The Interviewees
Interview with Enno Maessen - May 2023
1- Despite some high profile destruction of seemingly protected buildings such as Emek Cinema the main through-fare and the buildings facing it seem to have survived pretty well if we exclude the glass frontage widening for modern shopping needs on their street levels, compared to many European cities’ shopping districts. Do you think even with the least sensitive municipalities past there was still a degree of facade preservation in Beyoğlu that we may not give credit to?
Seemingly protected buildings might suggest there is controversy over the status of these buildings. There is not, these buildings have been listed since the 1970s. The destruction of buildings facing İstiklal Caddesi pales next to those of the adjacent neighbourhoods (e.g. Tarlabaşı, Tophane, Cihangir). Yet, there are still considerable parts around the central axis – from Odakule to Emek Cinema and Demirören – that have been destroyed. Apart from destruction there is also the issue of repurposing of buildings, through which significant parts of the buildings history and heritage are lost and which is in many cases a direct effect of real estate speculation. The fact that a significant part of these buildings – or at least their façades - have survived is partly thanks to 50-year old legislation, the strong involvement of NGOs such as the Chamber of Architects and private individuals. That being said, it is critical to avoid any form of apologetic framing in an urban context where – also in recent years – so much destruction of material and immaterial heritage took place.
2- Beyoğlu was where the massive ‘Yeşilçam’ film industry from around 1960s to 1980s released and showcased their films of various qualities but clearly there was a common thread to sustain the audience for this huge output. Do you think the main audience were the generation who had within a generation migrated to the big city from the countryside and trying to adapt to the new environment and the films escapism and moral messaging perhaps chimed with them? Was it the rise of multi-channel television options that mostly killed off this film industry?
The audience of these films was mixed, in terms of age, gender and class. Specific audiences were targeted by sub-branches of the industry of course, but it would be complicated – especially in the early years of Yeşilçam – to pinpoint a specific audience. Cinemas and cinema culture boomed across the country, not just in Istanbul. We can say that the rise of television marked the beginning of the end for Yeşilçam and there was a period of transition through video tapes. Still, Yeşilçam as a cultural archive lives on in Turkey’s society and contemporary cinema and the arts.
3- The term ‘International Institutions’ in the sub-title of your book perhaps has its fuzzy edges? Clearly foreign language schools came under this definition as your study shows, resisting efforts to fully Turkify them from the authorities. To what extent would you extend the ‘foreignness’ of other institutions such as Catholic / Protestant churches of which there is no shortage in Beyoğlu? Do you think one of the defining characteristics of Beyoğlu as opposed to other neighbourhoods of Istanbul is that the line between foreign versus local is ill defined?
In the case of religious institutions the position of (former) foreign protectorates or churches that were set up for migrant communities from other parts of Europe, poses a complication in considering these institutions as ‘local’. Yet, Beyoğlu holds a great amount of places of congregation that regardless of their religion should not be considered as foreign. Even in the case of for instance ‘Italian’ churches that have been present since the early modern period, one may question the extent to which this is a ‘non-indigenous’ institution. This issue is more prevalent in Beyoğlu, but there are various examples of institutions and neighbourhoods where we say that the issue is not so much the dichotomy between local and foreign, but much rather the representation of that dichotomy. We should avoid falling for the trap of methodological nationalisms here.
4- Recently the Istanbul Municipality has restored 2 culturally significant buildings in Beyoğlu, both with a strong foreign / Levantine link: Metro Han (the former offices of the Tünel funicular company) and Botter Han (the former tailor house of the Dutch tailor to Sultan Abdulaziz). Do you think this positive development creates its own challenges of how these specialist spaces can be brought to the use to serve a totally different demographic now occupying the neigbourhood or can you see through these investments a rejuvenation of the neighbourhood? Would you also consider many local officials in contrast to those in the past seem to see preservation as part of their own identity affirmation and sustainability, with a feel-good political message thrown in?
This is a complicated question. The repurposing of buildings is a complex issue in any urban context that questions the boundaries of what is public and what is not. The initiative of the metropolitan municipality is certainly praiseworthy, especially in comparison to the neoliberal monstrosities and destruction of Galataport. It is important to be critical of the motives of politicians surely, but the İBB (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality) since the recent shift in mayorship has made considerably more efforts to consult and work with experts, academics and civil society. That in itself is a major improvement over previous administrations.
5- Accessing institutional archives seems to have been a major challenge for you. Clearly a good many were not open to you with different excuses given. Do you think a lot of that ‘privacy’ was based on fear, that of being ‘exposed’ too much, either as an institution with foreign origins or the degree to which archives were not kept and preserved in a methodical way perhaps? Do you think that is a dangerous sign that many of these archives are destined to become ‘too sensitive to ever reveal’, so some could be deliberately destroyed to ‘preserve the institution’s reputation’?
I think there is a variety of reasons as to why institutions or individuals decide to not grant historians access (which is a problem for most historians working in Turkey). In some cases there is the issue of privacy, in others that of fear. In most, however, it is also an issue of power display. I cannot say much about what the risks are for the future with regards to that, other than that various institutions have treated their archives with considerable negligence unfortunately. Next to that, it is important to ask the following question as an institution: if not for posterity and academic research, what are we preserving these archives for? That should obviously not be read as a call for destruction or dumping archives, but to consider the social and cultural function of archives and responsibilities that come with keeping archives.
6- In 2021 a Turkish Netflix series titled ‘Kulüp’ though fictional touched on many formerly taboo subjects such as the WW2 period discriminatory ‘wealth tax’ and the nationalistic fuelled anti-Greek sentiment leading to the 1955 pogrom epicentred on Beyoğlu. Do you think such an honest portrayal of Turkish ultra-nationalistic sentiment and its consequences would have been impossible only a generation before and do you think on a wider scale Turkish society recognises what made Beyoğlu what it still is to a degree is the patchwork of minorities it once incorporated and indeed is worth celebrating? Do you see an optimism in this public chiming to this sense of tolerance, though viewed from the prism of nostalgia?
Also in past generations efforts have been made to discuss this massive trauma, albeit perhaps not with the popular impact as Kulüp. It is noteworthy that the series was produced for Netflix, rather than a Turkish broadcaster. Recognition is growing as regards to the traumas that were perpetrated in the name of Turkish nationalism, but I do not think this is a majority’s perspective. Due to the admixture of global capitalism that has been poured over Beyoğlu, I would also not be surprised if many visitors are not entirely aware of the district’s history.
7- Clearly you have met some very colourful characters during your research on the urban history of Beyoglu, but doing a detailed oral history was clearly not your remit. Do you think there is scope for a deeper dive into individual stories and memory here or has it been done to a satisfactory level by others in your opinion?
There certainly still is room for further work on this history, especially also through oral testimonies. Part of this has been done by historians and anthropologists. Their work, however, also shows how complicated such a project is, in terms of finding informants, language competences, financing, sustainability, publicity, etcetera.
8- Do you think Beyoğlu deserves to have a dedicated archive centre specifically on its own social and building history? Do you think the material and outside interest would be sufficient to warrant that?
That is an interesting and a difficult proposition. Beyoğlu already houses a large amount of archives and research centres that do great work on Beyoğlu and other issues. There is a great deal of interconnectedness between these institutions. If anything, it would be important to further strengthen the ties between these institutions, their archives and promote awareness on the significance of their local environment.
Interview conducted by Craig Encer