Conclusion
In The Future of Nostalgia Svetlana Boym (2001) claims that ‘‘the twentieth
century began with a futuristic utopia and ended with nostalgia’’ (xiv). The
founding generation of the Turkish Republic experienced all stages of this
process. Its members were born in an age when it was considered shame-
ful and degrading to long for the past. As this book was written, they were
completing their lives with a deep nostalgia for their days of contentment
with the present and of anticipation for the future. Boym also suggests that
the millennial nostalgia came in two forms: restorative and reflexive. In her
typology, ‘‘restorative nostalgia stresses nostos and attempts a transhistori-
cal reconstruction of the lost home. Reflective nostalgia thrives in algia, the
longing itself, and delays the homecoming’’ (xviii). Nationalist and re-
ligious revivalist movements with a single plot belong to the former type,
while the homesickness of exiles who do not plan to return are of the
second type.
Although helpful conceptually, a purely restorative nostalgia, as the
nostalgia for the single-party regime of the early republic demonstrates,
proves di≈cult to maintain, especially if it is experienced by individuals,
rather than circulated in political pamphlets. At first sight, the new Kema-
list nostalgia appears closer to a restorative one in the sense that it ‘‘evokes
national past and future’’ (49), ‘‘gravitates towards collective pictorial sym-
Previous Page Next Page