Transcript of the lecture by Bilgin Ayata: Affective Citizenship - The Making of Tolerable Others
Yvonne Albrecht: Ja, wir begrüßen Sie nochmals herzlich zu unserer Vortragsreihe Mobility Affects. Wir, das sind Jan Slaby, Professor für Philosophie an der Freien Universität Berlin und eben Vorstandsmitglied des SFBs Affective Societies. Zudem ist der Serhat Karakayali, Leiter der Abteilung Migration an DeZIM und auch Researcher am Berliner Institut für empirische Integrations- und Migrationsforschung, am BIM an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Mein Name ist Yvonne Albrecht. Ich arbeite als wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin ebenso am Berliner Institut für empirische Integrations- und Migrationsforschung an der HU Berlin und bin auch assoziiertes Mitglied am Sonderforschungsbereich Affective Societies an der FU. Ja, wir werden jetzt als Organisator:innen zur Einführung zunächst ein paar für die Gestaltung der Veranstaltung relevante Punkte ansprechen. Und dann freuen wir uns überaus, heute Bilgin Ayata begrüßen zu dürfen, die unter dem Titel "Affective Citizenship: The Making of Tolerable Others in Postmigrant Societies" den Eröffnungsvortrag unserer Vortragsreihe heute halten wird. Wir erwähnen schon mal, wir wechseln dann ins Englische und werden danach die Diskussionen auch im Englischen führen. Sie haben aber auch die Möglichkeit, auch auf Deutsch Fragen in den Chat beispielsweise zu schreiben. Dazu später noch ein bisschen mehr. Mobility Affects ist als Kooperationsveranstaltung zwischen dem Berliner Institut für empirische Integrations- und Migrationsforschung BIM und dem DFG Sonderforschungsbereich Affectvie Societies entstanden. Sie hat zum Ziel, die facettenreichen Dynamiken des reziproken Affizierens und Affiziert-Werdens im Kontext von grenzüberschreitender Mobilität in den Blick zu nehmen und eben auch auf diese Dynamiken unterschiedliche auch interdisziplinäre Analysen und Perspektiven zu entwickeln. Genau zum Thema Affektivität übergebe ich nochmal jetzt an Jan.
Jan Slaby: Ja, hallo auch von mir. Vielen Dank, Yvonne, bis hierhin. Danke fürs mit organisieren und vor allem auch, Yvonne, für das Anregen dieser sehr inspirierenden Vortragsreihe, die so ein bisschen, ja so ein Testlauf für uns ist, ob das funktioniert, dieses Format. Normalerweise wäre es natürlich ein Präsenz- Colloquium an unseren Standorten. Das können wir jetzt nicht machen. Mal schauen. Feedback nehmen wir natürlich auch gerne entgegen. Ein Dank vorab auch an den technischen und organisatorischen Support von unseren Leuten am SFB 1171 an der FU. Insbesondere Danke an Eva Riedelsheimer für das Marketing und den technischen Support und auch Ulrike Geiger und Astrid Ursprung durften sich hier um die Umsetzung kümmern. Wenn etwas schiefläuft, sind natürlich auch nur diese Leute schuld und nicht die Organisator:innen. Ja, muss man noch erläutern, an einem Tag wie heute, was Affektivität ist, was wir unter Affektivität verstehen?! Alles, was gestern Nacht und heute im Umkreis der US-Wahlen passiert und ja noch wirklich unabgeschlossen ist, ist Affektivität im eminenten Sinne und zudem noch in einem Sinne, der unserem Verständnis davon nahe kommt. Wir und viele der hier in unserer Reihe Vortragenden schließen an ein Verständnis von Affekten, Affektivität an, das auf den Philosophen Spinoza zurückgeht. Da ist Affekt nichts Individuelles, Inneres, Psychisches, sondern ein dynamisches Bezugsgeschehen; etwas, das zwischen Entitäten, Personen, Kontexten passiert, Beziehungen des Affizierens und Affiziert-Werdens. Beziehungen, die menschliche Subjekte mit Körpern und Kontexten verschiedener Art in Kontakt bringen und das Sein aller am Affektgeschehen beteiligten Entitäten prägen und ausrichten. Das klingt jetzt ein bisschen abstrakt und es ist sicherlich auch erst mal eine sozusagen sehr generell begriffliche Perspektive. Man kann es aber auch konkreter ausdrücken: Affizierung: Das ist Machtwirkung? Affekte sind ein Machtgeschehen. Das heißt, affektive Dynamiken binden ein, sie gestalten, sie ermöglichen, aber genauso können sie ausschließen, beschränken, verhindern und zerstören. Der relationale Ansatz, der am Berliner SFB Affective Societies verfolgt wird, zielt darauf ab, die grundlegende soziale und politische Bedeutung von Affekt herauszuarbeiten und dann in einzelnen Analysen gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhänge zur Anwendung zu bringen. Affekt ist also hier eine Art Optik, eine Blickrichtung, um Machtwirkung und Machteffekte sichtbar zu machen und zu verstehen. Dort, wo sie nicht auf den ersten Blick erkennbar sind. Und in dieser Vortragsreihe, in unserer Vortragsreihe Mobility Affects knüpfen wir genau daran an. Dynamiken des Affizierens und Affiziert-Werdens, sind zentrale Faktoren in politischen Geschehen. Sie binden Individuen in Kollektive ein oder schließen sie aus und prägen Kriterien von Zugehörigkeit, erodieren soziale Beziehungen und Urteilsprozesse. Und das sieht man natürlich immer wieder, insbesondere im Politischen, aber auch in Kontexten von Migration. Und in der Vergangenheit war es oft so, dass wenn Affektivität in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung beachtet wurde, dann eher als eine Art Nebenprodukt, Nebeneffekt und nichts Zentrales. Und wir sind demgegenüber überzeugt, dass Emotionen, Gefühle und Affekte ins Zentrum des sozialwissenschaftlichen Interesses gehören, weil sie für jegliche Form von Sozialität ganz zentral sind. Und damit geb ich weiter an Serhat, den nächsten Co-Organisator, der was zu Affektivität und Migration sagen wird.
Serhat Karakayali: Ja, vielen Dank für die Überleitung. Wir wollen es ja nicht so lang machen, deswegen wird das jetzt ganz unvollständig sein, natürlich. Aber es ist natürlich auch einleuchtend, dass der Bereich der Migration, insgesamt der Mobilität, von der die Migration ein Unterpunkt ist, dass auch im Bereich Affekte und Emotionen relevante Begriffe sind, dass sie sowohl Ursachen als auch Wirkungen von und für Migrationsbewegungen sind und dass sie mit diesen Prozessen verwoben sind, untrennbar sowohl auf individueller wie auf kollektiver Ebene, und dass sie alle Auseinandersetzungen in unserer postmigrantischen Gesellschaft natürlich begleiten. Mit postmigrantischer Gesellschaft wurde ein Begriff von Shermin Langhoff und Naika Foroutan vor einigen Jahren vorgeschlagen, der sagen soll, dass wir in einer Gesellschaft leben, die auf das Migrantische bezogen bleibt, selbst wenn Migrationen schon Generationen zurückliegen, und daraus folgt für uns mobilisiert, dass mobilitätsbezogene Affekte auch im Sinne einer internationalen Übertragung Menschen betreffen, die selbst nicht migriert sind, also Personen mit sogenanntem Migrationshintergrund. Migration kann also affizieren über Generationen hinweg. Affekte, Emotionen und so weiter sind im Kontext von sogenannten Integrationsprozesse auch von Bedeutung. Denn, wenn man das etwas zuspitzt, erschöpft sich Integration natürlich nicht in der Vermittlung eines Arbeitsmarktszugangs. Gesellschaft ist nämlich mehr als die Summe dieser einzelnen Systeme, des Bildungssystems, des Systems der Produktion usw.. Emotionen sind vielleicht so etwas wie Indikatoren von Brüchen und Asymmetrien in der symbolischen und strukturellen Ordnung von Zugehörigkeit. Bei Fragen der Zugehörigkeit zum "Wir" in einer Gesellschaft: Wer gehört dazu? Wer wird inkludiert? Wer bleibt ausgeschlossen? Und warum? Und wie werden in Integrationsprozessen emotionale Identifikationen eigentlich hergestellt, wenn sie auf Annahmen beruhen, die selber ausschließende Implikationen haben? Insofern ist ein sozial-relationaler Blickwinkel notwendig, der die vielfältigen Formen von Affizieren und Affiziert-Werden als etwas versteht, mit dem kollektive Beziehungen organisiert werden und die sowohl die Dynamiken der Ablehnung oder des Rassismus als auch der sogenannten Willkommenskultur hervorbringen kann. Der Titel "Mobility Affects" impliziert daher einen breit angelegten Blickwinkel, der sowohl die Fokussierung der emotionalen Eigenperspektiven migrierter Personen während der Migration als auch die vielfältigen Affizierungen im Ankunfts- und Herkunftskontext ermöglicht. Daher können mit dieser Mobility Affects Perspektive eben auch Rassismus, Diskriminierung, andere Formen des Otherings bis hin zum Rechtsradikalismus, zum Nationalismus analytisch in den Blick genommen werden. Damit leistet die Veranstaltung aus unserer Perspektive einen Beitrag zur wissenschaftlichen Analyse von aktuellen, hochaktuellen und auch spaltenden Dynamiken in unserer Gegenwartsgesellschaft. Und in der Zusammenführung der vorhandenen Expertisen vom SFB Affective Societies und dem Berliner Institut für empirische Integrations. und Migrationsforschung, diesen langen Namen werde ich mir nie angewöhnen können, leistet die Vortragsreihe einen wichtigen Beitrag. Ich übergebe jetzt nochmal zurück, an wen übergebe ich zurück? An Jan oder...?
Jan Slaby: Ich kann noch ein bisschen was erzählen, damit Bilgin so richtig schmort vor ihrem Vortrag.
Bilgin Ayata: But, you know, we should switch to English, I can see that there are people joining right now from Graz and other places where I announced this is in English.
Jan Slaby: So I knew that the people in Graz couldn't speak German, but I wasn't sure that it was English that they are speaking. Well, I just that quickly, something on the organization. We want to have an open discussion after the talk. So make sure when you want to say something in the discussion, ask a question that you use the chat function. You see it on the system. Some of you work for the first time with Webex today so you can use the chat function, write it down in the panel and you can just put, whatever, say, I want to say something. Here in our script, it says "WM" for Wortmeldung, but maybe you can also write your name, just indicate in the chat, because then we get a natural list of those who want to ask a question. And of course, during the talk do all mute yourself, that's clear. And again, I just repeat it for those who joined us later that we record the whole thing. So if you say something in the discussion, you thereby indicate agreement to be recorded in audio and video format. And if you, if you decide to stay, switch your video off and stay silent, then you will not... we can be sure that you are not on the recording, which will be presented online. And now Yvonne will introduce Bilgin for the lecture.
Jan Slaby: Yes. Thank you. Yes. We are very happy to welcome Bilgin Ayata today, who opens up our series of lectures and I would like to introduce her very shortly. Bilgin Ayata is Professor of South European Studies at the University of Graz. She worked since 2015 as Professor of Political Science at the University of Basel and was a researcher at the Otto-Suhr-Institute at the Free University of Berlin. After her studies at the University in Toronto, she wrote her dissertation at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore in Political Sciences. Her actual interests of research focus on sociopolitical transformation with a special interest in processes of migration, protest movements, religion, transnationalism, intersectionality and post-coloniality. She has a special interest in, and that's very important for our purposes, in the context of ethics and emotions. And in this context, Bilgin Ayata is associated research also at affective societies at the Free University, and she was until summer Mercator-Fellow in the political subproject with the topic "Emotion and Affect in the context of transformations in Egypt and Turkey". And yes, Bilgin Ayata talks for example about topics of migration, diaspora, affects and emotion, citizenship, and yes, her newest publication at Routledge deals with... with the topic of affective citizenship. And we will listen to her presentation in one moment. She will tell us a bit more about it. And other publications with, for example, Cilja Harders, who is also here, we are very delighted, is on the affective dynamics of protest movements, which is also, I think, a Routledge publication. Then in the Journal of European Integration, the paper "Turkish Foreign Policy After the Arab Revolutions" and in the Leviathan as a German paper, "Migration und das Europäische Grenzregime nach den Arabischen Revolutionen". And yes, and now we are very happy to welcome you here and you will talk about affective citizenship and you have the word, Bilgin Ayata.
Bilgin Ayata: Thank you so much, dear Yvonne, for this very kind introduction and thank you very much to the organizers, the other organizers of this event. So Yvonne Jan Slaby and Serhat Karakayali to putting this important lecture series on mobility affects together. I'm really excited about this lecture series as it brings together exactly these two institutions, the SFB and the BIM to which, yeah, I both have relations and corporations to. So as Yvonne was just outlining, I'm currently a Mercator fellow of the SFB affective societies, yet I have been part of the wider research group since actually 2015. And I am and knowing that there are also so many right now listening, it's really important for me also to say that over the years this SFB has become a truly welcoming and inspiring intellectual home for me where, together with wonderful colleagues from a variety of disciplines, I had the opportunity to develop and discuss some of the ideas that I will be presenting today and beyond that, also engage with really timely and important topics. The value of being part of such a research collaboration, which does not only inspiring conceptual work but is also a welcoming place, is nothing to be taken for granted. It should be, but it's not. Back in the days when I was studying sociology in Mannheim, in my early 20s, I had escaped to the US basically to continue my studies as I felt that there was not a real place for me to breathe and grow in the context of German academia. Today, many years later, as you all know, important changes have taken place and some of them were just addressed also by Serhat, but I want to repeat them from ranging from the belated acknowledgement that Germany is a country of immigration to the changes of the outdated blood-based German citizenship law and of course, the notable rise of non-white Germans to positions of power and visibility in German society and culture. The confluence of international debates on plurality, equal rights and diversity, together with the longstanding struggles of racialized groups in Germany to claim a space to live in dignity and safety despite Germany's violent legacy of colonialism and the Holocaust, helped certainly to push forward these developments. Now, without doubt, ingrained structures of institutional and everyday forms of racism continue to persist and pose key obstacles for breathing and growing together. But it is also true that spaces did open up, both in society and, of course, also in academia. The existence of research institutions and collaborations such as the BIM or the DeZIM where topics of critical importance in relation to migration and racism are being researched from a variety of perspectives is a case in point. Within a few years, under the spearheading of several persons I want to mention, of course, the tireless Naika Foroutan who will speak next time in the lecture series, both institutions have become to be very flourishing spaces where this kind of research is done. So therefore, I just want to say that we can only expect the best from this cooperation between the SFB Affective Societies and the BIM through this lecture series and I personally really look forward to the synergies and insights that will arise from this collaboration.
Bilgin Ayata: Now, kicking off this series today in my lecture, I want to speak about ... the concept of affective citizenship as a theoretical inquiry into the affective dimensions of contemporary differential regimes of inclusion and exclusion. I will begin with an outline of the concept in itself and then illustrate with some examples the potentiality of this concept of affective citizenship. The example stemmed from my current research projects of which one relates to the religious incorporation of Islam and Alevism in Europe, while the other one relates to necropolitical and migration prevention in the Mediterranean border scape. The link between these two topics of the EU border regime and and the religious incorporation of Islam and Alevism may not be apparent immediately at first sight. So allow me first to elaborate and then move on to the discussion of affective citizenship. For the sake of broad generalization, both political and academic discussions about migration have centered on two dimensions in recent decades in Europe. One relates on how to integrate or assimilate Muslim migrants into the wider polity, and the other one, how to prevent unwanted migration from Africa and Asia. The former is explicitly concerned with inclusion, the other explicitly concerned with exclusion. Yet, of course, as we all know, they are both... their are two sides of the same coin. To secure and facilitate both inclusion and exclusion, various processes and policies of filtering and selection are in place. At the external borders of the EU a complex multilevel architecture of filtering and segregation operates in the so-called hotspot areas in Greece and Italy- There, the aim is to distinguish between the deserving asylum seeker from the undeserving and deportable "irregular" migrant as it has been construed. Sarah Ahmed has powerfully shown how the creation of the figure of the "bogus" asylum seeker has foregrounded filtering and selection mechanisms that are, as we know, violating existing international laws. The filtering mechanisms that the EU borders are - there's no other way to say this - blatantly violent in their practices, resulting in the prolonged encampment and dehumanising of arriving migrants as the horrifying pictures for Moria, Samos and Chios kepp showing us on social media and in the news unmistakeably. The other dimension within discussions on migration, that of integration, also relates to processes of filtering and segregation, yet in a much more refined way compared to the fingerprinting and racial examinations at the border. They concern the social, cultural and political. This secting off the integrateable and thus desired migrant subject from the non-integrateable and thus undesired one, this is a key argument that I want to pose here. For countries with very restrictive citizenship policies, such as in Germany before '99, before the changes of the citizenship law, naturalization functioned as a key filtering mechanism. Yet with the harmonisation of citizenship laws in the EU context and the subsequent comparatively better access for migrants to citizenship, the linear understanding of successful integration results in reaching full citizenship and full stop no longer holds. Integration as a filtering process is now open ended and continues after naturalization, despite reaching formal equality with citizens. And this is where the concept of affective citizenship comes in. But before I delve on that, I just wanted to state something before to clarify also a word that comes in my title. The reason that I've been highlighting the term "filtering mechanisms" and "segregating" both at the border of the EU and within EU member states is that even though we may speak of post-migrant societies, as I also do in the title of my talk, to describe countries like Germany or other European states that had denied the existence of migration and heterogeneity in their societies and then changed to do so. By no way does this mean that the institutional material, discursive and affective power of racism has been reduced after the acknowledgement of being an immigrant society. The acknowledgement that Germany is a country of immigration, which the concept of post-migrant society highlights, has not resulted in questioning the much more deeper seated racial contract of the German Republic, that rests on the erasure of colonial violence and colonial genocide from its collective memory and therefore fails to confront racism in a much more fundamental way. Now, that is when I speak about filtering and differential regimes of exclusion and inclusion, it is, of course, within this reality of both institutional and everyday forms of racism in Germany and at large Europe at large. Now, having cleared that out, let's get to the concept of affective citizenship and what I mean by that. I want to argue that the concept of affective citizenship advances a new understanding of citizenship whose affective components have largely been neglected for a long time in the social sciences. Conventionally citizenship is understood as a rights based-political membership that forms the key institutional tie between the state and the individual. Building on feminist, queer and post-colonial critiques. The concept of affective citizenship departs from rationalist paradigms that shape most scholarly approaches to the state bureaucracy and citizenship, focusing on the affective and emotional dimension of citizenship, the concept enables then to decipher and problematize how states govern through and with affect as Anne Fortier has highlighted quite beautifully. It enables us to understand how citizenship policies endorse particular feelings as legitimate while discrediting others. How desire configures instead subject relations. Or, to put it more broadly, how affects and emotions are employed in the mechanisms of exclusion and inclusion. While a plethora of scholarship has pointed to the existing forms of inclusion and exclusion through citizen policies and practices, the focus particularly on the affective dimensions allows us to analyze the hierarchies and differentiations that exceed and go beyond the level of formal access or legal equality. Since crude legal discrimination based on race, gender and class have become more difficult, let's say, to sustain in light of international human rights laws over the last decades and wider achievements of democratizing movements, political boundary making has more pronouncedly shift it to affect and emotions ran when reinforcing difference and differential treatment. For instance, when while two individuals may be equal citizens from a legal point of view, their perceived difference in terms of religion, race, sex, gender, class may result in identifying one individual as the proper, true citizen who is rightfully entitled, whereas the other may be identified as a quasi or technical citizen whose belonging to the political community remains in question despite holding the citizenship status. In that case, additional affective and emotional efforts are expected to be performed by the migrant subject or migrant citizen to confirm rightful political belonging. So basically, we can see a shift as arguing, you know, in line with Anne Fortier, I want to set forth, it no longer only matters where "one is really from", a question that has been dominating much of the discussions on belonging, but also how one really feels towards the nation, the state, the political community, etc.. With the declaration of the global war on terror by the US in the early 2000s, as well as with the problematization and securitization of migration as well as difference and plurality as potential threats to social cohesion and national security, such affective boundary making is ever more relevant. The concept then of affective citizenship allows us to critically analyze exactly these dimensions of differential regimes of inclusion and exclusion by attending to the role of affect and emotion in subject relations, both from the perspective of states, as well as that within, amongst and across individuals and communities. Now, even though I saw many familiar names and faces who are well acquainted with the concept of citizenship in general, there's still others who I don't know, and this is a public lecture, I'd like to just very briefly give a historical sketch on the concept of citizenship so that I can highlight, you know, what the surplus is basically to employ, to attend to the affective dimensions of citizenship.
Bilgin Ayata: Now, as you all know, citizenship is one of the most elementary concepts in political life that refers to rights, status, belonging, identity and participation as it has been very forcefully outlined. Also, by Gökce Yurdakul and others who have written on this topic and mentioning her since she's also here today, broadly speaking, citizenship and distributes rights,it confers status upon its members, it ascribes identity and belonging to the political community, and it facilitates modes of participation. It is both a social cultural as well as a legal concept, but also a political institution that sets the boundaries of national and political membership. That makes citizenship a powerful mechanism of inclusion and exclusion. In the long historical journey from the polis to nation state citizenship has consolidated itself as a foundational principle that orders the relationship between states and subjects. Here, states can employ citizenship both as a punitive as well as a rewarding measure, for instance, for the act of naturalization, but also to the act of denaturalization, a phenomenon that has been quite increasing recently in the context of the discussions of the global war on terror. So contemporary citizenship thus rests on the principle of equality and provides protection from arbitrary treatment, it consolidates that humans are right-bearing subjects. Of course, this is not, you know, this is a result of the historical process and a result of many struggles and developments that have been shaping the development of citizenship over the centuries. While in its inception, citizenship was directly linked to the protection of property and exclusively granted to a few property owners, we today, after the past two centuries, the many struggles of excluded subjects such as by the colonized, the enslaved, women and migrants have led to a very expansive expansion of citizenship rights around the globe, this is important to state. There was hardly any country in the world today that has not amended or radically transformed its existing laws and regulations of citizenship in the course of it. Now. While the classic accounts by sociologists such as Thomas Marshall that was published in the 1950s, this development has been rather described in a linear way where in the 18th century citizenship related to civic rights in the 19th century, its scope extended to political rights and in the 20th century, social rights were added with the expansion of the welfare states. This linear and to a certain degree limited perspective has been criticized both by feminists and post-colonial scholars, as Marshall's analysis, you know, takes its source from a very reduced population, mainly a segment of the population, maybe, namely the, you know, white male Europeans. In the past decades, also, scholars pointed out that the welfare state, which had indeed first strengthened social citizenship as a means of redistribution, no longer is in place as it was in its inception, but in fact retracted exactly those rights under neoliberalism, as Wendy Brown and others have stated. So it would be rather misleading to think of citizenship as a continuously expanding linear progression. A case in point, as we know, I mean, especially currently, there are many examples that illustrate that and the pressures of global capital neoliberalism, but also migration, we see and reflect an increasing flexibility of citizenship where in one case you can actually buy citizenship in some countries through investments, while at the same time thousands of migrants are dying each year when trying to actually even reach certain countries as Achille Mbembe has recently put it in 2013, in his latest writing, in the age of global capitalism, biometric surveillance and digitalisation, the global divide now runs amongst those who are allowed to move and those whose mobility ends in detention centers and camps. And of course, the key components of this fate is the citizenship that one carries. Now, to account for these multitude of developments that have been shaping citizenship, a number of theories and alternative conceptualizations have amassed in the past decades. The literature on citizenship keeps flourishing. Yet while it does so, still the bulk of the research has focused rather on the territorial, economic, legal, historical, political or cultural aspects, and I want to now highlight and come back again to affective citizenship, which sheds light on the affective and emotional dimensions which have been so far neglected, even though the importance of affects and emotions for political life has been acknowledged for quite some time now. Now, this neglect is also very problematic because when one considers that affect and emotions have always formed critical components in the distribution of citizenship. For instance, during colonisation, affects and emotions configure as a key discussion in the legitimisation of withholding rights and citizenship from the colonized subjects by juxtaposing European rationality and reason to the allegedly affective states and the colonies. Similarly, the historic exclusion of women from and contemporary restrictions of citizenship rights to LGBTI communities also reveal how intimately citizenship, affects and emotions are linked. Now, keep exactly at this point an emerging strand of research that we can summarize under the rubric of affective citizenship seeks, to quote DiGregorio and Merrolli, to destabilise citizenship as a purely rational and administrative exercise of state authority by attending to the role of affect in production of regimes of inclusion and exclusion. Now, for one, this highlights the relational dynamics of political boundary making in affective societies that are marked by plurality and heterogeneity. And while at the horizontal level, a further increase of formal equality is to be expected through ongoing increase of naturalization processes. Citizenship as a differential regime will continue to contribute to internal hierarchization among designated true or proper citizens and those who are only viewed technically as citizens, whose belonging is always at the brink of interrogation. And of course, this is a very prominent trope in ongoing European and U.S. debates, especially on Islam and the migration of Muslims.
Bilgin Ayata: I want to argue that the concept of affective citizenship here helps us to understand what else is required for a rightful belonging to the community, which the legal obtaining of citizenship does not confer, such as the affective disposition to feel the right feelings for the state, the nation or the political community, and what kind of performations of affective acts of citizenship are necessary in that context. Now. If we take the example of the debates on Islam and migration in Europe, we can, you know, go deeper into the possibilities of new theoretical avenues to affective citizenship. As Jonathan Laurence has set forth, by 2030, it is to be expected, which is like in a decade, right, that the majority of Muslims will be naturalized in Europe as a result of the modifications of certain laws that have occurred in the 1990s and 2000s in Europe. Of course, these changes in law do not immediately lead to the mass naturalization of all those who had not been naturalized yet, but it takes some time to do so. So I believe that with this in mind, where a date by 2030 or 2040, having the majority of Muslim migrants as the contemporary racialized others, will bring the discussion on Muslims in the US more closer together to the discussions of integration of Muslims in Europe. Often in the scholarship that has been occurring separate from each other, also due because Muslim Americans have- the majority of them are naturalized. Right. So this aspect has also led to a disjunction of these to a series of scholarship. With the terrorist attacks by al-Qaida in 2001 in the US and further subsequent attacks in London 2005, Paris, Berlin and as you all know, very recently, just two days ago in Vienna, the political belonging after such attacks of ordinary Muslim citizens becomes often under a heightened scrutiny to questioning the emotional alliance with the victims or the injured nation, similar to the governance of public feelings after September 11, which Elizabeth Anker had been studying for the U.S. context.
Bilgin Ayata: Now, I think, you know, for this argument, it is just enough to look into social media discussions in the past two days. I will come to that at the very end of my talk. But I just want to show how that development has also led to modifications of naturalization laws, for instance, in the UK, where the importance of feeling British is being, now after the changes in 2010, explicitly highlighted. While it was previously in the UK, possible to apply for citizenship by mail, now literally just by filling out a form and sending it without much more efforts. Now, numerous requirements and also ceremonies are included into the naturalization process to ensure that citizenship is emotionally also really desired by the applicants. So it is not sufficient to only ideologically identify with the principles, laws and values of a particular state whose citizenship one seeks to obtain, but also to feel the right way. I can even contribute also with a personal anecdote: I myself was naturalized very, very late, even though I was born and raised in Germany, due to some reasons that had really nothing to do with me, but with the laws, how they were constructed, particularly in the change from the earlier citizenship laws in Germany to the changes in '99. Because I had gone to the U.S. for my academic career, I fell exactly into this trap of these two laws, and I had to turn the clock again on because now the new law, which was the new modified in law from '99, which is no longer blood based, which is very good, of course, but now requires 8 years to reside in Germany without intermission. I could not show that because my previous years when I was born and raised, did not count. So as late as 2015, I actually got naturalized myself in Rathaus Neukölln and it was mandatory to attend the ceremony of receiving the documents, the naturalization document. And a very memorable moment of that was that this ceremony, which took about an hour, started first with a small chamber orchestra that was there, who started to play a potpourri of the national hymns of the 20 something nationalities which were there in the municipality during this during this naturalization ceremony. And for a last time, so to say, this potpourri, which took like 10 minutes, was intended as a last opportunity to listen to your ascribed previous national hymn. And after the conclusion of the ceremony where everyone had to confess or, you know, speak and confirm, not to confess but to confirm, their allegiance to the Constitution and being passed on the Certificate of Naturalization, the final act of the ceremony was that the same orchestra then played the National Hymn of Germany. So in this, you know, I thought that this construction, orchestration through music and national hymn is another example of how the effect of allegiance is becoming so incremental, increasingly for the acts of naturalization. I was just saying that, what one dreams about, fears, enjoys, cheers and cherishes is part of the proper citizen conduct for naturalizing migrants.
Bilgin Ayata: Now, the studies on nationalism and patriotism, of course, have long addressed the effect of an emotional components of political belonging. But the relegation and confinement of these affective dimensions only to the nation and to nationalism actually is very reductive and restrictive because it helps actually to maintain a misconception that the state apparatus is an institution free of affects and emotions. And this misconception or this division and relegation of affects of the realm of the nation while the state apparatus is free of them, I'm aiming to counteract this misconception with my study on religious incorporation processes currently in Europe with the case of Islam and Alevism. But there are also, of course, other recent studies, such as on affective state bureaucracy by Didier Fassin and his colleagues in France or also the two ongoing projects that are within the SFB directed by all Olaf Zenker and Larissa Vetters who look at the digital affect of bureaucracies or Hansjörg Dilgers project on the urban governance of religious plurality in Berlin. So all of these are in the same way of using the lands of affective citizenship to dissolve the juxtaposition of the emotional nation versus the rational state, and instead pushes for an understanding of states as affective entrepreneurs or affective states as Ann Stoler was saying. Now, just to illustrate this very briefly and concluding slowly also with the example of my ongoing project on religious incorporation processes of Islam and Alevism in Europe, I explore here with my team the relationship, how religion and citizenship are negotiated and how affective citizenship here actually figures quite largely in the incorporation and acknowledgement of two different Muslim communities who have migrated from Turkey to Europe, where I would say in this incorporation processes, it is not about, not only about religious rights and religious acknowledgment, but the actual debates and the underlying discussions relate to political belonging. So just to explain this a bit, for the past three decades, as you know, heated discussions about the place of Islam and Muslims in Europe have been taking place and continue to do so. The question whether Islam belongs to Europe or not still stirs public controversy. But the fact that actually all European countries with sizable Muslim populations have already incorporated Islam and continue to do so at varying degrees is often overlooked. This reflects a major policy transformation within European states that actually for the longest time had relegated the religious needs of Muslim migrants or Christian migrants to their countries of origin but now, with increasing security concerns and the settlement and consolidation of Muslim presence in Europe no longer can afford to do so. In the first decades of the arrival of post-colonial labour migrants and guest workers in Europe, it was actually European countries themselves that encouraged throughout the 70s, up until the 2000s, countries such as Turkey, Algeria, Morocco and even Saudi Arabia to set up religious and educational institutions in Germany, France, Netherlands, etc., so that Muslim migrants would explicitly maintain their affective bonds with their countries of origin and then thus eventually would return. Now we have a very different picture with the increasing numbers of naturalization and the realization that the former migrants and their children are here to stay in Europe for good, the display of affective bonds with the countries of origin are now undesired and actually can lead or do lead to questions of the rightful belonging affective belonging to Europe. Now, you remember probably, you know, a very illustrative example in Germany two years ago, the famous "Sommerloch", the vacation holiday days, which left the newspapers with not so many news in 2018, was actually filled with the public outcries when the soccer player, Mesut Özil, had twittered to support for the Turkish president Erdogan. In many different accounts he was called upon to decide where he actually belongs to, to Germany or Turkey. And the questions of moral belonging. Wasn't this case raised over and over again? And, you know, there are many different examples for that, but that is, I think, quite known in the public. Now, the irony of this is, of course, that it was exactly Germany and continues to be that lends President Erdogan its most critical support by channelling a six billion refugee deal in 2016, which has majorly helped Erdogan not only financially but politically to consolidate his authoritarian regime. So interestingly, even though Özil's support for Erdogan is perfectly congruent with the politics of the German government with regard to Erdogan, it was seen as not commensurable with his affective allegiance and belonging to Germany. If we have time in the Q&A, I would like to bring another example that came up in the context of the recent attacks in Vienna.
Bilgin Ayata: Now, coming back to religious incorporation, what goes largely unnoticed in these debates on Islam is that different trajectories can be observed in the process for accommodation of religious difference, particularly when we take also not only the denominations, the majority denominations such as the Sunni Islam into account, but also look at the Alevis. In addition to the legal and bureaucratic requirements of accommodation, the question of compatibility with European secularism and the commitment to liberal democratic values poses the critical challenge in this recognition processes that occur in various countries. Now the Alevis, with their strong commitment to secularism, democracy, gender equality, human rights and religious unorthodoxy, their case looks rather different in this process of religious incorporation. Constituting the second largest religious community in Turkey, the Alevis have been persecuted throughout history, both in the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish state, which largely prevented their institutionalization and standardization as a religious community. Actually, in the 70s, up until the 90s, they mostly even described themselves as a cultural group with very little, you know, discussions on their religious allegiance. Yet with their migration to Europe, a transnational mobilization of Alevis took place in which the demarcation from Islam and their resistance to be subsumed as Muslims and subcategorized as Muslims in Europe's engagement of Islam, for instance, in Germany's Islam conference or other interreligious dialogue forms, this demarcation has made them increasingly visible. So what I can say so far from our ongoing study is that what we can see is how their distancing and boundary making from Sunni Islam actually is helping them and elevating them to a position of the integrateable and the tolerable Muslim subject who is not perceived as a threat or problem for European societies, but is presented as a role model for integration and helps them to move up the racial ladder in the differential regime of exclusion and inclusion. Their trajectory in that regard is actually quite similar to those actors and voices in Europe who describe themselves or refer to themselves either as liberal Muslims or leftist atheists or whatsoever, and proclaim or argue that a misguided identity politics or even lately critical race theory and intersectional studies fails to recognize the dangers by the recognition and empowerment of Islam in Europe. It has become very difficult indeed, of course, in the current political and intellectual climate to speak about the manifold aspects and dimensions of this boundary making within, you know, these forms of incorporation. In fact, especially at the present, it's really hard to impossible to speak without trepidation on these issues. From the recent vilification of post-colonial studies in Germany, the summer, you know, all the persona of Achille Mbembe to Trump's recent condemnation of critical race theory as un-American, the intellectual navigation. Within the different positionalities and the heterogeneity of racialized others themselves, who also, some of them willingly, unwillingly, engage in the differential regime of inclusion and exclusion themselves, increasingly occurs in an ever more slippery terrain, I would say. I want to just end maybe by saying that the making of tolerable and integrateable others carries therefore an impasse that is very poignantly summarized in a recent piece by Zahid Chaudhary on "Sacrificing Citizenship", where he reflects on the "Muslim question" in the US for the time span from Bush to Trump. Here, he states that the affective divisions in contemporary life entails for one population the substitutive satisfactions of openly espoused racist rhetoric and the easy pleasures of publicly voiced and enraged sadism, for another, the grief of not being able to pass and the grief of successfully passing. In the lines of passing into the political community through assimilation and integration, and I would say it is in this impulse of integration, assimilation, where the making of tolerable others manifests the racial contract that I was referring to at the beginning of my talk and looking at the watch, I will stop here and thank you very much for your attention.
Yvonne Albrecht: Yes, thank you very much for your inspiring talk. That was really fascinating. Yes, in the best case now we are hoping for an open discussion about the topic of affective citizenship. And, yes, if you would like to ask a question or comment something, please write "question" in the chat, I've already written it in the chat, and you have the possibility to ask questions in German and in English according to the chat. I would call your name. Then please mute your microphone and a camera and talk. And I saw that we already have one question, Shahin Haghinava please.
Shahin Haghinava: Hello from Basel. Thank you for your interesting thoughts. After two and a half years, I can see you finally because all the lectures you are pr oposing at th Uni of Basel, it's all in German, so I couldn't participate, but that is a good chance for me. You contextualize your conversation in European regime in the beginning, and that was really interesting for me. We cannot segregate Switzerland from that, luckily. And I think the case of Switzerland is quite interesting because like after 2019, like in March, they also accelerated their asylum law and now they are just filtering, or this mechanism that is about segregation, just boosted to just bring those migratants back to their home country as soon as possible, like boom, like as soon as possible. Or to the third country by the results of the like, Dublin cases. And these, like the dichotomy between the state and individual, like the citizenship and the state, it's just in in between. But I want to ask your position on "What shall we do as a scholar?" Because like, whenever we want to do something, just some people ask us, are you a human activist and the rest are asking us, are you working for a state? Are you from like in Switzerland, people just assume you are from "Sozialhilfe" or are you from like "Sekretariat Migration" and the rest are asking, you are just harmonizing everything are like you are just want to dramatize everything, like the human activists. But what should we do? I want to ask you I'm just curious, thank you.
Bilgin Ayata: Thank you, Shahin, for this question. I was giving talks also in English in Basel, but I think we missed each other often. What should we do? Million dollar question. I think in the, yeah, what should we do now? I don't want to distract from the question. I think this is absolutely a key question. I tried to politely point to the difficulties of doing something, even in the increasing restrictive atmospheres in the academic context. My reference to the discourse of limitations that we are seeing now with increasing attacks on critical race theory or post-colonial studies in this context indicates that even in the intellectual exchange, we cannot disassociate ourselves from the very real conflicts that happen outside, with outside as within us and around us. This could be seen as a, you know, this is certainly a problem, but I think it also brings us closer or gives us less the opportunity to hide under the shield of academic discourse. In many ways, we are in very existential struggles. We are experiencing very existential struggles. I did not speak about my other project, which is on the EU border regime. And, you know. What does it mean to do research in that context when really witnessing and analyzing the dehumanization that is actually systematic in this case. And I think this is a question of vital importance, the one that you're raising, I think my colleagues in the US, when I looked at my social media feeds briefly, all were saying, go vote today. It may be understandable given the situation in the US, but I doubt- I'm not sure if this is all we can do or should do. And I refrain from solutions to this, you know, to offer simple solutions to this question. But I think, uh, we cannot and should not and many of us are part, don't even have the luxury and the possibility to disassociate oneself and themselves from the very subjects of what they're studying. And I think this is a very important challenge, particularly when we are speaking about aspiring fascism and authoritarianism that is creeping all around.
Yvonne Albrecht: Yeah, thank you very much. OK, and we have another question of Cilja Harders, please.
Cilja Harders: Bilgin, thank you very much. Always a pleasure to listen to you. I have two questions. One, that you have been mentioning the racial or racist contract, which is underlying the German citizen contract. And you were mentioning the the abuse or neglect or non-inclusion of German colonialism in a public debate. I would just want to maybe piece out the links between this and the very vivid debate on the racism legacy of the Holocaust. So I was wondering if you feel that there are links or is one somehow is standing in front of the other. You know, that the one is blocking the other or, what do you think about that? And the other is about citizenship. I was wondering when I was listening to you isn't it that citizenship as a concept is always about in- and exclusion. And so is it possible, so to say, to think about citizenship, especially in a more global sense as an inclusive and empowering category? Maybe this is in some way hooking up to the first question, so is there any emancipatory potential for citizenship as a concept? I would wonder ... or wouldn't it be important to somehow even think about non- or anti-citizenship politics?
Bilgin Ayata: Thank you for the questions. With regard to the racial contract, just to highlight what I mean by that, just with like one sentence or two sentences. You know, of course - and whenever I bring this up in a public debate, it's always irks, you know, dissonant affects - but it's... right, I mean that the embodiment of the symbol of this racial contract is clearly the figure of the founding father of the German republic, which is called Konrad Adenauer, right, who we continue to, you know, who who maintains his position in the recent political history of the republic as a founding figure. And as we also know from historical biographies and the historians studying and writing about him is that he was a fervent, fervent, unrelentless, uninhibited supporter of reclaiming German colonies way after the First World War. And, you know, has even after 1950, you know, made very open, not made a secret out of his perspective. I mean, clearly, you know, is very entrenched in antiblack racism. So it was possible to reinsert him into the new republic as as to demarcate a break because he was not a Nazi. But the fact that he was a fervent supporter of colonialism did not, you know, was not a problem. And, you know, every day today we're listening to the numbers of Robert Koch Institut. Right. And we can use that term, you know, Robert Koch is still also a scientist who we refer to despite, without addressing also his clear involvement also in the colonial project. So the value, the asymmetry in this is obvious. And I think the many of the contemporary debates that we're having currently that have recently also attempted to discredit post-colonialism as antisemitic is also related to this political struggle. Right. And it is, again, one of the spheres that I find really difficult even to have a conversation which does not end in this polarization, actually. And I think this is certainly another key aspect that will occupy us for some time, because there are these struggles who do want to address colonial violence as well and make it part of the root of the debates on Germany. And of course, the second maybe I just didn't highlight that well enough. But of course, citizenship has led actually to the empowerment and to the possibility itself to even raise these questions that we can speak today also about, for instance, the question that you just asked as the first one, is also a result of citizenship processes itself. Right. So you know, I don't have a critique of citizenship, such as, for instance the concept of urban citizenship, right, which wants to move away from the concepts of citizenship as a national and inherently exclusive concept and prefers to either look at the very local context or Engin Isin, for instance, who wants to speak about acts of citizenship and not as an institution of citizenship. There are these various critiques. Actually, there are so many that I just passed very quickly on them. But I do think that without the expansion of these rights, we would not be able to discuss exactly these taboos and blind spots that still we're having. So, it was not a critique, but rather a highlighting how this process of inclusion and exclusion operates at the level of affectivs and emotion.
Yvonne Albrecht: Yes. Thank you. We have another question of Ergün Özgür.
Ergün Özgür: OK, thank you very much. It was very nice to research, and I'm working at FU and my research is also Alevi, Kurdish, Turkish ... from Turkey and the integration in Europe. And my question is related to Alevi immigrants. And actually it is related. But I have a problem while I'm doing my research. So it will be very good to share with you. The problem is this: Yeah, we know that they are secular, but of course, when we look at the other groups, they are also secular. There are many people who are coming from leftist background and they are not religious, but they are written as Muslim. So it is very difficult to generalize them, because when you go to the Alevi Institute, you see some more religious and those who are secular. So they are also discussing whether Alevism is within Islam or not. So so my question is how you can generalize it as an Alevite group. I know that in European countries that the Alevism is also acceptet as a belief and it is very good for them. But my question is about those who are coming from Turkey, for example, who are secular, but their religion is written as Muslim. So how we can differentiate them from radical groups and related with the affective issue. You mentioned that that was the affective issue, for example, after everybody, all Muslims are under the threat of radical wounds because when they go out so they always face this, that after the bombing, what is happening, so that there is an example in Austria. So I have seen a similar situation when I was living in Brussels after the bombing. So it was the same situation. So there is a stress of the people who come from the Muslim countries or who are supposed to be immigrants or Muslim. So how can we generalize them, whether they are secular and which can be integrated only from this sect or from that sect or we have to in all the European countries, have to select based on their thinking pattern and living style, et cetera. So it is that maybe we can discuss it later on, but it just came to my mind how we can generalize it. Thank you.
Bilgin Ayata: Thank you, it gives me an opportunity actually to clarify that I attempted a critique exactly of these categorizations that my reference to the Alevis as secular was paraphrasing the way how they are perceived in these negotiations between, for instance, the German state or Switzerland or the Austrian state in the negotiations. So it is exactly this boundary making of who is deemed to be capable of secularism and thus also integration, which is, right, exactly this moment of how all of these mechanisms of affective citizenship actually come in. So just to show, to highlight that there is no, in this case, no universalisation in that way possible, just to give you an example. So in Austria, there is an official recognition of the Alevis as a group that is within Islam. So there is a status of public operation of Islam Alevis, so Alevis who, I mean, this is their description as Alevis who actually define their position within Islam. And part of this - we are currently so continuing this research and I think part of my research members are also here, they can testify to that - part of this defining, right, this is a matter of defining and making religion, right, has to do that in Austria, the idea of a group of liberal Muslims was extremely important also for the Austrian state. While in Germany, for instance, there are different contracts that consolidate the recognition of Alevis as a distinct group. They situate themselves outside of Islam. So there are different definitions and the making of Alevism in Europe, very much in relation to the particular debates on Islam that exists in these countries. So just briefly that. But yes, I'd be curious also to hear more about your research. So I look forward to more exchange.
Yvonne Albrecht: Yes, thank you so much. We have another question, Hrag Papazian, please.
Bilgin Ayata: It's probably good to collect because I see there are several questions and it's probably better to collect. Hrag, hi!
Hrag Papazian: Yes, hi Bilgin Sorry my Internet is not really good, that's why my my camera is off. Apologies for that. Thank you very much for the very interesting talk. I want to return to the concept, your concept of affective citizenship. It seems to me, based on your description, if I got it correctly in at least some of the examples you provided, such as the the hymn after that ceremony, that it is somehow approaching nationalism. Again, it seems that these states, these European states, that they are expecting not only citizenship, but also affective citizenship. It seems that they're also expecting some feelings of belonging, which seem to be quite close or quite similar to feelings of nationalism. So could we say in a sense that this is bringing, somehow this is making citizenship nationalistic again, in a sense? And what would you make in that case also of the conceptual convergence or reconvergence or conceptual boundary between the concept of citizenship or affective citizenship and nationalism, generally speaking?
Yvonne Albrecht: Thank you so much for your question. We will collect now. And the next one is Jan Slabi and in the end ... And that's why I will pass the moderation to Jan Slabni after his question, OK, please.
Jan Slaby: That's complicated. Now I've got a double roll. Thanks.
Bilgin Ayata: That means you need to cut the sentence, the question short.
Jan Slaby: But I cannot do that!
Bilgin Ayata: She said, after you raise the question, so you can go ahead.
Jan Slaby: An inquiry into your perspective. I absolutely loved your talking. It's fascinating and it's clear that you approach affective citizenship as a basically state orchestrated, affective institution and you focus a lot of these sort of official rituals and discourses that are kind of state backed. And you also looked a little bit at those concerned, those migrant subjects, who kind of find themselves under pressure to display allegiance like this. But from an affect theoretical position, I mean, maybe the most tricky aspect of the whole triangle, I would say, is the way that the official non-migrant citizens are kind of conscripted, recruited, made complicit with this whole procedure as a sort of form of everyday routine, yeah, enactment of affective citizenship, is that part of your - I mean, that's of course, that puts us into the area of "Alltagsrassismus" and those sort of things. And I think here an affect theoretical perspective can have its strengt but it's also, of course, very difficult to get into the sort of many micro acts of ... that might all be inconspicuous, if you treat them separately, that together kind of carry the whole construct. Is that part of your research and how would you approach this whole bundle of complicit affects on part of the "Biodeutsche" majority or...? Sorry, that question, so probably not a good example,
Bilgin Ayata: Okay, another third one, and then I would just go on, thank you, Jan.
Jan Slaby: So the next one is Katarina Mareij.
Speaker 49: Also from me: Thank you so much for the interesting talk. I have already enjoyed enjoyed the DEHEIMATIZE conference and I'm watching this just opposite Rathaus Nekölln, so it's kind of funny. So I really appreciate that you bring emotionality and citizenship together in such an explicit way because I work on that as well. So I actually have so many questions, but I would limit myself to one. So I absolutely share your analysis, but I would love to add another perspective and hear your opinion. This perspective addresses national emotions as necessary for democratic engagement. And the argument there is that there is no democratic participation without emotions because cognitive understanding alone is just not a lot. And if people are less willing to participate and democracy is in crisis, etc., then politics, but also citizenship education in schools and other institutions need to address emotions. So against this background, I'm interested in your judgment whether some kind of emotional education, let's call it like that, is necessary in some way, and when is the point that that turns to undemocratic indoctrination?
Bilgin Ayata: OK, shall I go ahead then?
Jan Slaby: Now it's your turn, unfortunately, you have to go now.
Bilgin Ayata: It's not unfortunate! I want to have another lecture possibility. Both, all three questions, thank you so much for them. I don't know how to answer them so fast. I also look at the watch and I know that it's late and you guys want to go. And so let me try my best. So is a citizenship nationalist, the question Hrag? I would like to bundle it up with Katarinas question. I initially had another ending to the talk, but, you know, it was just getting too long and it gives me maybe the opportunity to speak about that. Now, the notion, of course, citizenship relates to the nation state. So there's no question. And the argument, Katarina right, of emotions necessary that, you know, is also for Martha Nussbaum or many others who say that, you know, love and and emotions are important also for democracy. I think what I am interested in in this discussion is, I would respond to that by thinking about sacrifice, about the concept of sacrifice, at which level actually, what kind of emotional performance actually allows that, to do that? The example I wanted to bring in, but then did not, related to one of them, and one interesting or an important component of the discussions that are going on, of course, in Vienna, in Austria and beyond. After the attack, maybe you saw, some of you have seen that there was this heroic rescuing of two actually three persons, two with a Turkish, two Austrian Turks and one Palestinian refugee who came in 2010. And it was quite interesting that at first there was a lot of, they were a source of hope in a context when after the attack, of course, it is so difficult to maintain, right, this dissecting of the desirable from the undesirable. Right. At which point does it extend to all members of a particular community? So already in the very first reactions, there was a reference to these two Turkish now Austrian Turkish boxers who had rescued a policeman, risking their own lives. And there was also another third person who was not so much addressed. And in the course of the day, other information came out about these heroes and rescuers who then also said that, you know, they are Austrians and they reject all sorts of terrorism, that they are actually, at least two of them, seem to have allegations with, you know, have sympathies for Erdogan. And this was criticized for what I found interesting is that in many comments to these criticisms with these pictures where actually Erdogan called these two in the evening and today, I think Deniz Yücel wrote in the Welt an article also about this asking, OK, does this make them less heroes? And it is interesting that actually a lot of the responses was, it doesn't matter. They have risked their life. Right. And that actually is a moment of sacrifice. Right, and therefore, in addition to this component of emotional education, there's another dimension to affect and emotions and citizenship that, as we see this example very much, comes back to the moment of sacrifice, you are then integrateable, desired, in that moment when you actually are ready for this sacrifice. And I did not want to go in detail and this discussion of affective citizenship that Eugene Hollande does in his Deleuzian reading of the death state where he speaks about, makes this connection of warfare soldiers and, in the latest discussions on terrorism, how, again, we have the sacrifice as this, you know, the necessary step for belonging. And in that way, I think yes, surely, I mean, that would be just what I would - without refuting that there are these components that may require this allegiance, affective allegiance for proper citizen conduct. I think there's a deeper story here that requires more pondering that relates to the notion of sacrifice. Jan, yeah, of course. I have to say that in this project, I'm mostly interested in the complicity of affects among different groups in the racialized others. There's no component that looks at the third aspect, I find it very important to look at the differences, let's say, within these groups and therefore compare and look at this different positionalitites or understandings and engagements that, for instance, Sunni Muslims have with Alevis, right. Of course, you know, it's important to edit further, but it is more of this triangle at that I looked, simply because it has not so much looked at. Mostly because of that reason. But of course, it is very, very important to, you know, the example with one of these heroes is the third person, this Palestinian refugee, whose name is Osama Yalda, is actually a person whose family got famous in Austria because when they tried to buy a house in an Austrian village, the village, mobilized to not allow them to buy a house, saying that they are Muslim and their values are not integrateable. So there was a serious attempt of preventing them to get a home in this village. And yesterday he received a medal from the police. Right. I think here we see these different, right, interactions of how these social and public debates reinforce each other. And yes, certainyl this writing, serving in the U.S. military. Absolutely. I mean, this is Eugene Hollande's argument, actually, sorry, Zahid Chaudhary's argument, how actually Muslims now, in the current context when talking about the U.S. military are now being brought up as examples as African Americans, Black Americans are being also brought up. It was through sacrifice for the country, for the nation, that actually their belonging was maintained. So this is a long standing component in that relationship of nation states and racialized others. So I think there was Margreth's question, right?
Jan Slaby: We have anyway to hurry a little bit, so I think maybe we take the last two questions quickly and then you make one closing comment afterwards. It's Margreth Lünenborg and and then fittingly, Serhat has the last question. And you can also say goodbye then.
Margreth Lünenborg: OK, I try to be short. Thanks, Bilgin, for this wonderful talk. I just had the idea you, of course, refer to a very recent phenomena, describing this affective dimension of citizenship as a current phenomenon. And I wonder whether it could be useful approach to think about it in a historical context as well. And partly, that's my question. Do you think the affective dimension is this very recent thing or... because, well, the feeling of belonging to a nation, of course, is deeply emotionalized in a historical sense. And when you mention these tensions between different parts of communities belonging to are no longer belonging to, it is useful to use this affective dimension to exactly focus these tensions between well being allowed to be part of or being refused to have these access. So it could be a useful focus in historic dimension as well. That's just my remark on that.
Bilgin Ayata: Absolutely. I can just say yes, absolutely, I mean, Marie Beauchamps has written on the French Revolution in her book "Governing Affective Citizenship". So there is important work also on the historicity and relevance of that. And I just emphasize the change, the importance, the contemporary importance with regards to the debate on the inter-group, the making of tolerable others and the context of Islam in Europe. That is, you know, the status of acquiring citizenship is only increasing or proceeding now to a significant degree as opposed to earlier. But absolutely, yes, there is definitely the need to include that more. And we are also doing that. But we are just not.... It's in the making still more. Thank you for the question.
Jan Slaby: Last question, Serhat.
Serhat Karakayali: I would have redrawn because you just talked about what I wanted to ask that was the events of Vienna. And I wanted to ask precisely what you then just elaborated upon. What kind of sense would you make of these events about what it takes to be a citizen? And this would be an interesting case to study about the relational aspect of how does it actually resonate with the audience, with people reading about the events, watching them and then being maybe oscillating between making sense out of their love for Erdogan and their love for Austria at the same time? And how do you make sense of that as an audience that needs to make a judgment or that feels the need to make a judgment? So this is an interesting case I wanted to bring up as a good case for a good case study. But you did that already. And we will have we will have opportunities in other meetings, in other dates in this the series of lectures to discuss about similar cases and similar problems. And I would like to continue with this because it's really intriguing to think about all the ambivalence and all the relationality that's in there. And I wanted to thank you for your very interesting and thought-provoking contribution today. And I was also told to wrap it up, because I think people need to have dinner right now. Also, my son is standing in front of the door and asking for food. So, yeah, thank you very much again for being with us tonight and opening this series of lectures. It was a pleasure and I hope to see all of you again for the next event. And I don't know if any one of you guys has something to say, Jan or Yvonne, then, please do that. Otherwise, I would say we close the session.
Jan Slaby: Thanks Bilgin, that was great. Thank you again.
Bilgin Ayata: Thank you. I actually wanted to also say thank you for the invitation for the very important, wonderful questions and also that so many colleagues, friends have showed up on a Wednesday evening to yet another Zoom talk. So this is, I think, a very good omen also for the lecture series that it is possible still to do such things. So thank you so much. And it is an ongoing work, especially that's why I didn't speak so much about sacrifice, because that's very fresh for me to also ponder more about. But hopefully in another setting, we can all bring that together. And yeah, good luck for the remaining sessions and I'll see you guys soon.