I started to be interested in art and figures, drawing and painting at a very young age. There are artists in my family, including my uncle. My uncle’s early paintings filled the walls of my grandmother’s house.
So I started drawing at a very young age, so much so that my primary school teacher gave me advice because he saw my interest. I drew my friends and classmates very early. I had chosen an art option in high school and my teacher advised me to go to art school. But I preferred to study philosophy, in particular to understand why some people said that painting was dead.
After a few years of teaching philosophy, I chose painting, portraiture and nudes. I became a portraitist in the sense that I seek to bring to life characters, thoughts, experiences, existential postures through faces and bodies. I do not do artisanal portraits whose vocation was simply to represent a person even if there are also many possibilities through a simple portrait. The face and the body are what best express life in all its density. Showing life with a look, a body, its intensity and all the nuances, the language of the body is a complex and rich thing.
Can you tell us about your portrait pictures? As a portrait artist, which artistic and philosophical movements influenced you when creating your artworks?
My portraits are often multiple and are therefore more compositions, scenes than simple portraits. The greatest influence and inspiration comes to me from Renaissance painters, the Italians but also the Flemish.
The Renaissance artists wanted to be thinkers, scholars, men of letters and philosophers. I also feel influenced by a philosopher painter like Nicolas Poussin and certain painters of modernity.
Who are the portrait artists that have influenced you the most? How have their works influenced your own work?
I don’t have a favorite painter but many painters inspire me with their singularity and their way of constructing both a sensitive and conceptual discourse. The richness of the works of the greatest artists is a challenge to be renewed. This is how I experience it and this is what nourishes my work. I always paint as if I were philosophizing, I think but with images rather than words. Images that carry within them a discourse, a complex and often double-faced truth, in other words aphorisms.
What is the message you want to give in your portraits? Do you handle the themes of “evidence of existence” and “beauty” in your portraits?
The purpose is neither beauty nor the illustration of a philosophical thesis but a painting that leads to reflection, to the thought of a multiple and moving existential truth.
I do not want to convey univocal messages or simplistic moral precepts but rather paradoxes, ambivalences. I seek to show the complex of existence and of all experience. The complexity of incarnation and sensation. Painting is also there to arouse desire, in particular the desire for life and beauty is something that provokes this momentum. Even if it is difficult to define what is beautiful, however there are whatever one says balances, harmonies that have an invigorating impact and others less or not. So yes I speak of existence, pain, ambivalence, fear, desire, eroticism and beauty in my paintings.
Can we get an impression of the feelings and thoughts of people at that time by looking at a portrait picture?
Absolutely, when looking at a work of art or a portrait, we perceive the values and beliefs of the era that created them. It is the strength of art to be a witness to what is desired, the beliefs and fears of an era. However, there is a condition for this, that is that the artist agrees to be part of his era and does not just copy in a disembodied way works and styles of the past. It is possible to make portraits in the manner of … realism, Fauvism, impressionism, expressionism while varying the point of view and therefore bearing witness to his era, but it also happens and often that the painter is content to only copy while forgetting the world in which he is immersed.
What is a Picture Aphorism? How is it used in a portrait picture? What is the importance of aphorisms in portrait picture?
A pictorial aphorism is the same as a classical aphorism, that is, a statement, a thought that provokes other thoughts. The only difference is that it is a language made of colors and shapes instead of words and sounds.
The pictorial aphorisms are mainly my compositions, where bodies and people are sometimes staged with evocative elements such as chains, candles, mirrors, metro bars, etc.
Western painting in particular has long had the vocation to edify and instruct, as was the case with great religious painting or paintings depicting episodes from mythology. In this sense, I am not inventing anything, I am only reactivating one of the great vocations of painting. Even if it is no longer a question of teaching a religious or moral discourse, since the paintings are mainly concerned with invoking a critical, political and existential vision.
What advice do you have for those who want to become portrait artists and art aphorists? What kind of training should they receive in this regard?
Today, painting is often either purely retinal or conceptual in the poor sense… I am making the same bet as the artists of the Renaissance… The painter is the equal of a thinker, he does not illustrate but interprets in the strong sense and he thinks about the world, politics, history, the past through his language, a pictorial language… He shows what it feels like to live, to exist, to know, to be in the world… how do we contemporaries live and inhabit the world… Several of my works have an existential but also political dimension because they engage values… A specific discourse on existence and life. And that is also why I do self-portraits… It is a desire to embody my words and my thoughts to the end… I think, I philosophize through painting… I show a vision, an interpretation, an exploration of a personal thought…
The only advice is therefore to think, to observe the great masters, to listen to the murmur of the world, of men. To not be afraid to embody one’s work and to affirm one’s being in the world. Living is a unique and short experience, and painting is one of the most beautiful ways to bear witness to what it feels like to live, to be a body in a moving and enigmatic world.
Interviewer: Academician, Author and Pr Carnet Editor Semay Buket Şahin
Dear Barry, how would you define philosophy? In your opinion, is philosophy a part of science, or is it a discipline that goes hand in hand with science?
Defining philosophy is a philosophical question itself, so any answer presumes something about philosophy, and tends towards circularity. In terms of etymology it means love of wisdom, but one major philosopher, Hegel said that complete philosophy is what becomes wisdom. Despite the etymology, we might also think of philosophy as something different from wisdom, as philosophy is a form of inquiry, while wisdom presumes a state of mind, or a way of being, in which the thinker is identical with wisdom and passes it on rather than engaging in inquiry. If philosophy is related to science, is maybe the science of sciences, then that turns philosophy into essentially epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, which is a branch of philosophy, so that philosophy is something within philosophy.
If philosophy is not knowledge the obvious alternative is that it is a form of deductive reasoning about abstract principles which tells us something about the structure of reality, which may be a kind of knowledge, but is not the same as the gaining of knowledge in specific science, and is not even the same as the most general form of science. Another possibility is the phenomenological approach in which philosophy reveals some kind of essential reality which is not covered by the scientific pursuit of knowledge or deductive reasoning. Alternatively, returning to Hegel we mighty regard it as the practice of a particular reason which is ‘speculative’ (recognises that identity is also always difference) and dialectical (proceeds through negation of particular universals from an absolute perspective).
This is just a sketch of some of the contours of any debate about what philosophy is. Despite what some philosophers have hoped, philosophy cannot realistically be regarded as just the most general form of scientific method, or the results of a method of abstract reasoning which might be deductive or speculative, or as an access to a kind of pre-theoretical grasp of the cosmos preceding epistemology, metaphysics, logic and speculation. Some have regard philosophy as a form of clarification of problems using the tools of logic or linguistic concepts, but clarification is not the same as resolution. All the approaches mentioned, and others, can be regarded as legitimate parts of philosophy, but if we thinking about what philosophy in its most general sense, I believe it must be something do with the search for universality in explanation and definitions, which always runs into tension between singularity and universality, parts and wholes, particularity and the absolute, subjectivity and objectivity, fragmentary ideas and complete system. This is a list that can be constantly extended. The point is that philosophy is what explores the gaps, inconsistencies, paradoxes and contradictions which emerge in trying to resolve the oppositions just listed. I particularly like Kierkegaard’s suggestion that paradox is the passion of thought, and believe it can be adopted without assuming anything much of what makes up Kierkegaard’s philosophy.
According to your book chapter “Tragedy, Myth, and Liberty in Interstate Theory” in Liberty and Security in an Anarchical World Vol- I how does your polycentric model of sovereignty address the challenges posed by modern globalized conflicts, particularly those involving non-state actors?
A polycentric approach to sovereignty recognises inevitable realities, with regard to the competitive, changeable and localisable nature of institutions designed by humans. While it seems just about possible to have a kind of large centralised imperial nation, these depend on the existence of external threats or anxieties about the external world, which give some basis to a very vigorous exercise of hard power within state boundaries. We might hope for more peace and stronger international institutions, but it seems to be structurally impossible to have a unified global sovereign which either rules in a centralised way or has a coherent structure of devolved sovereignties covering the whole world.
The first option is always going to be disturbed by localised resistance and power competition at the sub-global level. Even if in some way, it is possible to have very integrated uniform sovereignty actglobal level, we are clearly far from such a situation. It could only emerge in a long term way in the far future. This possibility seems to be me to be very abstract, and in reality there could never be a global community possessing a sufficiently dense consensus on interests and principles, to make anything possible more than a very limited form of global sovereignty, which would be in a kind of shifting unstable balance with the sovereignty of nations or the partially shared sovereignty of blocs of nations. Even small nations face periodic challenges to inner sovereignty from the sharper forms of citizen dissent or various kinds of flows of information, population movements economic activity which spill over national boundaries. Completely self-contained sovereignty of nations is impossible as is a completed integrated global sovereignty.
How would rationalistic and homogenizing tendencies of transnational institutions might accommodate the need for global responses to issues like climate change and pandemics? What are your thoughts about that?
Rationalistic and homogenising tendencies in international institutions provide for some basis for international al action on climate change and pandemics. The rationalising and homogenising tendencies also create problems. A single centre trying to impose a unique approach for the whole world will not allow for the benefits of localised experimentation, comparison of solutions, and full debate of polices. Realistically national governments will be a necessary location for information gathering, policy formation and actions.
There may be some grouping of this as in the European Union , but even this is not an exercise of fully integrated sovereignty commanding a cross-European administration. In reality it is based on compromise between elects of European decision making and what nations agree. It is very clear that global co-ordination cannot go any further than this model and is likely to be less. The facts of climate change and the conditions for future pandemics don’t tell us what the best solutions are. These are fields which include unpredictable feedback, at the natural level enhanced by collective human action producing its own feedback. We can’t know in advance what the best possible solution is. We don’t know what the best solution is for different parts of the world given different conditions. There is no perfect solution there is just a variety of trade offs between various actions with various consequences outside the fields of climate and pandemic control. We cannot possibly have perfect knowledge of how to compare the results of a multitude of trade offs in a variety of possible feedback loops. Even if we did have a perfect rational solution based on perfect knowledge of the future, we would still not be able to perfectly control the politics about which kinds of costs populations are likely to tolerate. Some global co-ordination is desirable but we should not deceive us that there can bear perfect global coordination on perfect solutions.
Do you think that if we had adopted the Roman educational system of the Septem Artes Liberales, regardless of race or religion, we could have achieved a more civilized, globalized, and intellectually advanced society today?
The Septem Artes Liberales combine a quadrivium of astronomy, geometry, arithmetic and music with a trivium of rhetoric, grammar and logic. Whatever merits this may have had for the ancient, medieval and early modern worlds, it is not an adequate way of defining basic knowledge for the present. It certainly never produced I can’t right now say how this compares with classical education in southern, central and eastern Asia, which is the obvious point of comparison. It maybe worked in the Roman Empire, then Catholic (later Catholic and Protestant) Europe for providing some common understanding, but it has never been a global model and chant be now.
There is an issue now of global communications, travel and economic flows, which does make the issue of a broad global consensus on the basics of education relevant for present times. That is not the same as arguing that a rigid seven-fold structure can be universally applied. A broad universal education at pre-university level should presumably include mathematics and some high quality of understanding of your own language. This requires some study of literature and history.
The greatest understanding comes from doing something like this one more language, some study of at last one foreign language should be part of any education core, which also serves needs of communication. A well shaped education core should really introduce everyone to the starting elements of all major sciences, natural and social, which means physics chemistry, geography, biology, psychology, sociology and economics. For contemporary life, we should probably add communications studies and information technology. Philosophy provides a way of thinking about foundations and connections between these ares of knowledge. It is rather difficult to study before 16. Before 16, I favour studies of values and critical reasoning. Ideally this should absorb and replace classes specifically devoted to religion, which can be best studied in a critical and comparative environment. Increasing globalization suggests more elements of comparative studies in these areas where applicable. So I don’t have anything as compact as seven areas of study. What I have suggested above covers 14 areas (before getting into foreign languages), so that is a doubling of the old septet. How this is worked out in practice will inevitably vary between global regions, countries and even within countries, allowing for different circumstances along with the benefits of experimentation and comparison.
There is no way of studying all 14 of these things simultaneously throughout the years of compulsory schooling. Schooling should introduced all of them to all students at some point. Constant study is necessary for mathematics and any foreign language (at least one, and in some multi-lingual countries this can be complicate by requirements to study more than one language of that nation). This should be combined with constant study of at least one area of natural science and one area of social science, along with national literature and history (preferably with comparative elements for both). That makes a core sextet, though of a more variable kind than the classical septet. At sixteen this can be joined by philosophy, as once you start to study any field in any real depth, philosophical questions do arise, so that would make a septet, though at this point maybe some choice should be allowed regarding whether to study both social science and natural science.
Six subjects enough for pre-university study and maybe that could drop further in the final year of pre-university study. All countries of the world following something like this patterns probably a prerequisite for properly educated people throughout a global community, equipped to cope with life in any part of the world.
What would you like to say about philosophy education in Turkey? How would you interpret it in terms of language, culture, and history? Do you think Latin and Ancient Greek education should be introduced at earlier stages in Turkey to support the development of free thought?
It is difficult for me to generalize about philosophy education in Turkey. I understand there is less of it at high school level than there used to be which is unfortunate. As with other countries, I favour making classical languages more available as subjects of school study, but it is not possible to make this compulsory. Experimentation in schooling should be allowed in which some schools could specialize in offering classical languages. I certainly think there should be far more departments in this area in Turkish universities, though equally there should be more departments concerned with ancient languages and literatures of the Near East and Asia, as this is the obvious major alternative to the Graeco-Roman-western tradition. None of these traditions should be seen as isolated and self-contained. The complete study of the history of liberty certainly requires some awareness of ancient history and texts, but I don’t think we can make liberty as a way of thinking influencing education too dependent on study of ancient sources. Some element of this is necessary in philosophy and some other humanities, but in general, liberty has to appear through education in emphasis on the development of individuality of a kind which is free thinking, critical and responsible. Some element of classics in the world of education is a significant part of this, but it cannot be the full story. Philosophy has to be understood primarily in terms of a cross-national tradition across centuries in which nations have greatly changed, so it cannot possibly be understood in terms of national tradition or culture or history. Good philosophy in any country depends on having an internationalized and comparative sense of tradition, culture and history.
What types of research can be conducted in the field of philosophy today? What are the studies you have undertaken in relation to philosophy? Do you believe that alternative learning methodologies can be developed in this field?
I don’t have a strong view about new ways of learning philosophy. I teach in fairly old fashioned ways without much resort to tech ology in the class. Philosophy is inevitably affected by new forms of technology and communication, but I can’t see this changing the core. Different instructors can have different views about use of technology. This should be let opt individual choice. In the end all philosophy education has to be directed towards philosophical texts and forms of reasoning which are not obviously greatly changed by technology. I studied most aspects of western philosophical tradition as an undergraduate, making a special effort to study Continental European Philosophy after Kant since this could only be studied as an option (elective), not as part of the core courses. In my postgraduate work, I was very oriented towards Continental Philosophy and its relationship with literary studies.
I also developed interests in political theory, during that time, as an area of academic writing, though I have always read in that area anyway. There are some other things I came across then to do with philosophers who have a very literary aspect to their work, who still interest me, particularly Giambattista Vico and Michel de Montaigne. There was a period in which I was concerned with Wittgenstein, along with connections between Continental and Analytical Philosophy (that is philosophy very oriented towards science, logic, and conceptual analysis). Though that is till of some interest to me, it is not an area where I aim to write much anymore. I have been interested for some time on Foucault and theories of liberty, but have been slow to really consolidate my writing in that area and getting it published. Something similar applies to Vico’s contribution to thinking about philosophy as the philosophy of the human world, in which history and literature are central.
I am aiming to make progress in these projects, along with other writing commitments, which currently include work on Foucault’s view of seventeenth thought. Recently I have published on philosophy and literature and Derrida’s ethics. I aim to keep working on ethics as well as philosophy and literature. I have thoughts about tragedy related to both fields and that may express itself in future writing.
Interviewer: Academician, Author and Pr Carnet Editor Semay Buket Şahin
Would you like to talk about the short films you shot while you were a cinema student?
All my short films so far have featured elements of magical realism or fantasy—whether it’s TV characters confronting you from the screen, catching lice in your girlfriend’s hair, or women laying eggs. I tend to dive into my most bizarre ideas, and I’m grateful to have an outlet for them, as well as the support of those around me on this unconventional storytelling journey. Writing, directing, and editing my films have been invaluable experiences, not only for honing my craft but also for the meaningful human connections I’ve made along the way.
What kind of experience did the films you shot give you in terms of directing?
Directing actors was initially the most intimidating part for me. Having experience as an actor on other projects helped me realize that actors seek trust from their directors, which is built through communication. Instead of feeling like I needed to have all the answers—like in an exam—I learned to approach directing as a collaboration. A particularly positive experience was working on my final university film, “The Egg”, where I had the chance to rehearse with actors on location before shooting. This made the process less stressful and allowed us to be more open. Before film school, I hadn’t fully grasped that directing extends beyond working with actors. It involves making decisions across every department and ensuring the entire team is aligned with the creative vision. I’m so excited to explore this even further in my upcoming projects.
In your opinion, what are the most important features that make a short film successful?
I can’t yet speak to the commercial success of short films from personal experience (though one of mine has been selected for three festivals so far, which I’m very happy about). One thing I can say is that the audience’s response was incredibly positive. It’s always a pleasure to hear people share their interpretations and explore what the film meant to them.
One particularly encouraging piece of advice came from a workshop I attended with Argentine director Marco Berger. He said, “Make the films you want to see, because people are similar. If you like something, chances are others will too.”
How to edit a good movie? What is done before editing?
It’s no secret to filmmakers that editing begins before shooting. Understanding editing helps immensely with blocking and shot choices, but doesn’t fully protect you from post-production challenges. For example, in my short film “Lice”, a lack of coverage forced me to find a creative solution. I used fades to black between shots, which not only smoothed the edit but also reinforced the film’s dark, cave-like setting.
What would you like to say about the cinema industry when you evaluate it in terms of popular culture today? Is the most popular the best movie?
As a film graduate, I’ve been exposed to a wide range of non-mainstream films. Being from Europe and having international friends also influences my viewing habits, so I don’t always focus on the most popular films. That said, I find incredible films in both mainstream and indie cinema, just as I sometimes come across films—popular or obscure—that don’t resonate with me.
What are the shortcomings you see in the cinema industry and movies today? Do you think cinema has become monopolized?
Like many, I value creative freedom in storytelling. However, I’ve noticed that many mainstream films follow a checklist of politically correct themes and characters. While these topics are important, they should feel organic to the story rather than forced and I believe that a genuine, natural approach leads to meaningful art. That said, I understand that funding often dictates creative choices. One movement I’m especially excited about is the push for greener filmmaking practices. As a nature lover, I was disheartened to learn about the film industry’s environmental impact. While the industry still has a long way to go, it’s encouraging to see more productions adopting sustainable practices. I fully support this movement and strive to make every project I work on as eco-friendly as possible. I believe embracing green filmmaking is becoming essential for staying relevant in the industry. I’m also very excited about the emerging green storytelling movement and eager to see what stories grow from it.
I would like to emphasize that literature, music, and theater play an important role in the Ceyhan Kandemir trilogy.
I saw Ceyhan Kandemir’s trilogy – “Karla” (2019), “Ruhun Lekesi” (“Stain of the Soul”, 2022), “Kelebeklerin Uyudugu Yerdeyim” (“I am Where the Butterflies Sleep”, 2024) – in reverse order. Nevertheless each chapter was unique, clear and complete itself. It was a true journey for me – from wisdom in the third part to chaos in the second and to joy in the first. Ceyhan Kandemir’s collaboration with screenwriter Nafiseh Laleh was very productive. In 5 years they made 3 feature films in Turkiye that won multiple awards at the national and international film festivals. Professor of Istanbul University Dr. Ceyhan Kandemir dedicated his trilogy to his daughter Karla.
She brilliantly performed in all three films. In “Karla” and “I am Where the Butterflies Sleep” she plays the leading role, in “Stain of the Soul” Karla makes a lovely cameo. The episode with her is like a breath of fresh air in the life of the main character, an acclaimed guitarist. Both heroes read the same book – Shaun Tan’s “The Red Tree”.
Since Karla read Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s and Ralph Waldo Emerson’s works in her childhood, Tan’s illustrated book about depression and loneliness doesn’t seem a strange choice for a smart girl. I want to underline that literature, music and theatre play important roles in Ceyhan Kandemir’s trilogy. In his movie “Karla” director masterfully shows us the backstage of a puppet theatre and by the way makes a great cameo as a viewer. Actor Caglayan Sevincer made an incredible portrayal of Karla’s father. Great interaction between Karla and master of puppets Caglayan brought so much joy to the screen. In “Stain of the Soul” Ceyhan Kandemir takes us to the world of flamenco. It reminded me Pedro Almodovar’s film “The Flower of My Secret” (1995) starring Joaquin Cortes. In the feature “I am Where the Butterflies Sleep” islanders watch Cansu Ozdenak’s brilliant performance in immersive theatre. No wonder that one of the characters Mr. Ali Kadri was speechless after that… Cansu Ozdenak co-produced the film with Ozkan Binol. She also wrote lyrics and sang main themes in Ceyhan Kandemir’s trilogy. When Ozdenak enters the frame, she brings lightness and charm. Even when she is not singing or speaking, it is impossible to take your eyes off her. She has a class that is rarely seen today in cinema.
Fabulous exterior scenes in all 3 films amazed me. Cameraman Murat Cinar created a special atmosphere in “Karla”. The scene where the father and daughter ride a motorcycle looks like a Vincent van Gogh painting: white clouds in the very centre of the blue sky, yellow hay and green trees. In its colorfulness, Ceyhan Kandemir’s film can be compared to the works of Pedro Almodovar.
The walls, dishes, interior items – everything has its own bright color. Not to mention the royal breakfast… The heroes don’t even need to go to the bakery around the corner. They always have hot simits at home. Dr. Onur Akyol’s unforgettable shots of Istanbul in “Stain of the Soul” inspire me to pack my bag and go see Galata Tower and Bozdoğan Kemeri again as soon as possible. Director of Photography Ahmet Serdar Tasyurek did a great job too in “I am Where the Butterflies Sleep”. Watching magnificent views of Gökçeada island was a true pleasure. Now I know where exactly the butterflies sleep – in Çanakkale, my next destination. Ceyhan Kandemir’s trilogy bring a lot of tourists to Turkiye. And the number raises after each successful screening – at Antakya Film Festival, Kadikoy Cinema, Güzel Ordu International Film Festival, Halic Goldenhorn International Film Festival, Istanbul International Nartugan Film Festival, International TV & Film Festival Slavic Fairytale. Pablo Picasso once said: “Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up.” The main character of the trilogy Karla grew up before our eyes. She not only remained an artist, but also found her place in life – and it is where her roots are. In the beautiful country of Turkiye.
INTERVIEW SUBJECT:I’M WHERE THE BUTTERFIELS SLEEP MOVIE AND CINEMA CULTURE
How did you decide to shoot the film I’m Where the Butterflies Sleep? What gives you inspiration?
I’m Where the Butterflies Sleep is the last film of our trilogy, the first film is Karla, he second is The Stain of the Soul; My inspiration for all three films was my daughter Karla, she was 9 years old when we shot the first film, in the last film we watch Karla, who continues her life journey at the age of 14; in this process that I observed, the changes both in our country and in the world led us to a production process where we also blended our own stories. All three films turned into original scripts written by screenwriter Nafıseh Laleh, based on my own stories, and each of us tried to express our own experiences and feelings through the characters we created.
Can you tell us about the movie you directed called I’m Where the Butterflies Sleep? What does the movie say and what is the message you want to emphasize in the movie?
In a process where a 14-year-old girl wants to reach herself and invest in her future; starting with her visit to her aunt living on the island; the connections and connections the islanders have with themselves and each other; comparing it with the themes of belonging, deterritoriality, and rootlessness; we tried to handle reality with our fairytale-like cinematography. In the previous two movies, we witnessed the loneliness of the characters in their life journeys and their relationships with their environment. In this last film, just like in the first film, we try to make the audience feel the decisions Karla needs to make while questioning what she needs to do in her life journey, by emphasizing the deep loneliness in all three films.
In your opinion, what should be the most important characteristic and professional philosophy of a film director?
It is a very difficult question and one that I will have difficulty answering even if it is thought about and discussed at length; however, the most important characteristic of a film director is the ability to use visual intelligence and visual awareness, and the sharpness of visual expression must be strong; it is very difficult to master the entire filmmaking process, each stage of this process requires meticulous, disciplined and patient work, and if one of the links is missing, the process and its continuation become very difficult. The professional philosophy of the director should be to contribute to the change of society and the development of the audience by making them think and feel with the stories they tell, beyond artistic concerns.
What are your thoughts about Turkish Cinema today? What would you like to say when you compare it with Yeşilçam cinema in terms of technique and content?
Naturally, developing technology and digitalization have also brought about a major transformation in film production techniques. Developments in image technology continue to fascinate the audience on the cinema screen; We watch films with very strong production techniques, but how the content makes anyone happy is always debatable; The social, individual, socio-economic and political dilemmas experienced, future anxiety, our anxious, restless and unhappiness, or the way we exist in different levels of life have transformed the audience; I think we have moved away from art and cinema as good viewers. Unfortunately, the harsh and unfair criticisms we feel in every environment without trying to understand are reflected in the content of the films and the production process; we have forgotten how to love and value… I prefer to live in that naive and warm atmosphere of old Yeşilçam movies. We are one of the rare societies that think the past is better than the future… In today’s cinema, every movie has a problem; the director is addressing the audience from his own world; it’s up to the audience whether you listen or not.
Do you think that popular culture affects filmmakers and the film industry? How do you interpret the presentation of a much-loved movie or series to the audience with similar scenarios? Do you think this overshadows the problem or message addressed in the film?
Is there any sector left that has not been affected and poisoned by popular culture? Unfortunately, the cinema sector, especially the mainstream, has had more than its share of this. Instead of fighting, there is a problem of a sector that adapts to and even supports the negative changes in society. Whenever you try to explain violence, discrimination and marginalization and put the priority of making it popular and interesting before the ethical stance, you are already at the end of your rope… When adapted films and TV series are presented to the audience from a different perspective, they can be interesting with the director’s aesthetic understanding and stylistic differences.
Do you think documentary film production is given importance in Turkey? What can be done to bring documentary films and series to the forefront? What can be done to increase the documentary cinema culture of Turkish audiences?
With the spread of digital platforms, documentary films have gained the opportunity to be screened, documentaries that were previously mostly able to meet their audiences at festivals can now reach a wider audience, documentaries have their own audience; In order to reach this more conscious, interested and aware audience, highly qualified documentaries are being produced today, and fictional documentaries can be increased in order to reach an even wider audience. There is nothing more valuable than the detailed examination of culture, history and recent history, and scientific analysis of facts based on documents. It is extremely important to transfer the pure, unmanipulated reality to today’s and future generations, and this can be created with quality documentaries against all kinds of disinformation. The more broadcasters and documentarians can bring together their productions with viewers, the more effective they will be, but of course this ideal; Media ownership, political order and structural chaos in societies cannot allow the truth to be revealed, and it does not seem like they will. There is a need for an alternative, independent, strong but cultural strategy and perspective that can contribute to the development of every layer of society by distancing itself from the mainstream media, mainstream broadcasters, mainstream festivals and in short, every mainstream structure…
What do you think about the work of RTS students? How can they improve themselves in terms of creativity, technique and content?
RTS students receive both theoretical and practical training, the main problem here is that there are too many faculties and students trying to provide the same training, not all students can receive the same practical training under the same conditions, the most important issue in our disciplines is to be able to transform the theoretical training received into practical training, when this can be achieved, we observe that our students are much more successful in their professional lives in the future. It is also a pleasure to see that many of our students and recent graduates produce successful works in the form of short films, documentaries, music videos, etc. It is also very sad to see that they are lost in the chaos within the industry after years. The only way for students to improve themselves in terms of creativity, technique and content is to produce. Of course, course curricula that need to be constantly updated and the sustainable support of faculty members who are experts in their fields are also issues that should be given importance.
What do you think about the state of independent cinema in Turkey? What can be done to popularize independent cinema? What are the difficulties experienced by independent filmmakers?
Independent filmmakers have never had the means to make films; Although being independent may seem very attractive and appealing at first, it means a tough struggle against impossible odds from the very beginning; however, I am a director who approaches independent cinema from a free cinema perspective, in other words, what the sector understands from independence is not a budgetary situation, it is very difficult or even impossible to produce and make a feature film with a low budget, but good relationship management and being able to meet the right people at the right time always brings success. For the development of independent cinema, the support of universities, local governments and relevant organizations of the business world that provide this education is needed more, we need the artistic trust and interest of institutions and organizations that will not interfere with the content of the productions.
Who is Alisa Gorokhova? Can you tell us a little about yourself?
I am a Ukrainian-Canadian documentary filmmaker, writer, and journalist – in no particular order. I spent the first 10 years of my career in commercial copywriting. Unlike most people, I actually enjoyed the peace and quiet the pandemic brought because it gave me time to re-evaluate my life thus far and priorities going forward. I was in my early 30s, a perpetual expat living in a foreign country, with a handful of close friends, no family nearby, and a career I wasn’t in love with. After months of deliberation during lockdown, I decided to change everything about my life until it had not only more meaning, but love and joy within it.
I decided to move back to North America from Europe after 10 years, and to begin investing in building a network and support system that would be with me for the rest of my life. I also applied to the University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism to study documentary filmmaking. I had always considered documentaries to be the highest art form. Most importantly, I decided to wholeheartedly embrace the creativity within me that I had been running away from my entire life. I graduated with a Master of Journalism degree from Berkeley in May 2024. What’s next? I wish I knew. What I do know is that I am finally fulfilling my full potential and that alone is a priceless investment.
Could you tell us about your work as a Documentary Filmmaker?
I started filmmaking relatively late in life – in my mid 30’s. But I do sincerely believe that my life experiences thus far saturate my work on every level. Berkeley encouraged us to make films that were important to us, and that permitted us to explore topics that were important to us. And when what was close to my heart was too painful to address, I learned to shift focus to a similar issue but within a different community. For instance, I have family that, due to the war in Ukraine, were forced to flee to Germany as refugees. Emotionally, I felt unable to produce a narrative about Ukrainian refugees as it was too painful. Instead, I made a short film about an Iranian refugee to the US and his experiences entering a new country with nothing except the clothes on his back in 1979. With that piece, it was important to me to show that refugees, regardless of their point of origin, are unique, complex individuals, and that more often than not, they would prefer to live in peace in their homeland given the opportunity.
Creatively speaking, I love films that explore different styles, themes and formats of storytelling. I try to bring that into everything I do. Rather than adapt something that has already been made to my taste, I try to push myself into a storytelling style that is unexplored. In that regard, Stanley Kubrick is a hero of mine, as he is to so many filmmakers, from Denis Villeneuve to George Lucas. Obviously, I have a long way to go until I’m in the same dimension as those three, but one can dream. 🙂
What would you like to say about Documentary Films made today? What deficiencies do you see in terms of content and technique? What do you think about the future of Documentary Filmmaking?
Documentaries today are bigger than they have ever been. In fact, I don’t understand how people can say that they don’t like documentaries in this day and age – docs come in every genre, on every topic matter, in every language. How can one dislike them all? That said, there are documentaries made today that should never have been made, let alone screened before a global audience. A recent example, I’m sad to say, is “Russians at War” which does not shy away from acknowledging that it is Russian propaganda about the war they themselves started, made by a journalist who worked for the main propaganda channel in Russia – RT. And yet it was screened at the Toronto International Film Festival. As a Canadian, and as a Ukrainian, it was a slap in the face to the entire Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. Documentaries, unlike fiction films, have to be held to a higher standard of reporting and storytelling overall.
As journalists, we must fight disinformation and propaganda head on, especially when it is produced and funded by a country that uses propaganda as a weapon of war. In spite of the financial struggles rocking the filmmaking industry overall today, I believe that the future of documentary filmmaking is bright. The more people there are that watch docs today, the more future generations of journalists and filmmakers will want to make them. People tend to forget content and filmmaking technique, but they will not forget how a film made them feel. A documentary can make you feel smart, it can make you weep, it can make you feel involved in an important cause, it can make you feel educated, and, most importantly, it can make you fall in love with a topic. As long as documentaries like that continue to be made, the future of doc filmmaking is limitless.
What is the importance of documentary films in raising awareness about social problems?
People are visual beings. It is one thing to learn about a social issue by reading about it, it is another thing to witness it with your own eyes, even if it is on a screen. To see the pain on the face of someone, anyone, suffering massive injustice – that sticks with you. Anyone with an ounce of empathy can find a documentary they relate to emotionally that spurs them on to make a change in their life, to fight for a social cause. That is why, stylistically, we as filmmakers must continue to explore themes and genres. Society evolves, and so must we with it.
Are films festivals effective in promoting documentary films? Do you think that cinema students can promote their films at festivals and famous film studios? Should universities collaborate with film festivals, film studios and famous producers?
Yes and no. I have seen films made by classmates get the attention they deserve at film festivals, and I have witnessed films that I felt absolutely deserved attention be passed over by film festivals. Realistically speaking, film festivals have agendas and they have themes. A film can be excellent, but if its topic is not in tune with the mood of the festival that year, it will not be picked.
I don’t think festivals are very invested in collaborating with universities and film students, and that is their prerogative. Festivals are a for profit business, after all. Universities are there to instill a higher level of knowledge than what is in the mainstream and on the festival circuit. If film students stick to what film festivals want, we will never push the industry forward, expand its boundaries creatively, and it will never grow as a result. And creative sgrowth and exploration is ultimately what keeps us all employed.
But, of course, all students would love to promote their films at festivals. I just don’t think that should be our key goal as student filmmakers. Good films, student or otherwise, will live on regardless, and we have our entire lives left to create. University is the time to learn and better yourself – not necessarily the time to succeed.
Are you considering shooting a documentary film in Türkiye? What topics would you choose for a documentary film shoot in Türkiye?
I would love to shoot a documentary in Türkiye! And not just because of the food, the culture, and the cats 🙂 I have a personal connection to the country that I have never been able to explore. Just last week, I got DNA confirmation (to my utmost surprise) that my ancestors were Pontic Greeks who immigrated from Anatolia in northeastern Türkiye to Crimea, a peninsula in southern Ukraine, in the early 20th century.
They spoke a dialect which is now all but extinct in Crimea because of Stalin’s purges of ethnic minorities in the 1930’s, but is still found in Anatolia. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire is abundant with stories, and this is mine. It would be an honor to go to Anatolia, explore the region, learn about the language and maybe even my family history. My family was forced to hide their Greek ancestry during the years of the Soviet Union – my great-grandmother even had to change her Greek name to a Russian one to avoid deportation of the entire family to a Gulag.
I owe my existence to them and so many others like them who had to abandon their ethnic roots in order to survive Soviet fascism. Especially since Russia once more is targeting ethnic minorities in Ukraine en masse.
Most people outside of Ukraine don’t know, but Mariupol is a city populated by Greek-Ukrainians that originally immigrated to Ukraine from Türkiye centuries ago. Mariupol has been all but destroyed by Russia, its ethnic Greek culture decimated. A genocide within a genocide. It is a story that must be told, whether by me or not, or it will keep happening again and again. I would love to work with Turkish filmmakers, historians, linguists and journalists to discover the stories of Anatolia and its significance on global history and culture in Eastern Europe.
What is the importance of documentary filmmaking for the journalism profession? Do you think documentary journalism is given importance today?
We live in a visual world. Without expanding into video in some capacity, whether feature docs or even social media content, I’m fearful for the future of journalism in general. Gen Z doesn’t read newspapers, all their information is obtained digitally. Instead of blaming young people for the natural progression of technology, or clinging on to a past that simply isn’t there anymore, we should be leaning into the new forms of media. Documentaries are a huge aspect of that. Whereas 20 years ago people might have read an investigative piece 20 pages in length several times per week, people don’t have the attention span for that nowadays. Documentaries can bridge that gap by still telling complex investigative narratives in a way that is visual and works with a contemporary attention span. In this way, narrative journalists can work with visual journalists to create masterpieces in storytelling.
Of course, I am hugely biased 🙂 I am truly obsessed with documentaries. A writer will have their own opinion on the matter and that’s as it should be.
Are woman journalists limited to storytelling in war journalism? Does this traumatise women journalists?
The war in Ukraine has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that female journalists – war correspondents – are capable of anything men are and then some. Not only are we capable of reporting on the most horrific aspects of war, I believe we also bring an empathy that encourages vulnerability in our sources that male journalists have a harder time achieving.
People like to say that war is a man’s game, but that has never been the case. My grandmother was a nurse in World War II. She was also a sergeant in the army. Women are often forced into supporting their families when men leave to fight, and they are often left trying to rebuild families after their warriors return home wounded in ever sense of the word. Not to mention the horrors women go through under occupation. The pure savagery Ukrainian women go through under Russian occupation to this day could and will fill hundreds of war crime tribunals in The Hague one day soon.
Women journalists are well acquainted with all of this, both professionally, and often from their own personal family stories. What we bring to the table is storytelling, yes, but also visions of war that men perhaps don’t often see. As important as it is to see the pure violent destruction war causes, something male journalists tackle beautifully, it is also important to bear witness to the emotions of the soldiers put into inhumane conditions where they have to watch their friends’ bodies rot around them while they lie injured and helpless. Or dig up mass graves of women and children with hands tied behind their backs. Or listen to the stories of psychologists working with women who manage to escape occupation which, when it comes to Russia and Russian soldiers, is akin to sexual slavery.
I have personally interviewed veterans from the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Ukraine. Things have been shared with me that have been shared with no one else, thing they would never have shared with other men or even their families. There are things that I have not been able to put in my films because they are too traumatic for audiences to watch. And all I do is listen to these stories – there are female journalists out there actually living them.
A Ukrainian female journalist and prisoner of war actually died in Russian captivity only a week ago. In terms of trauma, I don’t believe women and men put through the same circumstances get different levels of trauma because of it. There are men that are more sensitive to trauma than I am, and women that are less so. It comes down to the uniqueness of the individual. I will say this, though. Women are much more likely to seek professional help for their trauma than men are. If anything makes us better war journalists, it’s that.
What do you think of YouTube? What are the effects of YouTube on the journalism profession? Has YouTube become an alternative media space against the male-dominated mainstream media?
I love YouTube! And Instagram and even TikTok. I’ve also fallen in love with podcasts lately, and am planning on starting my own soon which would explore the world of media today. There is a place for all social media and other forms of media in journalistic storytelling. TikTok and Instagram in particular have really democratized the spread of news media. And I’m not just talking about influencers, although we should not ignore their importance in the grand scheme of modern day media.
Journalistic content created for modern media forms is a new industry and as such there is no prejudice as to who may or may not participate in it. For instance, opinion pieces in the New York Times are more often than not penned by a certain class of men because that is the legacy of the NYT. This is not the case for new media. Anyone can become influential based on a confluence of factors. And not just in terms of gender, but also age, race, nationality, geography… you name it. Anything that functions as a democratizer is a good thing in my book.
One thing that I feel I must add though, as a journalist. Misinformation is much easier to spread across new media because new media doesn’t hold itself to the same standards as traditional media. Traditional media requires two independent sources for verification of a fact. Obviously, this is not a requirement for new media. Which is why one of the most important things we learn as student journalists is trust but verify, always.
Do you think that the media and the journalism profession are dominated by men? What kind of psychological trauma are women journalists exposed to in a male-dominated media?
You would be hard-pressed to find a profession that is not dominated by men to some extent. So, yes, of course it is. If you hear the word “journalist” you don’t visualize someone like me. You think of someone like Bob Woodward. I have personally encountered tremendous misogyny in all aspects of journalism and media overall. A sports editor assuring me that women are simply not smart enough to edit sports, which… no. Or renowned Pulitzer winning investigative reporters hobnobbing with male journalists who have been outed as sexual predators, even going so far as introducing them to young female journalists. And then of course the endless complaining among men about hiring quotas, as well as their inability to even recognize their innate privilege in an industry built by them and for them. All of that is traumatic to women, whether in journalism or another industry, undoubtedly. But I will tell you a secret. Something I have personally witnessed among millennial and Gen Z women specifically is that we will go to the ends of the Earth to support each other, both emotionally and professionally.
Traditionally, men like to think that most women are competitive with each other, but that is almost never the case in my experience. There are so few of us in journalism and filmmaking that we will support each other just so that, eventually, there will be more of us. The reason for this evolution is that women can no longer stomach tokenism – the idea that one token woman per team is enough. Instead, if there is one woman on a team, more often than not she will work to bring other women on board. THAT is the future of women in journalism. Girlhood. Girl’s girls. Girl code. Whatever you want to call it. We are here to stay and we are here to slay.
Can you introduce yourself and share a bit about your background?
I was born and grew up in El Paso, Texas. For a majority of my life, I knew that I wanted to tell stories that would impact or inspire others. Never did I think I would enter the world of journalism. I received my Bachelor’s in Digital Film Making. I gravitated towards video/film editing because I fell in love with putting a story together with the pieces that were collected through the filming process. When you finally see the end product, you feel accomplished by telling a story that maybe no one has ever heard of. I owe my love for storytelling to my family. My mother always took me and my sisters to the movies, and my grandfather shared stories of his life at the ranch my family once owned in Chihuahua.
How do you view the current state of broadcast journalism? Does network ownership impact how stories are covered?
The industry is undergoing significant changes, especially with the rise of streaming and social media. I believe the future is digital, and the days of analog are numbered. This shift is happening at a time when people in towns and cities still rely heavily on local news stations to stay informed about their communities.
The digital age has definitely impacted local stations, particularly in how rating systems are measured. In my experience, network ownership hasn’t directly influenced my current station since we’re owned by a smaller broadcasting company. However, I do think the broader beliefs and bottom lines of broadcasting companies can affect the stories we cover—or don’t cover—potentially shaping the viewers’ perspectives.
With news production being so fast-paced, how do you balance timely, accurate reporting with the desire to produce in-depth, engaging stories?
As journalists, we have to maintain this balance every day. Newsrooms revolve around deadlines, but it’s critical to remain unbiased, fact-check rigorously, and ensure we’re doing justice to the stories we’re telling because people depend on us.
It’s helpful to have trusted colleagues review your work—an outside perspective can ensure you stay focused on the story you’re trying to convey.
What are your future goals in journalism? Where do you see yourself ultimately?
’I’d love to explore different areas of journalism. Fashion has always been a personal interest, but I also hope to work on documentaries that shed light on stories affecting people in significant ways.
In terms of social media, which platforms do you trust the most for news, and why?
’m always skeptical. While many stories are broken on social media, I will constantly question the validity of events that are posted. I think that’s a trait every journalist should keep front and center.
Who is Şule Şahin? Can you tell us a little about yourself? What is your professional adventure that led you to digital media consultancy?
I’m Sule Sahin. I am 27 years old, born and raised in Bursa. If I were to express myself in one word, it would definitely be ‘curious’. Thanks to this feature, I never limited myself, always researched, took risks, wanted to develop and learn.
My career life, which started with academic studies in the field of accounting, has been continuing with the field of digital marketing, which I met a little by chance and a little by curiosity for about a year and said ‘this is it’.
What is the importance of digital marketing consultancy for brands?
Being in the digital world offers great opportunities for businesses to carry their activities beyond borders. With digital marketing consultancy, brands do not have to wait for their customers for the promotion and sale of their products and services. It takes its place in all electronic devices and media tools of potential customers with advertising strategies prepared by digital marketing experts. In addition to traditional marketing, digital marketing consultancy saves businesses time and cost. Therefore, it aims to make more sales with less effort. It gets faster results from potential customers within the scope of digital marketing activities and helps them respond faster to their requests and needs. It can get ahead of competitors who are not yet in digital, and enables companies that continue their digital activities to follow their work more easily.
Which strategies does a brand’s digital marketing specialist mainly apply to promote the brand’s online presence, brand awareness and product and service?
First of all, social media platforms suitable for the brand must be ready. Because users on the internet always do research before shopping for products or services. We need to introduce the brand identity to potential customers in the best and correct way in social media and give them confidence. At this point, especially social proof and references play an important role. Comments and messages about the brand on the internet should be followed to learn the impression we leave on users. The website of the business owners, if any, is checked. In order to provide the fastest and most reliable service to potential customers, efforts should be made to maximise the quality of the website. It should not be forgotten that the algorithm also follows these elements.
A low quality, slow website reduces the quality of the brand’s advertising and may prevent it from getting the results it wants. In our preliminary work with brands, we explain the importance of media tools to our customers and present the website quality results to them. At the point where all media tools give good results, we create digital marketing strategies for the needs of brands and start working.
Is the digital marketing strategy of social media accounts, websites and e-commerce sites different?
Absolutely. The basis of our work is to know the brand and its customers well. It is not right to try to apply the same advertising strategy to a corporate company and an e-commerce company. In addition, although they are in the same sector, we also have customers who demand different studies. Some of them reach us for more sales, some to go up in Google rankings, some to promote their brand in the best way in digital. It is our duty to determine digital marketing strategies that will meet the demands and needs of brands and to continuously develop these strategies.
What are the dangers waiting for brands that do not need digital media consultancy?
The biggest danger is being forgotten. Nowadays, you are recognised as much as your presence on the internet. While their competitors carry their brands to everywhere where there is internet, businesses that lag behind in digital work will not go beyond their own neighbourhood, they will count where they are, and if they are lucky, they will survive with certain sales.
Business owners who want to move their brand to digital but try to manage this process alone can be exhausted by physical work on the one hand and digital work on the other, or give up at the first digital obstacle they encounter. Because the internet is like an ocean. If you want to move forward without a route, you will get lost.
What are the common misconceptions about digital marketing consultancy?
I can say it is the profession itself. Although it is a sector that is frequently encountered with its activities, unfortunately, the name and profession of ‘digital marketing’ still does not have a clear image in people’s minds. When it comes to digital marketing, people think of e-commerce activities such as Amazon and Trendyol. In fact, the strangest question I received in this profession was ‘Do you sell electronic cigarettes?’. There are too many business owners who are unaware that the advertisements in many media tools are the work of the digital marketing sector. They want their products and services to appear on all digital platforms like competing companies, but they don’t know the name of what they want. For this reason, we definitely make a preliminary interview before starting our work with businesses.
I tell businesses who I am, what digital marketing is and how I work. Because as much as I know my client, my client should also know me and be aware of the work I will do for him/her.
What do you think about the development of artificial intelligence? How will it affect digital marketing and its experts? Do you think artificial intelligence will replace digital marketing experts?
For the moment, I am very happy with the development of artificial intelligence, because the development of artificial intelligence means that digital studies gain importance. As a digital marketing specialist, artificial intelligence has a great place in our work. Content ideas, texts, animations… These are just the beginning. I think that people who work in digital marketing and similar fields and do not benefit from artificial intelligence will be far behind the experts who develop their work with artificial intelligence in the future, even if they do not realise it now. If we are going to carry out digital studies, we need to be able to follow the developments in that world.
As long as this continues, artificial intelligence will continue to be used as a tool, not a goal. Of course, artificial intelligence continues to develop rapidly and surprise us every day. If we do not develop and keep up with this change, we will lose this war.
What should be done to get the right digital marketing training? Is it also necessary to learn artificial intelligence applications that will be used in the future?
First of all, they should definitely reach the experts of this subject. Unfortunately, not every person who receives digital marketing training has enough equipment to provide training in this sector with the name of an expert. In addition to a certain knowledge, there must be working experience. It is difficult to carry out studies in this field by watching part-part videos on social media and Youtube. People who are already trying to progress in this way feel that they are doing wrong because they cannot fully understand the logic of working. I know because I felt this way in my first digital marketing training. When I received a second training from a different expert, I was able to say ‘okay’ and continue, otherwise I had already quit. However, education never ends in digital studies. Getting a good digital marketing education only creates a solid foundation. However, in this process where digital studies are developing rapidly, it is not enough to proceed only with basic information.
Especially artificial intelligence brings very different dimensions to the sector. Staying behind these developments means staying behind in the profession. In order to be a good digital marketing expert and represent our clients’ brands in the best way, we need to be open to learning and development.
Who is Joel Matthews? Could you tell us a little about yourself?
Sure! I am a writer on progressive social movements from the perspective of their historical and philosophical foundations. I have always been outspoken about human oppressions like racism, sexism and homophobia because their clear and obvious cruelty was very apparent to me. At a relatively early age I became aware of close friends and family who suffered with anxiety and depression. I think this may be the origin of my focus on the suffering of others as a priority in my own life and life in general.
At university I worked with a theologian, contributing to his third book. I studied aspects of cosmology (the scientific study of the origin and evolution of the universe as a whole) from a philosophical, empirical perspective. The research investigated the ways in which our ideas about the world are justified and accepted into the collective human domain involving both ancient Greek and more contemporary European approaches. Coming from a secular household with secular parents this was a unique and expansive experience, encouraging me to seriously consider perspectives outside of prevailing popular thinking.
What precisely compelled you to start writing this book, why did this discussion need to take place, and why now?
After becoming aware of the unnecessary, and therefore unethical treatment of animals for food, I began to review my experience and study of philosophy and self-defined compassionate theology and theologians in particular. They troubled me because, not only was support for moral consideration of nonhuman animals absent, but there was an active participation in their abuse. For the sake of unnecessary suffering in the world, which incidentally causes the climate crises, this must be urgently discussed, challenged and corrected.
How does your book expand on and take inspiration from existing authors and discussions of animal oppression, and what new angles do you present on the subject of human supremacy?
My work begins with Dr Kim Socha’s research on this relationship (or lack thereof) between people who defend animals from cruelty and people of faith. From here I refer to Dr Melanie Joys’ vital redefinition of animal eating behaviour as ‘a choice’, with a corresponding belief system just as arbitrary and ‘choose-able’ as ‘veganism’. Dr Joy brilliantly names this belief system ‘Carnism’.
I cannot stress enough how important Dr Joy’s naming and addressing of this (until her work) invisible belief system is. I believe recognition of her contribution to collective human knowledge will grow with time and only truly be acknowledged by generations to come. There have clearly been many extraordinary people throughout history that have been able to contribute to profound advances in our development. Whether they are of a technological or ethical nature, everything is interconnected and in some way is part of our survival.
The current general public may never be aware, but one of these people is among us in Dr Melanie Joy. Carnism will join, now familiar words like racism, sexism and patriarchy, and be part of common parlance in the future. And Dr Melanie Joy will join the likes of Martin Luther King or Emmeline Pankhurst only fully celebrated by future generations. Dr Joy explains that Carnism is supported in the modern world by arbitrary justifications. It is these justifications that are remarkably similar to those of white supremacy, patriarchy, cis and het normativity. I apply these to the essential work of Professor Khyati Y. Joshi and her study of Christian influence in society. With this taken together I take direction from Dr Corey Lee Wrenn’ encouragement to apply a rational approach in radically shifting the general public’s default choice of food from one of cruelty and exploitation to one without.
I am inspired by the optimistic and hopeful appraisal of Steven Pinker. His extensive work, indicating violence amongst the human species in a variety of categories (domestic violence, capital punishment, international war, likelihood of being killed by war) is going down. Pinker points to humanity’s awareness of others’ suffering, historically transmitted via reading, as a motivator of empathy and compassion amongst the general public.
I adopt this perspective and appraise aspects of philosophy, making a clear demarcation between what contributes to compassion and our species survival, and what does not. I aim to do to western philosophy in the 21st century, what St Thomas Aquinas did to Christian theology in the 13th.
Unlike other writers in this discussion, I bring a passionate participation in street activism as well as an education in philosophy, theology and cosmology. Inspired by the old adage ‘born liberal, die conservative’ (backed up by research) I propose framing non-human animal liberation within existing liberation movements. To really drive this home and call this behaviour for what it is, in language that young people clearly understand – that choosing the “meat” option is not a negligible, un-noteworthy choice that can pass without comment. It is active participation in violence. It is barbaric human supremacy. If there is one thing I want people to take from this book is its title.
What do you think is the power of framing animal oppression in relation to modes of human oppression more broadly recognised as intolerable and inhumane?
This framing capitalises on existing awareness of human oppression. Thankfully young people are now primed and alert to these human social ‘evils’. For example, Romesh Ranganathan recently referenced his engagement with the Twitter campaign ‘Say “Mate” to a mate’, which calls upon all young men to call out their male friends who show sexist behaviour or language. This education and awareness makes for a fertile environment for our expanding moral circle. My approach ignites this existing support. I want to light a fire amongst young people, causing a compassionate and rational revolution.
In light of this framing, do you feel as though most humans only take animal oppression seriously when it is compared to oppression against humans? Is this a discouraging revelation, or a finding to be capitalised upon in onboarding more people to the anti-anthropocentric cause?
No. This framing, and my approach, is just a helpful tool in undoing the theological and secular postmodern distortions of the natural world that young generations are subjected to. Depending on your birthplace you will be assigned particular species to name, care for and love, and other species that you will, through social conformity, be compelled to withdraw all your innate compassion for, at best ignore and at worst inflict, with your wallet, industrialised violence. All of this is perpetually reinforced by the pillars of your society; education, healthcare, the justice system, and the media. This assumes your natural compassion is allowed to flourish and be applied to nonhuman animals in the first place. Depending on your culture, whether religious or secular, your moral consideration will be sharply cut off from all other species.
It is a common anti-vegan talking point to claim that considering animal oppression as serious and deserving of recognition as human oppression dismisses the severity of human oppression, and undermines the experiences of human victims. What would you say to those who find the drawing of comparisons to instances of human oppression (racism, transphobia, homophobia, etc..) to animal oppression offensive, and how does your book work to justify these comparisons?
Great question! However, the question itself is based upon an anthropocentric premise. The first thing to say is all oppressions don’t have to be equal to be considered. All systemic oppression is deserving of consideration and challenge and do not detract from human oppressions. We can refrain from perpetuating harming animals three times a day and continue with our anti sexism work, for example, the rest of the day.
This line of questioning is comparable to “All Lives Matter”. With centuries of systemic exclusion and oppression of people of colour in general, I am not sure, amongst this conversation we should be comparing the treatment of all people – who in this context are their oppressors with the oppressed. It is also part of the anthropocentric thinking that I am trying to dismantle. Homo sapiens, biologically, do not occupy a special place in the universe.
Life is life and should not be adjudicated on our cognitive abilities, but instead our ability to suffer. Ignoring others because we do not necessarily understand them or do not behave in ways we understand leads us down a dangerous path to some ugly conclusions, as we have seen history.
You make it abundantly clear that young people are significant to the struggle against human supremacy and toward animal liberation, what exactly is it about the youth that make them so integral to the transition to a kinder world?
We are “born liberal, and die conservative”, the saying goes. There is a lot of evidence to support this. This is more of a political statement but is close to my position. I strongly suggest young people are born with a default ‘natural attitude’. This is an honest, unbiased engagement with the world and others within it, devoid of projected pre-existing beliefs and judgements. The trick is to nurture this natural attitude, allow it to flourish and applied to all sentient others in the world. Not to curtail it. We wonder ‘Why we all can’t just get along?’ It’s probably because the first thing parents feed their children are the products of exclusion and oppression. We literally serve it to them three times a day.
Into the 21st century we still wonder why people supported the Third Reich’s industrial killing of Jewish people as a subset of the human race. People, homo sapiens, are just another species, that have emerged and evolved on this planet. Humans are animals, and species’ is fluid. Be under no illusion, if you lived in 1920’s Nazi Germany, subjected to the same supporting pillars of society propagating the same distorting “natural”, “necessary”, “normal” justifications, there is no reason to believe you would do anything other than support and defend the gassing of the Jews because, we are doing it right now. When Jews arrived at Auschwitz they were greeting by calm music. The same calming music is sometimes played at slaughterhouses.
The moral and philosophical framework of ‘sentientism’ is discussed rather heavily in your book’ – how would you sum up this framework to readers who are unaware of this term and are perhaps not as well versed in animal rights discourse and ideas? Does having a cohesive label for one’s moral beliefs (i.e., ‘sentientism’) make it more palatable to comprehend and implement?
Sentientism simply acknowledges anyone that is sentient as deserving of moral consideration. Sentience simply means embodying an interior subjectivity. In other words, able to think, feel and experience happiness or sadness to varying degrees. What is critical and most important to me is the capacity to suffer. In order to establish this ability we take guidance from a naturalistic (empirical, sense data) approach the world and others. Do they have a brain? Do they have nerve endings? A nervous system? If so, the chances are they are sentient. Plants are not sentient because they don’t have a nervous system, brain or interior subjective experience. They respond to external stimuli in a mechanistic fashion similarly to police speedometers.
In order to protect and alleviate others from unnecessary suffering we must first track systemically oppressed others, who have an ability to suffer. What I am going to do with Human Supremacy is reorganise and reorientate the entirety of western thought, placing, what I coin, a ‘sentiological commitment’ at its heart. This reduces, alleviates and abolishes suffering but has the added by-product of positively contributing to the climate crisis, in turn supporting the chances of survival of life on Earth. This cannot be said for any theological commitment. If it wasn’t for the Scientific Revolution, humanity would still believe we are at the centre of the universe, inhabiting a planet which would exist forever.
Eventually the sun will expand and explode, enveloping and killing all life on earth. We would not know this if it wasn’t for our naturalistic outward genuine interest in the world. In the meantime, we would all have a drastically shorter expected lifespans and experience a lower quality of life. The same goes for advocates of more secular metaphysical idealism – the view that reality is ultimately in some way a mental construct. Idealism, at its solipsist extreme, remains stuck debating with itself the facticity of the outer world to begin with, besides the existence of others, and let alone any interest in their suffering! A cursory look at history documents the vulnerability of idealism (and revelation) to bias. Abraham’s revelation from a God is fortuitously interested in protecting him and his tribe. Or St Pauls incidental elevation of his own gender – just below God, and just above women. Or Aristotle’s nascent scientific ‘climate theory’ of race – claiming a lucky, impartial objective superiority of his native olive-skinned people of Greece. As evolved animals I don’t believe we can acquire objective truth to begin with. However, on balance, I strongly recommend a committed naturalistic engagement with a cautious trust of empiricism (most likely to remain immune from individual bias) as our best bet in engaging with the world.
This is because a focus on the ‘outside world’ (beyond our own minds, and ideas about it), with my ‘sentiological commitment’ will alleviate the climate crisis, ultimately improving the chances of survival of life on Earth.
One scroll through your page shows your commendable commitment to street activism, as with animal rights group ‘We The Free’. Do you see your book as a springboard for direct action? How does your work relate to activism at the grassroots level?
Absolutely. I work for the global activist group We The Free. On one hand, I am very much embodying the spirit and language of We The Free by using dramatic, engaging and shocking language (We The Free – WTF). In other words, look at the shocking reality! Look at it! I am going to get your attention and tell you what’s going on. Which, incidentally, is identical to the mother of Emmett Till unbelievably brave decision to keep her dead sons casket open for the world to see. She, in that moment as a voice for the African American community, showed the world the product of American white supremacy protected by its own slaver owner-come- police force. However, to some degree I am stepping outside of their commendable all-inclusive approach to the general public – treating all members of society equally as potential defenders of animals.
Instead, I explicitly target young people, pitching them against parents and older generations. My particular ‘pose’ or angle to animal rights is somewhat of a sardonic threat .in that I intend to influence your children and tell them to hold you to my standards, and so you’d better keep up! What can parents do? What are they left with? Sulk in their ignorance? Maintain their unthinking status quo? At some point they are going to question themselves and this will be a wonderful by-product of my target audience.
Has the process of writing this book made you feel more or less optimistic for the future of the status of animals?
Dramatically more optimistic. The pillars of society already educate our young people on human oppression. I metaphorically stand on these pillars with my book and a megaphone and tell our young people to make one further step to capture all suffering. A mistake often made is equating both positive and negative aspects to human nature. This is a mistake because the universe itself is essentially an inhospitable, non-existential, hellish environment for life. The trick is to focus and celebrate the hopeful, compassionate, communal aspects of our species alone. Planets, stars and galaxies will come and go. It is the large-scale cooperation of sentient beings which is the radical metaphysical fact existing in spite of this reality, not because of it. We all have a choice – do we meet the world and others with compassion and an open hand, or not. It doesn’t matter if I’m unsuccessful in changing someone’s mind because they will continue regardless. Life is a fragile gift and one worth fighting for. It is a privilege to contribute to this fight.
This book has the potential to radicalise the incoming next generation of animal rights activists, what advice or words of motivation would you give them in their activist journey?
We probably only have one life. I urge all of you to use some of your time to grab the world by the horns, so to speak, and make your mark. Step out of the social norm and push the world in a more progressive direction. Abstaining from participation in oppression is wonderful and important however, spread awareness of suffering compels others to become active. So i congratulate you in being active. Shaking people out of the default status quo, is what causes compassionate revolutions.
Ignore indifference, disinterest and distracting debates on the practicalities of how a vegan world will be constructed and realised. Leave that for people to Google in their own time. Focus on motiving people to understand the ‘why’ because once the ‘why’ is established the ‘how’ follows easily.
Engage with people who are the most interested and embody the best chance of reconsidering our current ways of doing things. Tell them to make a stand and a statement. Tell them to go home and throw out everything their parents call food. Then go to Tesco’s, Walmart whatever you can afford and restock your fridge with delicious and nutritious food that does not involve unnecessary violence. Do it right now, today. this afternoon, this evening. Parents are largely stuck in traditional, conservative status quos. Unthinking and following convention and conventional wisdom originating in ‘carnistic’ thought. And for students at Cambridge, question your well-read, educated lecturers. Ask them why they engage in unnecessary violence. I want you to remind them all of their original innate compassion.
If you could compel those who read your book to alter one aspect of their lives to aid in the dismantling of ‘human supremacy’, what would you propose they change?
Don’t use the word ‘vegan’!
The word ‘vegan’ is based upon the premise that harming animals is normal and not harming animals warrants labelling. It plays into the default language of ‘carnism’. By describing ourselves as ‘vegan’, we are voluntarily climbing into a semantic box, prepared for us by people who pay for animals to be killed. I urge you to climb out this box, placed for us on the periphery, walk to the rational, normal middle ground and visibly occupy it. We don’t describe ourselves as anything other than the compassionate, rational norm, in any other contexts. We don’t have a word for ‘not racist’. Alternatively, we don’t introduce our friends as “not sexist” or “not homophobic”.
For this reason, I rarely, if ever, refer to myself or use the word ‘vegan’. I am not a “vegan” who eats “vegan food”. I eat food. It is you who needs to be described, because you think it’s acceptable to unnecessarily kill animals and then eat pieces of their bodies. Take full advantage of language because it shapes how we think, and so victims of violence deserve every opportunity in reinforcing our values and their protection. Every use of the word ‘vegan’ shifts attention away from the violence inflicted upon animals and its enablers.
Women across the globe disproportionately occupy the low-paid, ‘low-skill’, and ‘low-value’ jobs underpinning society – from childcare to cleaning. This idea of ‘occupational inequality’ can aid in understanding not only financial inequalities women are facing in various business contexts – such as the gendered pay gap – but also inequalities of treatment, with the occupations held by women determining their broader social and moral ‘worth’ and treatment.
OCCUPATIONAL INEQUALITY
Women are majoritarily occupying what have come to be colloquially deemed ‘low-skill’ jobs, characterised by their undervalued, insecure, and low-wage nature. These occupations exist in stark contrast to ‘white-collar’ jobs as well as those traditionally associated with corporate ‘business’.
These disproportionalities have set precedent, with women then beginning to limit the occupations they feel they can access and navigate, limiting their prospects, and in turn, chances for occupational mobility. This means women enter the workforce in sectors with diminished pay and security, with minimal training and opportunities for mobility, creating ‘imprisonment’ in these occupations.
Moreover, when women do enter these higher-paying occupations, it is often at a far lower level than their male counterparts, with men taking up most senior managerial roles, and being favoured in receiving promotions.
Working mothers are disadvantaged here, in that senior and managerial posts are often accompanied with rigidity, contrasting the habitual flexibility associated with less senior positions. Taking the unpredictability of matters such as childcare, it is evident that this lack of flexibility in managerial positions establishes an obstacle prohibiting working mothers from attaining these roles.
It is in this sense that male privilege and successes become almost self-confirming, with the success of men in business being deemed a meritocratic achievement, and thus evidence of men’s superiority in the realm of the workplace. What this narrative neglects to acknowledge, however, is the intrinsic ‘head start’ men have received, simply by virtue of being men.
There is a broader inequality of occupation in gendered terms, with men dominating (the coincidentally high paying) fields of technology, mechanics, and engineering, whilst women remain in jobs related to the arts and human services. This ‘naturalised’ division of labour establishes divisions of training and education, with individuals being classified, educated, and offered opportunities in relation to their ‘natural’ occupational position.
Here we see the emerging of gendered ‘occupational segregation’ in employment and business, as patterns of male success emerge, creating hierarchies of value and worth in the workplace. As such, orders and hierarchies are being curated based on gender, but traits associated with genders are also being substantiated in relation to the broader order. In tandem, gendered orders and ordered genders work together to maintain dual processes of the valuation of men and devaluation of women in business and workplace contexts.
STEREOTYPES & OCCUPATIONAL LIMITATIONS
When discussing the occupational roles women tend to disproportionately occupy, it is also worth noting the naturalisation of stereotypes which then inform women’s employment. Hegemonically, it has become standardised that business surrounding ‘care’ belongs to women, be it through cleaning or catering. There are explicit sexist undertones explaining the disproportionality of teachers as women, providing a maternal, nurturing figure for young children – a mother away from the home.
When discussing the occupational roles women tend to disproportionately occupy, it is also worth noting the naturalisation of stereotypes which then inform women’s employment. Hegemonically, it has become standardised that business surrounding ‘care’ belongs to women, be it through cleaning or catering. There are explicit sexist undertones explaining the disproportionality of teachers as women, providing a maternal, nurturing figure for young children – a mother away from the home. These ‘natural’ qualities of compassion and nurturing are also laid out in accordance with air hostesses, having a primary role of emotional labour, providing care and support for those around them. The key component underpinning these roles is that of serving, whether physically or emotionally, the woman is having to serve the needs and demands of others.
‘EMOTIONAL LABOUR’
It is in these service-based occupations that there is a disproportionate necessity to carry out ‘emotional labour’ – a term established by sociologist Arlie Hochschild. In this context, ‘emotional labour’ refers to the regulation and management of emotions and feelings to ‘match’ the required profile and expressions associated with the job.
This ranges from control over vocal tone and word choices, to facial expressions and having ‘welcoming’ body language. This requires bodily work to display a certain image, in tandem with mental work to suppress certain emotions, whilst manufacturing personas which demonstrate the ‘desirable’ traits. Jobs dominated by women such as those in customer service, nursing, and childcare require friendly temperaments, and, considering pervasive stereotypes surrounding women having an innate ‘approachability’ and ‘hospitable’ character. This contributes to the established divisions of occupations, as the low-paid and low-valued jobs in businesses requiring emotional labour are more likely to be given to women who are ‘naturally incline d’ to possess these characteristics. With women often situated in employment which demands of them stereotypically ‘feminine’ emotions and actions such as empathy and care, this contributes to occupational segregation through associating the physical and emotional traits of ‘men’ and ‘women’ with certain jobs. This creates more broadly a classificatory system determining which jobs are ‘for men’, in contrast to which jobs are ‘for women’.
DOMESTIC LABOUR
Moreover, there is an overt division between ‘work’ as labour which receives monetary compensation and ‘work’ as necessary labour which remains both expected, and unpaid. This stems from underlying gender essentialising narratives of what it means to be a ‘woman’, associating women as having their time and energy naturally devoted to household chores and familial labour.
This is the imprisoning axis of contemporary womanhood, as, in the ‘business’ and ‘economic’ sphere, women are undervalued, yet, also in their ‘home’ sphere, they are also being devalued and deprived of the opportunity to rest, having the burden of domestic labour weighing disproportionately upon them.
This is reminiscent of the binary nature of the business/home ‘spheres’, with men dominating ‘business’ and ‘work’, whilst women are the focal point of domestic ‘home’ life. Thus, when women enter the workforce, regardless of their occupational prestige, it is still a transgression beyond women’s expected commitments to the home life, creating a barrier whereby women remain outside the accepted standard of who can enter ‘business’.
prcarnetworld.com 