A review of Bachtyar Ali’s brief article: “Anti Text” 1
Kurdishaspect.com - By Karim Hasan
I will not undertake a textual review of the structure of the article; rather will focus on the content and consistencies of the method and the main concepts, which are the subject of concern of the author to shows whether a “shared understanding” exists between the author my review-reading.
If a possible difference between my review characterizes my approach, then, a space for dialogue in pursuit of knowledge on this subject-matter in academic and scholarly activities may be welcomed. The central concerns of the article are the following concepts, not words: “understanding”, “lack of understanding”, “text” and “anti-text”. I have offered a couple of suggestions in the end.
I did not find an explanation, a definition, an example of "a text". The main focus of the article is: what is not a text, how a text is disrespected, trivialised, surrounded, pressured to isolation and to oppression...etc. In similar direction as to what is not a text, the article indicates in the system of oppression of the/a text, there are four examples of the ways in which the/a text is neglected and destroyed.
Without defining, explaining and providing an example of a text, it is a problem to write and to define, to explain “anti-text”. The definition of “anti-text” is ‘the collection of news media production of news paper, TV and Radio’ - simply journalistic activities of specific category. While according to the explanation provided in the article, media produces anti-text, yet an example of “a text” has not been given.
In the third point of the four systematic attacks on the/a “text”, the article indicates ‘in the antitext culture, there should not be an intellectual capacity to separate and to recognize the difference between "text" and "anti-text". From this point, accepting the surface (form) of the/a “text” is part of the game that the system is playing with covering/hiding the/a "text".
In the article the fourth point of systematic attacks on the/a “text makes further attempt to prove the distinction and the war between the “form” and “content”. The article is concluded with this statement: ‘…we live in the anti-text world today’. Again, the article does not contain a definition, an explanation and an example of “a text”. An important question: is not a text – is the/a body of any written piece or any composed structure of expression for reading, which is readable?
It is very unclear to me what type of understanding the article is making reference to: do you mean ‘an understanding that generates agreements and consensuses’? This type of understanding is a different category understanding from the capacity and the ability level of intelligence and knowledge to understand.
I am not convinced is it accurate as you point out the academics, scholars, intellectuals of the world have problem of understanding and definition of understanding due to lack of capacity, knowledge and intellectual power. My understanding is that it is the consent to agreement and to consensuses that scholars, intellectuals and academics are having over projects, world issues, the distribution of human and natural resources.
In context and relative to available knowledge in Kurdistan and among Kurdish scholars, intellectuals and academics, similar explanation to that of world academics and scholars is accurate about understanding and lack of understanding. Again, an explanation, a definition and an example of “understanding” and “lack of understanding” were necessary.
My suggestion is: it does not matter how complicated and advanced a discussion, a subject of a writing/research project, and an article may be, the author will do a great courtesy for his own good and for his readers to avoid misunderstanding, which is possible by constructing and passing his or her message(s) as accurately as possible to avoid misunderstanding and to avoid the oppression of his or her text.
Specifically, in Kurdistan, among Kurdish intellectuals, academics, scholars, administrators, government officials, and politicians must be clear understanding for the purpose of consensus, agreements and dialogue. It is not matter how complex a topic, a subject, text may be, clarity helps avoiding miscommunication and distorted communications. The analyst must take control of the text that he is writing and have analyzed. A text can be simple, yet, analytical.
* A book I suggest, if you already have not seen: Walzer, Michael (1993) “Spheres of Justice: A Defence of pluralism and Equality”. It contains a section about “shared understanding”, which is an important concept in the development of communication and dialogue among communities. Walzer is a distinguished American scholar.
I was intending to write a complete review and analysis. I did not find it necessary at this point. I hope this brief review, and the suggestions will contribute in positive ways.
* This review is courtesy of Kurdish friendship, Kurdish and Kurdistan’s rights and freedoms.
Her bji u serkeutu bet.