Almost all news stories in the UK at the moment seem to have
some relationship to, or are filtered through, the EU Referendum debate. I don’t
want to use this blog simply to talk about that debate but for those who may be
interested I will start this post with some links to various things I have
written on other sites on the topic (some are syndicated re-issues of the same
pieces).
So on the New Europeans site
there are four articles (and do look at the rest of this excellent site); two
pieces on The Conversation (again, there’s loads on this site worth looking
at) both of which are listed on the House
of Commons Library Referendum Research Briefing; another on
the Wake Up Europe site; another
on the EU Movement site; and another on the
Reasons2Remain site. Finally, there is also the transcript and audio of a
radio broadcast I took part in on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s
Rear Vision programme. Oh, and a
short letter in the Financial Times
(pay walled link but free access to up to a monthly limit). I’m also giving
numerous talks in town and village halls on the kinds of issues covered in
these posts but of course I can’t give links for these.
Anyway, on to today’s related topic, the news this week that
the EU Commission has
conditionally agreed to Turkey having visa-free access to the Schengen
area. The anti-EU press and campaign to leave the EU spun this in predictably,
but depressingly, dishonest ways, speaking of the
EU ‘opening the door to 79 million Turks’. What such formulations imply
(and get taken to mean) is a mix of downright lies, confusions and paranoia:
that Turks will now have the same free movement rights as EU citizens (they won’t;
the deal will apply to short term visits); that this will apply to the UK (it
won’t; the UK isn’t in the Schengen area); that the entire population would
move wholesale to the EU and the UK if it could (a nonsense, both obviously and
as was shown when exactly the
same claims were made about Bulgaria and Rumania when those countries
gained free movement rights).
The wider issue is that this is part of a deal under
which Turkey will control the flow of refugees into the EU, and more
particularly Greece by taking back all such refugees with an equivalent number
then being taken directly from the Turkey by the EU. That
deal is controversial, not for the ludicrous reasons given above but
because the UN has pointed out that it may be illegal and other bodies that it
may be immoral. Yet one has to recognize that, shabby as it may be, it is
primarily a response to the claims (not least from anti-EU groups in Britain)
that the EU has failed to deal with the so-called migration crisis (more
correctly, the refugee crisis).
One of the reasons this deal is, indeed, shabby is because
Turkey has recently become markedly more authoritarian and repressive, as I
have written about elsewhere on this blog and as events
just this week underscore, events which may
yet scupper the EU deal. In fact, if the EU is to be criticised, the real
criticism is that in the years that Turkey was reforming and improving its
human rights record its desire to join the EU was discouraged, contributing to
the downward path it has since followed. Especially in the light of what has
since happened in Syria, this now looks like a major strategic blunder by the
EU. Even so, the relentless hostility to Turkey’s membership by Eurosceptics
and worse in many EU countries since it applied to join (as long ago as 1987!)
bears much of the blame for this.
Why does any of this
matter for organization studies? One reason is the general point that I always
make about the inseparability of politics and organizations. The EU is the
biggest single economic entity in the world, after all. Another, narrower, reason is that
Turkey has an organization studies community of some significance and within
that a fragile critical management studies community. This is discussed by Beyza Oba and Mehmet Gençer in their chapter (‘The
Ghost in the System: Critical Management Studies in Turkey’) in the recent book
I co-edited (Critical Management Studies.
Global Voices, Local Accents). It may be too grandiose, or alternatively
too Eurocentric, but one reading of CMS is as the promulgation of the critical
strand of European Enlightenment thought within the imperialist, or anyway
dominant, strand of that thought.
I think that is a defensible
reading. It’s well-established that there is a direct line of thought from Kant
to Weber from whom there is an indirect line to Foucault; and a less direct
line, via Hegel, to Marx from whom there is a direct line to the Frankfurt
School. And although it is less well-established there is, I increasingly
think, a direct line from the Descartes-Spinoza bifurcation of
Enlightenment thought to the bifurcation between modernist and postmodernist
thought; dogmatic and sceptical rationality; positivism and constructivism.
Whatever the truth of that, it is an
obvious political reality that Turkey now stands at the pivot between the EU and
not just Syria but the wider Middle-East tragedy; and perhaps between Muslim
and non-Muslim worlds. What happens there matters enormously. It therefore
becomes important to approach Turkey not, to finish where I began, through the
narrow prism of the EU Referendum but as a conflicted boundary across which we –
we Europeans, and more narrowly we students of organizations – must reach to
support progressive, liberal and critical movements and people in Turkey.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.