Janroj Y. Keles, Media, Diaspora and Conflict: Nationalism and Identity Amongst Turkish and Kurdish Migrants in Europe, London: I. B. Tauris, 2015, 256 pp., (ISBN: 9781784530396).
This book, based on the author’s PhD dissertation, studies how media are sites of identity struggle. Taking Turkish and Kurdish communities in Europe as case studies, Keles studies how identity formation and media texts interrelate with each other. The study of transnational communication technologies among diasporic populations is not new, and has mainly concentrated on the potential of emerging technologies such as satellite television and the Internet. Keles brings a new perspective to this established field of research by focusing on how “homeland” conflicts play out in diasporic communities, thus drawing attention to both national and transnational dynamics in diasporic identity formation. As such, the study joins an emerging trend of more sophisticated approaches to (ethno-national) conflicts as de-territorialised and multifaceted phenomena.
Media, Diaspora and Conflict is excellently written and well referenced. It holds a balance between in-depth theoretical considerations and accessible discussions of the empirical material. Moreover, the author does not eschew important debates on multiculturalism, nationalism, marginalisation and oppression, providing arguments for a more nuanced view on diasporic identity and conflict. Below I want to focus on what I consider as the three main strengths of the book.
First of all, the study is extraordinary in its empirical scope. It focuses on Turkish and Kurdish communities in London, Berlin and Stockholm. Within this wide geographical scope the study also employs rich material from different kinds of interviews. The focus on these three multicultural cities is interesting not only because it enables a comparative, cross-national analysis, but also because it brings to the fore the intense interactions between Turkish and Kurdish communities at the urban level. This makes the book relevant for emerging studies on urban communications and the mediated city.
Secondly, Media, Diaspora and Conflict engages with a broad range of theoretical frameworks. The most prominent theories of nationalism are discussed alongside Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and recent theories of diaspora and transnationalism. The way in which Keles weaves together these different complex debates into a coherent framework for his study is impressive. The result is an analysis of media and language as sites (or battlefields) in which a struggle for hegemony becomes manifest. Transnational media thus turn out not to be the simple means of communication, as they are so often thought to be. Rather, they are an essential part of identity formation processes in the context of conflict.
Finally, the book heralds an emancipatory approach to Kurdish identity. Keles rightly notes that many previous studies have either ignored Kurdish communities in Europe or have subsumed Kurds into research on the Turkish diaspora. The present study is much needed because it provides an alternative account of the rich cultural and media life of Kurds in Europe, but without reinforcing or repeating the common polarisations.
In summary, this is a rich and bold book that will undoubtedly contribute to a number of scholarly fields such as ethnic and racial studies, communication and media studies, and conflict studies. For the field of Kurdish Studies in particular it offers a theoretically and empirically rich account on the role of media technologies and language among diaspora communities.