Workshop with Media and Cultural Studies Scholar
Our first workshop, held on September 12, brought together five academics from media and cultural studies programmes at various universities in Istanbul, Bahçeşehir University faculty, and the project team. Workshop participants included Prof. Dr. Ayşe Öncü from Sabancı University, Prof. Dr. Nükhet Sirman from Boğaziçi University, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nilüfer Timisi from Istanbul University, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nilgün Tutal from Galatasaray University, Dr. Melis Behlil from Kadir Has University and Bahçeşehir University scholars, Prof. Dr. Haluk Gürgen, Prof. Dr. Tül Akbal Süalp, Prof. Dr. Binnaz Toprak, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Orhan Tekelioğlu and Asst. Prof. Dr. Nilay Ulusoy Önbayrak. The project team in attendance was composed of Asst. Prof. Dr. Savaş Arslan, Asst. Prof. Dr. Defne Karaosmanoğlu, and the project assistant Ayşegül Kesirli.
The first issue was the project’s emphasis on the concept of "European." Many scholars complained about the concept’s indeterminate effect on the project and asked how the notion of "European" would affect the content of the master’s programme. The directors of the project asserted that the master’s programme and the project would take Europe as a geographical area and concentrate on the interaction between Europe and other regions with a specific focus on media and cultural studies. As a result, participants agreed that if “European” became a central concept, the programme would have to include the sociological aspect of being European and therefore it would be necessary to examine the histories and cultures of European society in general.
Following this discussion, participants questioned the meaning of ‘Europeanization’. They started to exchange ideas on the effects of the European Union’s media regulation policies and question the possibility of creating a general media model in Europe. During this conversation one of the participants suggested that struggles which occur because of the multilingual and multicultural character of Turkey could be solved by taking Europe as an example considering that Europe has struggled with the same dilemmas for years. However, other scholars argued that Turks could not approach European countries (whose problems remain unsolved) as if they have straight answers for Turkey’s unique problems, believing that a European point of view could cause a misleading, even Orientalist look in the examination of local dilemmas. Questioning local issues from a policy oriented European perspective could lead to considering problems detached from their context. At the end of this discussion, they agreed that the European cases might be helpful and supportive in dealing with our own cultural difficulties, but the regional and national motives of local problems should be the programme’s main consideration.
Following this, the group concentrated on the distinction between ‘what is European’ and ‘what is not European’ which led to the questioning of Turkey’s representation in Europe. One of the participants explained how European countries perceive Turkey through its historical and cultural characteristics. For example, the most common ways they talk about Turkey are through Armenian or woman’s issues. Accordingly, the participant clarified that the mass media perpetuated this perception by recreating public memory daily. Then the notion of immigration was questioned, since immigration was discussed as a key term to explain new identities, new positions, and new cultural and religious bonds all around the world. Today, European countries define Europeanness as a reflection of immigration, focusing on who they are not, rather than who they are. Considering such social changes in Europe, “European Media and Cultural Studies” master’s programme could examine how culture is experienced and rebuilt and how identities are shaped through mass media.
Additionally, one of the participants stressed the importance of the master’s programme’s capability to deal with academic issues in a categorical manner. The participant suggested that the programme be organized around four specific tracks: ‘comparative studies’, ‘discourse studies’, ‘case studies’ and ‘regulation and policy studies’. However, the majority of participants believed that those four tracks reach beyond the scope of a master’s programme, and would be more efficient in a doctoral programme in which students might have a chance to conduct a more sophisticated level of research.
In the workshop, another suggestion was that the curriculum should focus on specific and critical issues that would reflect the scholarly and research interests of the programme staff. Therefore, the areas of interest of the scholars and their concentration on specific problems in media and cultural studies would come into play in determining the scope of the master’s programme.
Another important issue that occupied the agenda of the discussion was the programme’s public policy issue. One of the participants suggested that the project team should develope a media and communication research center in Turkey in order to communicate with European institutions and to become a partner in a possible comparative research on the European media. Therefore, the participant argued that the process of the creation of the master’s programme should not focus solely on curricular issues but also on creating a locus and meeting point for European institutions researching media.
Finally, the participants also emphasized that European Media and Cultural Studies master’s programme could pioneer the creation of new methods on media and communication studies by allowing its students to explore novel areas of interest and theory.
|
