[i]n democracies, this opinion cannot be ignored because a change of government is never further away than the next election” (Luhmann, 1990, p. 7). Above all, in the case of the Turkish candidacy, most European countries have decided that any future enlargement of the EU will be subject to referendums; in which case, the public would be directly 24 involved. Consequently, both the political system and the media system have to pay close attention to public opinion.1 As stated earlier, the mass media as a self-referential social system observe their environment through a filtering mechanism of their own. As previously seen, Luhmann extends the concept of observation, which is primarily a conscious act carried out by psychic systems, to the realm of social systems. Any type of social system, whether it is a societal, organizational or interaction system, observes its environment by drawing a communicative distinction; thereby distinguishes between a marked and unmarked space. However, one disparity remains between the observation of psychic systems and that of social systems: “[t]he self-observation of psychic systems involves consciousness. That of social systems involves communication.” (Luhmann, 1990, p. 119). The ideal place to observe self-descriptions of the world society, and particularly that of Europe, is communication disseminated by the mass media as we do not have access to people’s mind other than through communication, that is when their perceptions enter into interaction with society. For this reason, public opinion cannot be conceived of as the sum of the psychic systems’ thoughts: The concept of public opinion refers to the social system of society. It does not refer to what actually occurs in the consciousness(es) of individual/many/all persons at a particular point in time. (Luhmann, 1990, p. 205-206) News, as disseminated by the system of the mass media, are such a site where we can move beyond the minds of individuals towards the realm of social systems. Furthermore, 1 It can be advanced that when an important part of the public opinion is ignored, a need for a new subsystem may arise (e.g., the use of social media in Türkiye during the Gezi events in 2013 and afterwards). Issues and/or their alternative interpretation, which could not irritate the mainstream media in Türkiye, entered the societal system by means of social media. An important part of the public opinion was ignored during these events, which led to questioning the legitimacy of the mainstream media in Türkiye. When deciding what should be marked as information, the mass media have to refer to the public opinion to which it is structurally coupled. Otherwise, other subsystems would appear to fill in the gap and to actualize the communicative distinctions projected by a considerable part of the public. 25 news are everywhere; every single day the mass media observe themselves and their environment. The observations of the mass media, selecting certain elements from a horizon of possibilities and thereby reducing the complexity inherent in their environment, feed the latter by providing legitimate sources of information about the world society. In return, mass media are irritated by the environment, the latter providing topics to be covered for the former. Within the scope of this study, this circular relationship is most characteristic of the political system and the mass media. Their mutual interdependence (in terms of topics of course, and not in terms of their internal functioning) makes them structurally coupled systems, and the medium of this coupling, as emphasized earlier, is public opinion, which is essential for both systems (see Luhmann, 1990, p. 6-7). The structural coupling between mass media and politics enabled through public opinion constitutes the motivation behind the selection of public narratives as the object of inquiry in the present part of the study. However, public opinion may diverge slightly or extensively from one country, or group of people, to another. Furthermore, the central concern of the present endeavor is not the description of public opinion itself. Rather, since the mass media “‘transfer’ nothing” and since “[t]he press and broadcasting give form to [the] medium [of public opinion]” (Luhmann 1990, p. 210), the fundamental question relates to how they give form to this specific medium? It […] makes little sense to ask whether and how the mass media distort reality; they generate a description of reality, a world construction, and this is the reality on which society orients itself. (Luhmann, 2013, p. 318) That being said, as it is obviously impossible for a single researcher to analyze how public opinion is disseminated in every single member state of the EU, a selection is necessary. I chose to scrutinize narratives circulating in two different subsystems: France and the UK. 1.4 BRITISH SUBSYSTEM VS. FRENCH SUBSYSTEM The narratives and images of Turks and Türkiye in the French and British print media will be analysed, based on representative news items and reviews surrounding translations within two subsystems of the European system. This choice is by no means accidental. In 26 both subsystems, political discourse varies significantly in terms of what the EU is and what the EU should be. Also, the political traditions these countries have been associated with differ radically. The official immigration policy has been more assimilative in France than in the UK, the latter being known for its multicultural policy.2 With regard to the European project, the French government is more in favour of a federalist system whereas the British government has been supporting a Union that would be closer to a Commonwealth. Furthermore, the fact that political discourses about the accession of Türkiye to the EU, in accordance with these countries’ foreign policy traditions, vary significantly invites the researcher to comparatively analyse them. 3 However, the fact that I have chosen to focus on the narratives of Turkish identity in France and the UK must not be taken to imply that I see these countries and their narratives as representative of the EU as a whole. Indeed, much of the reflection on Türkiye I draw on here comes from British and French decision-makers, journalists, politicians, in short, holders of a high level of symbolic capital that can access masses. I have chosen to examine the public discourse in the French and British subsystems mostly because they deserve special attention given their locomotive role in EU politics and their voting power in the European Parliament.4 2 A precision needs to be made: Multiculturalism is not the characteristic of a society made up of diverse cultures. If it were the case, France and the UK could equally be called multicultural. Multiculturalism is based on the principles of mutual respect and understanding and necessitates mutual learning about each other. In multicultural societies, tolerance and integration are keys for the co-existence of different communities. 3 Without doubt, it would have been equally important and interesting to sketch the general picture of the discourses on the Turkish identity in translations and around them in Germany as well, the European country in which the number of Turkish originated immigrants is highest. I could not include the German case because of linguistic barriers. At this point, I would like to invite researchers who speak German to further complete the present project. 4 The weight of the Turkish membership debate in the European press varies significantly. In some of the European countries, the debate over Turkish membership is not as dense as in France, the UK, Germany, Austria, to name a few. One example where the debate is not very popular is Spain. According to Marin, Garcia and Barosso “the fact that there is no discussion over the accession of Türkiye to the Union on the political level makes it less attractive for journalists, or at least, is not seen worth transferring as it does not cause any conflict.” (2007, p. 186) 27 Moreover, I am aware that different positions on the Turkish-EU relations exist in France and in the UK and generate highly questionable, incoherent and conflicting narratives. In France and the UK, as well as in other parts of Europe, there exist parties or politicians that are in favour of Türkiye’s accession to the EU. There are, however, groups and individuals that are against it as well. From a social systemic point of view, though, it is not pertinent to analyse who is ‘for’ or ‘against’ the membership of Türkiye. Rather, we should try to understand ‘why’ that is so. In this sense, two questions seem to be mainly relevant: What are the topics dealt with in the discourse and how is the argumentation structured? In other words, what are the narratives disseminated by the British and French press and what are the arguments advanced in order to support these narratives? I will present both past representations of the Turk in Europe and the results of my analysis on the European press in the forthcoming sections. First, I would like to present some interesting observations stemming from the “Eurobarometer 66 - Public Opinion in the European Union” (2007, field work was carried out in September-October 2006), conducted under the auspices of the European Commission in 25 EU countries and in the candidate countries (Türkiye and Croatia, which became a full member in 2013). This poll addresses many questions related to the Union, among which any further enlargement and the candidacy of Türkiye also appear as a separate section. According to the results of this survey, support in all member states for Türkiye’s accession to the EU is not very widespread: 26% in favour and 37% against in total. When we look at the total of the 25 EU countries, the results of the Eurobarometer 66 are not very optimistic for Türkiye. First of all, a significant majority of interviewees think Turkish accession should be subject to certain conditions, mainly two: the systematic respect for human rights (85%) and a significant improvement in its economic level (%77). This mainly suggests that most of European citizens believe that, in some way, human rights are not protected and the country’s economic status quo does not meet the European standard. Second, opinion polls show that a large number of interviewees (66%) “fear that Turkish membership would encourage immigration to the most developed countries in the EU” (Eurobarometer 66, 2007, p. 224). Third, “only 33% of European citizens feel that Turkish membership would strengthen security in the region while 51% disagree” (Eurobarometer 66, 2007, p. 224). 28 One of the most relevant questions addressed in the survey is about the “cultural difference” between Türkiye and the EU. Interviewees were asked whether “the cultural differences between Türkiye and the EU member states are too significant to allow it to join the EU” (Eurobarometer 66, 2007, p. 226). Assuming that there is a certain difference, interviewers are interested in knowing whether the difference is “too” significant or “too” big. In total, 61% respondents believe that it is the case. The issue of cultural difference becomes even more interesting when we look at the results by country. Within the member and candidate states participating to the poll, Austria (84%) has the highest percentage of positive responses; followed by Greece (79%), Luxembourg (77%), the Republic of Cyprus5 (75%) and Germany (74%). The number of respondents in France believing that there is a significant cultural difference between Türkiye and Europe is also relatively high (65%). On the contrary, the countries where the highest percentage of people believing that the cultural difference is not too big are: Romania (32%), Spain (46%), the UK (47%), Bulgaria (48%), and Portugal (49%). In the UK, France, and other parts of Europe, there are political parties and politicians who support Türkiye’s entry into the EU, such as Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac. However, there are also those who strongly oppose it, like Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Angela Merkel. Instead of focusing on who is for or against Türkiye’s EU membership, it is more important to understand the reasons behind these opinions and how they relate to the European system. The European press often portrays Türkiye’s eagerness to join the EU as universally supported, but the discourse in Türkiye, as in France and the UK, is divided. A public opinion poll from the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Transatlantic Trends 2010, shows a significant decrease in 5 A footnote on the Eurobarometer states that “Cyprus as a whole is one of the 25 European Union Member States. However, the “acquis communautaire” is suspended in the part of the country that is not controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus. For practical reasons, only the interviews conducted in the part of the country controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus are recorded […] and included in the EU25 average.” If the interviews conducted in Northern Cyprus were part of this category too, and if the opposition to the Turkish membership were added too, the results would be significantly different, most probably lower. “The interviews conducted in the part of the country not controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus are recorded” in a separate category. 29 support for Türkiye’s EU membership, with only 38% of Turks believing it would be a good thing for their country in 2010 compared to 73% in 2004. Additionally, 63% of Turks now believe it is unlikely that Türkiye will actually join the EU. Overall, there is a wide disparity of opinion between citizens across the EU as to whether Türkiye meets the accession criteria and whether its membership would be beneficial for the EU. Taking the results of the poll into consideration, it can be said that one of the biggest obstacles for Turkish membership to the EU is the existing public opinion towards Türkiye. Most importantly, the fact that the majority of European citizens believe that the cultural difference is too wide leads to the following question: What makes Türkiye so different? Put in another way, what makes the European system think that Türkiye is so different? 1.5 NARRATIVE THEORY Somers and Gibson’s Socially Informed Narrative Theory offers a unique and insightful perspective on the role narratives play in shaping individual and collective identities within society. Rooted in the belief that narratives are not just stories, but also instruments of social power and control, this theory explores how narratives are created, disseminated, and accepted as truth by various social actors. By examining how narratives influence our understanding of the world and ourselves, Somers and Gibson provide a framework for understanding how social structures and power dynamics are constructed and maintained through storytelling. This theory ultimately highlights the intricate relationship between narrative, identity, and society, shedding light on the ways in which narratives define and shape our social reality. The selection and construction of news contributes to the (re)production of narratives that can be defined as stories we tell about ourselves and about others, stories that we are told, and stories that others tell about us (Baker, 2007, p. 151). These narratives, according to Somers and Gibson, should not be merely seen as forms of representations; “traditional rendering” of narrative “as limited to a method or form of representation”, they say, does not take account of temporal, relational, cultural and institutional aspects attached to them (1994, p. 41). They should be rather understood as “constellations of relationships (connected parts) embedded in time and space, constituted by causal emplotment”, by 30 means of which “we come to know, understand, and make sense of the social world, and it is through narratives and narrativity that we constitute our social identities” (1994, p. 59, emphasis in the original). Succinctly, apart from being sources for the understanding and interpretation of the world we live in, narratives are also the result of these understandings and interpretations, which in turn, shape and influence future communications. This perception of narrative as a dynamic phenomenon and as shaper of both individual and social understanding points at the existence of different dimensions of narrativity, that is, (a) ontological narratives, which are “used to define who we are”, (b) public narratives “attached to cultural and institutional formations larger than the single individual, to intersubjective networks or institutions”, (c) conceptual narrativity “constructed by social researchers”, and (d) metanarrativity, which “refers to the ‘master- narratives’” such as modernism, progress, enlightenment, and so forth (Somers and Gibson, 1994, p. 61-63).6 It should be noted that it is impossible to analyse narratives in isolation and that the above- mentioned categories cannot be fully dissociated from each other. However, for the purpose of this study, the second and fourth categories – public narratives and metanarratives – will be specifically relevant and I will mostly be interested in the presentation of public narratives disseminated by the British and French press while acknowledging some of the metanarratives that are activated in the news making process. Mona Baker draws on the same typology in her manuscript entitled Translation and Conflict in order to discuss that translation and interpreting are essential not only for creating narratives, but also for “circulating and resisting” them (2006, p. 2, emphasis in the original).7 She bases her study on “the notion of narrative as elaborated in social and 6 See Harding (2012) for a slightly different typology of narratives divided in two categories: personal vs. shared/collective narratives (which include local, societal, theoretical, and meta-narratives). 7 The work of Mona Baker looking at translation and interpretation from a narrative theory framework is very useful to understand that the translating or interpreting agent (observers, in Luhmannian terminology) cannot escape narratives, since they constitute the very basis of our identity design. Although the examples she gives in her book Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account (2006) and her article “Reframing 31 communication theory, rather than in narratology or linguistics” and further elaborates on the dynamic aspect of narratives by acknowledging that “they change in subtle or radical ways as people experience and become exposed to new stories on a daily basis” (Baker, 2006, p. 3). One of the consequences of such dynamism is the abundance of narratives and/or the competition between different versions of the same narrative. Any narrative, from the story of the invasion of Iraq to the story of human evolution, circulates in many different versions. Some of these versions may be completely at odds with each other; some may differ only in minor details or points of emphasis. Over time, different versions of a narrative may become more or less valued and may achieve more or less currency through various processes of re-enforcement and contestation. Because narratives of the past define and determine the narrative present, competition among different versions of a narrative may continue for centuries. To contest and challenge the present, both individuals and communities will draw on past narratives to highlight salient features of the current situation as elaborated in their narrative of the here and now. (Baker, 2006, p. 23) As noted in the above excerpt, a same fact, issue, or problem may circulate in many different versions. In other words, on the one hand, different parties to a conflict are very likely to resort to diverging linguistic and/or verbal framing strategies in the mediation of the narratives they ascribe to; on the other hand, they may work for the promotion and dissemination of their version of the story as widely as possible. To formulate this in social systemic terms, the same information may be uttered in different ways, depending on which psychic or social system is observing. Luhmann draws attention to the fact that this is exactly the reason why the mass media is generally interested in intensively debated