NEWS CENTER – The guerrilla commander Şehid Atakan Mahîr has been a role model with his analyses on Jineologjî and women’s liberation ideology by actively dealing with the issues and fulfilling his responsibilities as a male heval on these issues as well. He made his evaluations and reflections on the subject available to his female and male comrades and discussed them with them, voiced criticism and drew up analyses. In the following publish his statements to the topic Jineoloji which were translated from the Turkish into German. His statements were written down, but some short sections were not understandable, so that we unfortunately had to omit them and made them visible with (…). Nevertheless, this comprehensive analysis provides important insight and perspectives on the topic and will be published in several parts.
First part:
Undoubtedly, there is a very great need in connection with Jineoloji. We discuss these issues together on a regular basis. For this purpose, we deal with practically all epistemologies, with all sciences of knowledge. We come to the following conclusion: There is almost no knowledge left that has not lost its relation to truth. Knowledge today has for the most part only a weak connection to truth. Therefore, there is a big void in this area. The realm of knowledge has been heavily polluted. This is also the main reason for the pollution of our consciousness or mentality. This development has progressed so far that today we can no longer distinguish right from wrong. Which knowledge is right? How do we have to look at history? What is the real nature of the sexes? Where is the source of the problems? We encounter great difficulties in all these areas. Although we have been doing our own research for many years and are part of a revolutionary struggle, we have problems in this regard. Here is what we can state without much difficulty: Knowledge means power. Knowledge alienated from truth is a means of power. Because knowledge is power, because the sociology of power goes with it, people no longer begin to understand knowledge properly. The whole matter becomes a big mess. For all these reasons, there is really a great need for epistemologies that have not lost their relationship to truth, follow a sincere interest in life, and can repair all the pollution in the other fields. Maybe Jineoloji alone is not enough to provide an answer to all these problems. But Jineoloji can be a good start, a general beginning, and meet the need for a deep approach. Jineoloji, of course, needs to be complemented by insights from other fields of knowledge. For example, a sound understanding of economics must be developed. A comprehensive understanding of politics must be brought forth if it is to be about more than just women’s freedom. The various belief systems must be freed from their pollution. So all fields of knowledge must be somewhat connected with the question of truth. Perhaps the Jineoloji will succeed in leading them in this direction. In this sense, the approach of the Jineoloji is more general than the other fields of knowledge. However, they also need to complete the Jineoloji. Otherwise, the danger arises that the Jineoloji will be overloaded and collapse under the load; that is, it will not be able to live up to expectations. This is because the world has been really polluted by the various fields of knowledge. For all these reasons, I believe that Jineoloji will play an important role.
The chairman’s harsh criticism of the different fields of science refers in particular to the following statement: `The different fields of knowledge have lost their interest in life.` They have become domains of power. For this reason, they fail to define life. This condition has been going on for a really long time. We can perhaps say that since the time of the Greek philosophers – they deserve respect for all their faults – and the debates in the Middle East between the 8th and 12th centuries, there have been no structures that deal with truth in a systematic way. Today, there are practically no knowledge structures left that really debate life, have light-hearted arguments, and do not allow themselves to be locked into ideological cages or power structures. We have discussions in many different areas. Sometimes we run into these questions in our other discussions. For example, how can we achieve something in favor of the Kurdish nation? There are all kinds of different political balances. Against this background, how can we protect the interests of our people? For example, we define freedom according to the conditions of a historical period. Then the question is how we can enforce that kind of freedom in that particular period. So we come across these questions in all the other areas as well. Therefore, we can analyze the power structures much more easily. So it is necessary to consider the interests of one’s own class comprehensively. It is necessary to deeply analyze the situation of the society during the concrete historical period. It is necessary to ask ourselves how to counteract the confusion in the particular historical period. It is necessary to ask the following questions: How can I reestablish a balance with the state? How can a system be created again within society? How can the different classes be brought into balance with each other? How can the relationship between the sexes be brought into order? All this cannot succeed without asking about life and truth. In this sense, there is really a great need for Jineoloji. We can quietly start amateurishly and build bit by bit on our experience. We can benefit from other fields. It may be that we will always encounter difficulties. Even Jineoloji in itself may bring struggle and conflict. But in my opinion, the concern of Jineoloji is a very sincere one: To redefine life according to its essential characteristics; to reestablish the role of human beings, especially in relation to their genders; to strive for truth, not power.
The purpose of a science is not power, but truth. So Jineoloji does not need to seize power and bring the entire world under its control. What I mean is that Jineoloji should consciously refrain from seeing itself as the only true knowledge right from the beginning. If it develops an appeal, it will become universal and universal anyway. It must distinguish itself from a narrow understanding of politics and the many other narrowed structures and reach a moral level. The question of how people can be good is a really significant concern; a moral, honest, truth-seeking concern. Perhaps in this way we will succeed in finding the truth of man. At present, there is no more science of such a nature. To start with such an understanding of science is in itself a great advantage for us. Of course, it is crucial how well we live up to it, because our claim is great. But it is at least a sincere concern, and that alone is a good start. The Chairman created the jineoloji for us and the women’s movement today puts it at the center of its work. Therefore, it is really a good concern. The more comprehensively the Jineoloji produces knowledge, develops into an epistemology, expands its theory, concretizes its methods, and the more involved those involved become, the better. We are still at the beginning of this endeavor. There are still many areas to develop in this context. But it is a good approach, because it is about keeping a science out of power and instead charging it with exploring truth, bringing forth good, and developing a definition of life.
There will be objective difficulties at the beginning: First; life is really profoundly alienated. We are dealing with a life that has been played with really heavily over the last 20,000 to 15,000 years, especially over the last 7,000 years. The more you play with an identity, the more unrecognizable it becomes. All the problems related to women’s identity and men’s identity are ultimately based on that. To play with an identity for 5,000 years and then reproach it for not being able to define itself – that doesn’t really make sense. To put man in the position of autocrat for 5,000 years and then expect it not to come to the chaos it is today – that is completely impossible. With the life really extensive games were driven. From the end of the Neolithic until today, life has been played with heavily. (…) There are objective difficulties that we have to evaluate. The Kurdish identity has been played with for 200 years, which has led to its current state. The chairman said the following in this context: `I can neither achieve peace nor do politics with this identity. It is useless for anything.` He was expressing the objective conditions. It is really hard to do anything with this identity, which has been subjected to all these games for 200 years. In addition, there are the identities that have been played with for 5000 years, for example, the sexes. Their condition is even more chaotic. All kinds of games have been played with life for 7,000, 8,000, 10,000 years. We all actually want to live, that is, to lead a life. We use the term ‘life’ for this. Yet this life, this word, has been played with so seriously. The more wrongly an identity is lived, the more it is broken, the more untruths are spread about it, the more broken its condition becomes. If you ask me what phenomenon in the world has been played with the most, my answer is: life. Will we actually succeed in redefining life? The Chairman has always said, ‘Perhaps we will not succeed in defining life while we ourselves are living.` In addition, there is the question of whether we can really redefine something that has been so broken? Can we approach its meaning? Can we live life as we understand it? This is really a difficult matter. It requires a great deal of interest, effort and struggle. `What we live is not life,` the chairman has often said. This is not a purely philosophical statement. (…) To be able to say that one has really lived life and to remain grounded in the facts. It may be that we claim that we have really lived life. But how can we claim that in the face of a life that has been played with for 15,000 years? That means we have an artificial understanding of life. For this reason, this issue is really complicated. I have pointed out these things to draw attention to the natural difficulties of the Jineoloji. I am not saying that life cannot be understood; that we cannot fight for it; that it cannot be rectified. That is precisely our fundamental concern. I wanted to draw attention to different aspects that we must consider in this process.
The same is true in relation to the different identities. To better understand gender identities, all these things apply just as well. It’s really very important as a gender to know what you want. I don’t think I’m in a position to say here and now what I want as a man. It wouldn’t be right for me to claim to be able to do that. I might be able to stammer something around. That’s almost as true for women. That’s exactly why we’re trying to develop definitions for life. And it’s good that we’re doing that. But it’s a really difficult concern. You can, of course, stand up and make a few simple, superficial observations about life. But really, a whole novel would have to be written for that. The woman doesn’t know what she wants. Her identity is completely confused. Why, please, did they play with her identity for 5,000 years? We have every right in the world to ask ourselves this question. The woman has also already begun to do so. What madness: play with the woman’s identity for 5,000 years and then expect her to be able to live! Then try to derive a definition of life from her! Then expect from the woman that she becomes the creator of life and love! And if she does not create all this, kill her! In the world of the man the woman is still defined in this way: ‘not to know what you want’. But how, please, did it come about that she does not know what she wants? The truth is that today we are practically unable to define masculinity and femininity properly. There is only one definition for man today: ‘endowed with boundless power’. How can this be? According to this definition, man resembles a horse or a donkey. So, we have come to this conclusion; and this in the 21st century! And this in the course of the last 5,000 to 7,000 years! So we define the man as something powerful and strong. A horse or a donkey is also powerful and strong! They are even stronger than we. 150 kilos they can lift. Are we really serious to define the man in this way? This is supposed to be the realization we have come to? Can this really be the definition of man? We can take a closer look at our ancestors at the beginning of human history, that is, look at how masculinity was understood at the time of the Neolithic. In all probability, a completely different understanding of man prevailed at that time. In this sense, we can say that gender identities were played with in a dramatic way. So there are quite natural difficulties. That’s why I consider the discussions about these issues to be meaningful. Coming to one or two realizations based on these issues, putting some definitions on a stable basis, and then translating them a little bit into life as part of our struggle, that’s what we should be about. We are a community that already has experience with these methods and appreciates their value. A modest, somewhat truthful definition of freedom, of woman or man – all this is based on the experience we have gained in the course of our 30-40 year struggle. This means that with the help of this method, we can achieve even more comprehensive results if we define all these areas appropriately and wage a corresponding struggle for them. The chairman, the struggle of the women’s movement and our own efforts have taught us this a little. It is therefore necessary that we approach it very consciously, develop a theory, develop the whole thing into an epistemology, expand it if necessary to the two genders, a universal level, the world and the Middle East – on this basis, the approach is very promising.
In very concrete terms, we can say that building social democracy is directly related to the freedom and equality of men and women in life. Therefore, there is a great need in this area of knowledge. With a chaotic approach, narrowed ideological discussions, with the accumulation of power within the relationship of the two sexes, sometimes with right and sometimes with wrong approaches – only on this basis we could not have addressed this issue. Even if we had, society would not have been able to go along with it. That was quite clear from the Chairman’s experience and our own experience. We had already gathered sufficient ideological-organizational strength in the past. But we did not succeed in passing it on to society. That is, our sociological understanding of the grassroots was flawed. We discussed and argued about it a lot within our own ranks. But then why did we not succeed in passing all this on to society as intended? Perhaps, with the help of Jineoloji, we will be able to communicate all this better to society. This will help the development of social democracy. Of course, all the other areas contribute to the development of social democracy in Kurdistan, but the Jineoloji will play the most important role. The different identities of Alevis, Sunnis or Yezidis, of the four different parts of Kurdistan, the many languages and the individual regions will all find their place in the democracy of Kurdistan. Language in particular is an important point. Different dialects must not be centralized and homogenized under any circumstances. But the comprehensive basis of all this is the participation of the sexes – in a free, equal way, by removing power from their relationship. In this sense, with the help of jineoloji, perhaps socialization can happen more quickly. If we work successfully, we will be able to help the jineoloji reach a universal dimension. The other areas will perhaps remain more particular. Of course, the cadres must continue to have ideology, there is still a need for organizing, but there is a great potential especially in the social sphere (…).”
