Every person needs the existence of different people in order to survive. Because a person cannot be complete with all his features, he makes up for what is missing in himself with the features of others. Or, since he cannot see all directions from the side he is looking at, the presence of those looking from different sides allows people to dominate all sides. Every difference has a complementary feature in this respect and the main motivation that ensures social harmony is to be aware of these differences. I would like to remind you that we use awareness in a positive sense here.
To be aware in the positive sense means to settle at a point between the satisfaction of your existence and the understanding of your existence. Although this point may vary according to the approach of the society, it is not inconsistent with the fact that ultimately differences are a valuable part of society. Also, being different can have a negative effect. The existence of a difference makes awareness negative on the spectrum between being disturbing for others and the belief that its existence is destroyed. Although the idea that difference is tolerable may seem positive, it shows a negative point of view. Because exceeding the level of tolerance drags awareness towards a negative point.
After this introduction, it is useful to look at how our country's identity and cultural differences are evaluated. The political preference in the 19th century saw the liberation of the empire in Westernization, while the political preference in the 20th century saw the ability to hold on to these lands independently in the construction of a nation state. This two-century process has tried to solve Westernization with imitation and nation-state building with the centralization of identity. As a result, this process, which is based on change and homogenization, has led the differences to be ignored both as identity and cultural exclusion.
Since the nation-states formed in the West are the progress of a natural process, the convergence of differences has been a part of this natural process. Continuing change has not turned cultural differentiation into an area of conflict. This is why thinkers like Marx have sought conflict in the West not in cultural differences, but in class differences. Despite this, the increase in the welfare level of the working class in Europe and the development of the social state understanding did not deepen the class conflict.
The identity-based and cultural axis of conflict in this geography is the result of the preferences of the last two centuries, as we have tried to express above. Political preferences that do not take into account cultural continuity in the name of building a new nation have brought about cultural differences that are not in contact with each other. The public demands of these differences have run along the axis of identification with the state and seizing the state. The course of politics has also progressed towards benefiting from the quantitative and qualitative power of these differences. As a result, the confrontational language of politics has destroyed the ability of differences to understand each other and even exceeded the limits of tolerance.
But we might not inherit that legacy in the 21st century. The conditions for this have been formed in the last twenty years. Because those who feel culturally excluded, those who see themselves as a makeshift identity, could reach a different perception with the possibility of the political atmosphere. However, some efforts consisting of images were destroyed by suffocation due to the quantity concern of politics and left their place to the deepening of the conflict.
Despite this negative image, we can keep our hopes alive as long as the effect of the recent memory accumulated by the older generations is replaced by the expectation of the new generations about the future.