TRAUMA, IDENTITY AND SEARCH FOR A SOLUTION IN

CYPRUS
By
Vamk D. Volkan
Published by SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social
Research. Insight Turkey, Vol.10, No.4, pp.95-110, 2008.
Abstract:
Massive traumas at the hands of enemies affect both individuals and
societies for decades. For the Cypriot Turks, their massive trauma started in
1963-1964, when they were forced to live in subhuman conditions in
enclaves geographically limited to three percent of the island for eleven
years. What happened during the summer of 1974 obviously traumatized the
Cypriot Greeks too on a massive scale. Psychoanalysts who have studied the
trans-generational transmission of massive social trauma inform us that if
the impact of such trauma is denied or repressed, it will still manifest itself in
various ways in new generations. The therapeutic way of dealing with
previous generations massive social traumas is not to deny or repress what
happened to the ancestors, but to be aware of the history. There could be no
solution on the island without understanding and addressing traumas of both
communities.
When Cypriot Greeks and Cypriot Turks, and in fact Greeks and Turks in
general, speak or write about what has happened in Cyprus during the last
five decades, they select and highlight two different events respectively as
the most traumatic and devastating for their communities. Greeks rank the
landing of the Turkish army on Cyprus in July 1974, and the dividing of the
island by a de facto border into northern Turkish and southern Greek
sections, as their most devastating societal trauma during the course of the
Cyprus problem. When Turks speak or write about the Cyprus problem
they go back to 1963 and recount their horror story when the Greek Cypriots,
who outnumbered Cypriot Turks four to one, forced the Cypriot Turks to live
in subhuman conditions in enclaves geographically limited to three percent
of the island. They lived this way, surrounded by their enemies, for eleven
years.

What happened during the summer of 1974, obviously

traumatized the Cypriot Greeks on a massive scale?

To this day, the Cypriot Turks experience of living in the enclaves continues
to influence their large-group identity issues. Following Erik Eriksons
remarks about an individuals identity, I define large-group identity, whether
it refers to religion, nationality, or ethnicity, as the subjective experience of
millions of peopletens of thousands of people in the case of Northern
Cyprusmost of whom will never meet during their lifetimes, who are linked
by a persistent sense of sameness, while sharing some characteristics with
others who belong to foreign groups. I will suggest that, other historical and
political factors aside, the Cypriot Turks present identity confusion is a
consequence of the massive societal trauma that occurred during the initial
decades of the Cyprus problem.
The landing of the Turkish army on the northern part of Cyprus in July 1974,
is usually described by Greeks as all hell breaking loose, a time when many
young Greek soldiers on the island were killed, others were captured and still
others became missing persons. Tens of thousands of Cypriot Greeks were
forced to escape to the southern part of the island as the Turkish soldiers
took the northern part. Greeks sometimes speak or write about systematic
rapes of Greek women by Turkish soldiers who, according to their
perceptions, also killed hundreds of civilians. The Cypriot Greek economy,
which is flourishing at present, also collapsed at that time.
What happened during the summer of 1974 obviously traumatized the Cypriot Greeks on a massive scale. When describing the disaster, Greek
speakers or writers refer to the war that took place that summer as a
Turkish invasion, and as an example of an outbreak of what they refer to in
general as centuries-old Turkish aggression against Greeks. Greeks lived
under Ottoman rule for about four centuries, and this long history of TurkishGreek relations has given rise to a pervasive feeling among Greeks of being
victimized. These feelings find expression in relation to the Turkish
invasion of the northern part of Cyprus.
For the Cypriot Turks, their massive trauma that started in 1963-1964 when
they were forced to live in enclaves. 2 Since between 25,000 and 30,000
Cypriot Turks became internally displaced during 1963-1964, and since at
that time the islands Turkish population was only 120,000, it would appear
that about a fifth of those living in the enclaves were refugees. The eleven
year history of the Cypriot Turkish enclaves may be divided into two periods.
During the first (1963-1968), Cypriot Turks were virtually imprisoned in the
enclaves, which covered only three percent of the island. During the second,
between 1968 and the summer of 1974, they wereallowed to move out of
them and pass through the Cypriot Greek territory to visit other enclaves.
Still, the land they were forced to flee in 1963-1964 was not available to
them for resettlement.

When Turkish scholars, politicians or students speak and write about the Cypriot Turks life in the enclaves, they refer directly or indirectly to their
humiliation and dehumanization at the hands of Cypriot Greeks, and to the
many human rights deprivations they suffered during this time. They also
describe their perception that they would have perished without the
presence of the United Nations Peace-keeping force and without the political
and military interference of Turks from mainland Turkey.
According to the Cypriot Turks, the events of the summer of 1974, were initiated by the Cypriot Greeks.There was a bloody coup among the Cypriot
Greeks just before the Turkish Army landed on the island.The coup was
organized by the Greek Military junta which overthrew Greek Cypriot
President Archbishop Makarios with an aim to unite the island with Greece.
The leader of this movement on the island was a Cypriot Greek named Nikos
Sampson. Photographs of Sampson holding a gun and standing in the pose of
a safari hunter, with one foot placed on the corpse of a Cypriot Turk, provided
concrete evidence giving credence to Cypriot Turkish expectations of their
annihilation at the hands of Cypriot Greeks. 3 At the very least, Sampsons
photographs illustrated the dehumanization of the Cypriot Turks.
Turkish spokespersons on the Cyprus problem describe the eleven years of
living in enclaves as being the source of Cypriot Turks foremost massive
trauma. They also reference it to support their position in the existing
political agreement among Greece, Turkey and Great Britain that justifies
Turkeys right to intervene and to argue other legitimate legal reasons that
would allow the Turkish armys coming to the island to save the Cypriot Turks
from being annihilated. They also accuse Greeks of not telling the truth when
they attempt to influence world opinion by referring to systematic rapes
which, according to the Turks, never occurred. Cypriot Turks living the
southern part of the island escaped to the north under dangerous
conditions.4 But in the end, when the island was de facto divided into the
northern Turkish and the southern Greek sections, Cypriot Turks felt safe, due
to the presence of the Turkish Military on the island.
Enemies perceive and present historical events differently. It is not surprising
that Turks and Greeks also perceive and present the Cyprus problem from
different perspectives. In my decadeslong experiences bringing various
enemy rep resentatives such as Israelis and Arabs, Russians and Estonians,
Serbs and Croats, and Georgians and South Ossetians together for years-long
series of unofficial diplomatic talks under the auspices of the University of
Virginias Center for the Mind and Human Interaction (CSMHI), I have become
keenly aware that spoken or written histories are both real and imagined. 5
Historian and psychoanalyst Peter Loewenberg states that when one
examines history, sometimes it is difficult to figure out when reality ends and
fantasy begins.6 Nevertheless, it is clear that the war during the summer of

1974 massively traumatized Cypriot Greeks. The most traumatizing event for
the Cypriot Turks, however, was a long-lasting, eleven-year state of
humiliation, dehumanization and annihilation anxiety, in spite of their
continued hope that one day mainland Turks would save them.
The Establishment of an invisible enclave:
Historical developments after the summer of 1974 have continued to
traumatize Cypriot Turks in a slow and often unrecognized fashion. A world
opinion accepting the Cypriot Greeks as victims and the Cypriot Turks (or
Turks in general) as aggressors has been established. Although this was
perhaps due to the failure of Turkish diplomacy, psychologically speaking it
might also be due to the Western Worlds stereotypical perceptions of Turks
as the heirs to the Ottomans, who were the enemies of the West. Whatever
the cause, the Greek side of the island was recognized legally as a state by
all nations, except Turkey, while only Turkey accepted the Turkish side as a
legal entity. This reality created an invisible enclave for the Cypriot Turks.
Cypriot Greeks managed to convince international organizations to impose
severe embargoes on the Cypriot Turks. Accordingly, trading directly with
foreign countries became impossible, and travel documents issued to the
Cypriot Turks by the northern Cypriot Turkish authorities were not recognized
by the international community. No direct flights to the Turkish side of the
island were permitted, and mail to and from the Turkish side could only travel
through Turkey. Cypriot Turks were not allowed to compete in sports in
foreign countries (except in Turkey.) Furthermore, there were no major
foreign investments in the Turkish side. 7 These embargoes have continued to
the present day. In other words, the northern part of Cyprus is inhabited by
people who do not have typical human rights, who do not have a large-group
identity that is legally accepted by billions of others surrounding them
(except Turks on the mainland) and who, in a sense, are second-class human
beings. After living in actual enclaves for eleven years, the Cypriot Turks from
1974 to the present time have continued to live in an invisible enclave.

For the Cypriot Turks, their massive trauma started in

1963-1964, when they were forced to live in enclaves!
Official diplomacy makes little room for noticing and caring about emotions.
The people in international organizations do not even consider feeling
ashamed about treating the Cypriot Turks as second-class world citizens for
decades while accepting the Greeks in the south of the island as regular
human beings. At the present time, Cypriot Turks in their day-to-day lives are
not constantly aware that they are still living in a symbolic enclave. Most of

the time, their experiences of second-class world citizenship are denied or

repressed, as they seemingly have felt safe since 1974, and they, like people
everywhere, have turned their attention to earning money, competing for
work and prestige with others in their communities, taking care of their
families, educating their children, and so on.
It is difficult to think about oneself as having an identity unrecognized by the
world community when there are many universities in northern Cyprus, and
students from at least forty different countries attend them. Tourists, also
from many countries, sightsee and visit gambling casinos and other
entertainment centers there. During recent years a building boom has
occurred in the northern part of the island that, in fact, is damaging its
natural beauty. Nevertheless, there has been endless political discussion of
the Cyprus problem by local leaders and international bodies that have
been trying to find an ultimate solution to this problem for decades, and
the reporting of such endless discussions in the news media has consistently
reminded the Cypriot Turks that they are, after all, not yet recognized as
world citizens equal to other human beings. The word isolation is the
current term used by the diplomatic world to describe the Cypriot Turks new
invisible enclave. In April 2004, the islands population voted for a United
Nations proposal to settle the Cyprus problem, the so-called Annan Plan,
which was supposedly designed to remove this isolation. The plan was
approved by 65 percent of the Cypriot Turks and rejected by 75 percent of
the Cypriot Greeks. The invisible enclave continues to exist. The failure of the
Annan plan has thus led to a re-traumatization of the Cypriot Turks.
Erasing History:
The recent history of Cyprus typically accepted by foreigners primarily
follows the lines of history as defined by Greeks. In the minds of most
foreigners, 1974, appears as the beginning of the Cyprus problem. In
international political and scholarly arenas, what happened on the island
before 1974 only gets lip service.

The word isolation is the current term used by the

diplomatic world to describe the Cypriot Turks new
invisible enclave.
What is very strange is that this perception also has spread among the new
generation of Turks within the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).
On March 30, 2007, a news item appeared in the Turkish daily newspaper

Milliyet. It reported that the Cypriot Turkish Government had received

$69,000 from the European Union to fund their proposals for further
development of a peaceful existence between Cypriot Turks and Cypriot
Greeks by modifying the social science books in the elementary schools.
Accordingly, the TRNCs new social science book for sixth graders does not
mention the chronic massive Turkish Cypriot trauma or even the Turkish
Militarys coming to the island in 1974. It contains one picture of Mustafa
Kemal Atatrk, the founder of modern Turkey, while the first President of
TRNC, Rauf Denkta, is not even mentioned.
Denkta is undoubtedly the main political figure whose name was associated
with the struggle of the Cypriot Turks during their lives in the enclaves and
for many years following 1974. In my mind, to erase his name along with the
many significant aspects of what happened to the Cypriot Turks during the
long history of theCyprus problem amounts to erasing history. Before going
further I should also mention that the Cypriot Greeks, according to this news
story and according my own investigation, have refused to modify their
school books.

The failure of the Annan plan has led to a retraumatization of the Cypriot Turks...

After reading this news story, during the summer of 2007, I wanted to know
what Cypriot Turkish young people knew about what had happened to their
grandparents or parents in 1963 and 1964, and during the subsequent
eleven years. I began to interview Cypriot Turks in their late teens and early
twenties, boys and girls, whenever I could. I should say that I was not
conducting scientific research; I simply wanted to develop a clearer general
impression of their views.
The results of my interviews surprised me. All of the young people I
interviewed seemed unaware of their ancestors recent history. I also learned
that, since the opening of the borders between the Greek and Turkish sides
after the Greek side became a member of the European Union, more than
250 Turkish Cypriot families began sending their children to secondary or
higher schools on the Greek side where no lessons are given on the massive
and chronic Cypriot Turkish trauma. I was also informed that 10-20 Cypriot
Turkish children are also attending Cypriot Greek elementary schools. The
Cypriot Turkish parents justification for sending their children to schools on
the Cypriot Greek side is their perception that the Cypriot Turkish schools are
inferior to the schools in the south, which are part of the EU system. Some
parents were aware that their children might experience humiliations after

crossing the border to the Cypriot Greek side, but in spite of this they
continued to send them there.
Psychoanalysts who have studied the trans-generational transmission of
massive social trauma inform us that if the impact of such trauma is denied
or repressed, it will still manifest itself in various ways in new generations. 8
The therapeutic way of dealing with previous generations massive social
traumas is not to deny or repress what happened to the ancestors, but to be
aware of the history and the nature of the devastating events faced by the
previous generations and to observe their influence on the new generations.
When historical continuity is available for new generations, they have a
better chance of strengthening their large-group identity and a better chance
of having a rapprochement with their ancestors enemys offspring. The
modification of the school books had taken place with a belief that pointed in
the opposite direction.
According to a high level Cypriot Turkish official, erasing aspects of the
recent Cypriot Turkish history from the school books serves the purpose of
not provoking enmity among Cypriot Turkish children against the Cypriot
Greeks. Such a noble thought had developed from suggestions by
individuals who belonged to various non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
that had been active in conflict resolution on the island. What they did not
understand is the reality of the"transgenerational transmission of trauma."
When such trauma is not recognized and not dealt with openly, its influence
may include the development of splits within the descendants of the victims,
as some of them become involved in denying their ancestors humiliation,
while others hold on to a transmitted task without denial and are
preoccupied with reversing the ancestors negative fate. Both of these
processes may be a part of large-group identity confusion within the affected
society.
In present-day Cyprus most of the new Turkish Cypriot generation seems to
hold onto a denial of the past to a greater extent than they accept being
reservoirs of their ancestors misery and associate tasks to reverse it.
Nevertheless, the young generation is only a part of the total population. The
presence in society of parents and grandparents who were directly
traumatized causes more problems and splits. Some of them, psychologically
speaking, still live in the 1960s and 1970s, while others strongly deny the
past and do not wish to remember the horrors associated with it.

The therapeutic way of dealing with previous

generations massive social traumas
is not to deny or repress what happened to the ancestors,
but to be aware of the history...

Reasons for erasing Part of History:

How did the younger generation of Cypriot Turks again I am generalizing
here begin to forget the history and the dramatic nature of their recent
ancestors experience? First, let me suggest that strong external pressure
and political propaganda have played a significant role in the denial and
repression of the massive trauma of their ancestors. Soon after 1974, some
American diplomats considered creating an integrated society on the island
as a solution to the Cyprus problem. I particularly remember one American
diplomats outburst, demanding that Cypriot Greeks and Cypriot Turks get
together and create a new nation. He said: What is wrong with people who
cannot get together and be a nation the way we have in America? For many
decades, the official and unofficial policy in the USA and in European
countries concerning the Cyprus problem seemed to center around the
creation, if you will, of a new large-group identity called Cypriot (Kbrsl,
in Turkish), minimizing the existing ethnic identities of being a Turk or a
Greek. Historically speaking there has never been a Cypriot ethnicity or nationality.9Nevertheless, uniting the total population under the term
Cypriotism received much attention and energy. According to Arshi Khan,
the term Cypriotism broadly refers to the idea that Cyprus has its own sui
generis character and thus must be viewed as an entity independent from
both the motherlands of the two main communities - Greece and Turkey. This
contrasts sharply with the view that dominates nationalist ideology (whether
Greek or Turkish Cypriot) and views Cyprus as an extension of the
motherlands.10 Khan also states that the concept Cypriotism was raised
more in the context of nation-building discourse 11 and considered as an
evolutionary process of mutual accommodation in societal and political
culture. 12
Since 1974, many non-governmental organizations have been active on the
island in support of this policy, sometimes openly and sometimes in hidden
ways. There was a perception that if the divided populations on the island
were linked by a common large-group identity, there would be a kind of
integration of the opposing sides and even an assimilation of the Cypriot
Turks by Cypriot Greeks. According to this perception, the Republic of Cyprus,
which is recognized by all other countries except Turkey, would be able to
house everyone in Cyprus in a peaceful fashion. The Cypriot Turkish
population, especially the younger generation who now can connect
themselves electronically with the rest of the world more than their
ancestors could ever imagine doing, are hungry for a legally recognized
large-group identity and are readier than the Cypriot Greek community to be
influenced by this seemingly international wish and propaganda.
The Cypriot Greeks are eager to accept such a solution when everybody
being a Cypriot would mean that they, the Cypriot Greeks, would be in

power, rule the whole island, and put the Cypriot Turks once more in another
invisible enclave called a minority status. Anyone can observe this
perception in the unchangeable political stance of the present Cypriot Greek
leaders. For the Cypriot Greeks, being Cypriot would be equal to being
Greek, or they would not be at all ready to put their Greek identity behind
a Cypriot identity.13 From a psychological point of view, to attempt a
common identity for Cypriot Greeks and Cypriot Turks is to chase an illusion.
After all, both Greeks and Turks have their own, long-idealized histories, and
to create one new nation by fusing them is as unrealistic as it would be to
create a new nation by linking or merging Arabs and Israelis.
For some time now, especially after the failure of the Annan Plan, Americans
and other foreigners who are assigned the task of finding a solution for the
Cyprus problem have become more and more aware that the logical
solution of creating Cypriotism described above is only an illusion. The
present focus seems to be on a more realistic strategy to find a way for
Cypriot Greeks and Cypriot Turks to hold on to their national identities while
living side by side. Nevertheless, the influence of the long-lasting illusionary
strategy to get rid of the Cyprus problem through an emphasis on
Cypriotism has had an impact on the Cypriot Turks who were hungry for a
legal identity that would not be humiliating. It helped to create identity
confusion among the Cypriot Turks, especially the younger generation, which
Cypriot Greeks were spared.
Identity Confusion:
After experiencing an initial increased we-ness, and exaggerated
nationalistic feelings and excitement over being free during the years
following 1974, large-group identity splits began to appear clearly in TRNC.
There are Turks who see themselves as the natural extension of their
brothers and sisters in mainland Turkey. There are Turks who defensively feel
more Westernized and superior to the Turks who settled on the island from
mainland Turkey after 1974. And there are those who emphasize being
Cypriots over being Turks. There are simply Cypriots who feel closer to
Cypriot Greeks than to mainland Turks, in spite of being rejected by the
Cypriot Greeks again and again. A few of them are seen wearing silver
crosses around their necks, even though they have no education in or interest in being Christian. There are those wanting salvation through being
citizens of the European Union. (According to reliable sources, 80,000
Cypriot Turks have obtained EU passports after going to the Greek side and
applying for them.)
There are those who remain grateful to the Turkish Military that saved their
grandparents and parents from a horrible fate. And there are those who see
the Turkish military as an unwanted dominant power in Northern Cyprus. Unfortunately too, at the present time religion is being used by the ruling

political party in Turkey as a tool for political gains in Turkey, creating, in my

mind, a dangerous religious versus secular debate. This direction seems
to be a deliberate attempt to weaken the established modern Turkish identity
that came about after the Atatrk revolution of the 1920s. Cypriot Turks are
likely the most secular Moslems in the world, but if the struggle on the
mainland is brought to Northern Cyprus, the identity confusion there will be
monumental. I believe that soon there may be secular Cypriot Turks versus
religious ones.
Large-group identity issues among the Cypriot Turks have began to exhibit
themselves in some universities in Northern Cyprus, creating serious
concerns among university authorities. For example, it has been observed
that Cypriot Turkish university students have begun to segregate themselves
from their fellow university students from mainland Turkey. If a young man or
woman from a Cypriot Turkish group starts dating someone from among the
students from Turkey, or vice versa, the couple becomes socially isolated.
Cypriot Turkish university students refer to students from Turkey as extreme
religious or extreme nationalist individuals and attempt to differentiate
their large-group identity from that of mainland Turks. This situation,
according to some university authorities whom I interviewed, could
conceivably lead to violence.
The Influence of Massive Trauma:
The external international players wishing to find an illusionary solution for
the Cyprus problem have found a psychological internal atmosphere
among the Cypriot Turks that initiate large-group identity problems for them.
As I mentioned above, this atmosphere was created because of the Cypriot
Turks massive trauma at the hands of Cypriot Greeks. But before focusing
more on the identity confusion in TRNC, let us have a closer look at what I
mean by a massive social trauma and examine its consequences.
Shared catastrophes are of various types. Some are natural, such as tropical
storms, tsunamis or raging fires. Even though they cause societal grief and
anxiety, when nature shows its fury, victims of massive destruction tend to
ultimately accept the event as Fate or the will of God. 14 Some societal
catastrophes are due to accidental man-made disasters, like the one that
occurred in 1986, in Chernobyl. Sometimes, the assassination of a political
leader causes a shared trauma, as happened after the assassinations of John
F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King in the USA and of Yitzak Rabin in Israel.
My focus here is on massive traumas due to deliberate actions by an enemy
group, as occur in wars or war-like conditions.
When such trauma is not recognized and not dealt with openly, its influence
may include the development of splits within the descendants of the victims.

When a massive trauma results from war or war-like conditions, there is an

identifiable enemy or oppressive large group that has deliberately inflicted
pain, suffering and helplessness on its victims. Such a trauma affects the
victimized society in ways that are different from the effects of natural or
accidental disasters or the unexpected loss of a leader. In such situations
large-group identity issues automatically become inflamed. 15 Enemies hurt,
kill people and destroy their environments because the affected large-group
has a different large-group identity.
When one large group traumatizes another group, many traumatized individuals may suffer for years to come. We have names for such individuals
sufferings, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD.) Large groups are
made up of people. Thus, shared responses to massive trauma reflect
aspects of individual responses. But once large-group responses begin to
appear, they take on lives of their own and exhibit themselves in societal,
cultural or political processes.16 Imagine a large group as thousands or
millions of people living under a huge tent. The tents canvas is their largegroup identity.
When there is wear and tear on this canvas, everyone under the
tent (except some minority dissenters) becomes involved in the
reparation and maintenance of the canvas. If the helplessness
continues, they experience the following:
1- Shared sense of shame, humiliation and victimization.
2- Shared sense of guilt for surviving while others perished.
3- Shared (defensive) identification with the oppressor.
4- Shared difficulty or even inability to mourn losses.
When such experiences continue and the people cannot find
adaptive solutions for them, they become involved in a fifth shared
experience:
5- Shared transgenerational transmission of trauma.

The transgenerational transmission of shared massive trauma and its influence on the mental health and societal issues of future generations has
recently been studied extensively, especially with reference to the second

and third generations of Holocaust survivors and others directly traumatized

under the Third Reich.
It is beyond the scope of this presentation to delve deeply into how this
transgenerational transmission occurs. Briefly, tasks for finding solutions for
the unacceptable influences of the first four shared experiences listed above
are unconsciously given to the next generation(s). Within the context of the
existing historical, societal, legal, and economic conditions, the next
generations unconsciously attempt to carry out these tasks. Their attempts
manifest themselves in various societal and political processes, or at least
are linked to such processes. If the historical conditions are not suitable for
the offspring to bring these tasks to conclusion, by reversing humiliation and
completing mourning, such tasks are passed to future generations. They may
also undergo a change of function. For example, unsuccessful attempts to
reverse ancestors humiliation may become an idealization of and
preoccupation with victimhood. Identification with the oppressor may evolve
into aggressive acts turned inward. Maurice Apprey 19 illustrates how the
massive trauma experienced by the ancestors of African-Americans plays a
major role in black-on-black crimes in the United States. Some observable
characteristics that are associated with large-group identity issues are linked
to the unfinished tasks associated with the ancestors massive trauma at the
hand of others.

Cypriot Turks Massive Trauma and Its Influence on Their

Present Identity Confusion!
Cypriot Turks who lived in enclaves for eleven years shared an intensive
sense of humiliation, shame, victimization, survival guilt and difficulty of
mourning. They experienced an inability to be assertive, identified with the
oppressor, could not mourn their losses and were involved in
transgenerational transmissions. After 1974, they continued to live in an
invisible enclave.
The new generations attempt to resolve the harmful influences of previous
generations massive trauma has not always been an adaptive one. This
factor plays a role in the present identity confusion described above. The
attempt to erase the parents and grandparents history in the enclaves is
connected with denial that they are offspring of humiliated, shamed and
victimized parents, as well as a general denial of their losses. Data I collected
in my interviews confirms this perception. Some young persons I interviewed
who preferred a Cypriot identity and a psychological closeness with the
Cypriot Greeks told stories reflecting their refusal to identity with degraded
parental figures. Some others whose grandparents played a significant role in

raising them and who repeatedly told them heroic tales of the Cypriot Turks
during the struggle, were holding on to an opposite large-group identity
feeling; they were more nationalistic. I heard how the grandparents
defensively instilled in them an exaggerated Turkishness which reflected a
denial of humiliation, shame and victimization.
Large-group identity confusion among Cypriot Turks in some cases reflects
identification with the aggressor and turning aggression inward. In other
words, Cypriot Turkish society treats itself the same way the enemy did.
This process tears apart the cohesion within the society and splits the shared
sense of we-ness among the people under the same metaphorical big tent.
The divisions within Cypriot Turkish society go beyond expected typical
investments usually found in competing political parties. At the present time
in TRNC, members of competing political parties are perceived as if they
belong to different large-group identities. While speaking with some persons
in authority in Northern Cyprus during the fall of 2007, I realized that these
individuals with political authority are aware of these rather malignant
divisions in Northern Cyprus and wish to do something about them. The
large-group identity confusion among the Cypriot Turks, furthermore, is
related to another psychological phenomenon which can be described as
enclave mentality.

The present focus seems to be on a more realistic

strategy to find a way for Cypriot Greeks
and Cypriot Turks to hold on to their national identities
while living side by side.
Enclave Mentality and Its Modification:
While experiencing life within the actual enclaves, people felt close to one
another; they were brothers and sisters facing the same unbearable fate.
But this togetherness had certain peculiarities. In a group with an enclave
mentality no one can improve his or her status without envy and contempt.
To have a shining starin an enclave disturbs the large-group identity
associated with masochism, humiliation and helpless rage. When an enclave
mentality continues to be present after the traumatic environment no longer
exists, as is the case in TRNC, the community still cannot have a jewel in the
middle of the mud. The society directly or indirectly, and often without being
aware of the process, attempts to sink the shining person (or organization)
into the shared humiliated and shamed mess in order not to disturb the
shared enclave mentality. I have observed this not only in the Cypriot Turks
real and later invisible enclaves, but also in other locations in the world
where refugees or internally displaced people are located.

During the 1974, war some Cypriot Turks found many valuable items (called
ganimets in Turkish) left by Cypriot Greeks escaping to the south. People
wondered who had ganimets, and, in a sense, who became jewels in the
mud. Later Cypriot Turks who had escaped from the south and Turks who
were associated with the mainland Turkish forces involved in the 1974 events
and granted permission to settle in North Cyprus were given properties,
houses and fields left behind by the fleeing Cypriot Greeks. The reality of
ganimets and the property distributions disturbed the enclave mentality,
modified it and infused it with envy and selfishness. Some people became
rich while others remained poor. Stories were circulated about how one
man benefited greatly after the war, while his brother remained poor.
Feelings of injustice and envy created splits within the Cypriot Turkish
community and these splits in turn became connected with identity
confusion.
Last Words:
There is no question that, since 1974, there have been societal processes in
Northern Cyprus that can be seen as successful movements. By all
indications TRNC, a state not recognized by the world, except Turkey, is a
place where democratic principles are held strongly during political elections
and where sharing secular ideas is typical. During recent years the TRNCs
economy has improved. What is needed however is to find ways to erase the
influence that enclave mentality in its original or modified versions still has
on the society. The recent international inclination to move away from the
illusory concept of Cypriotism and approach the resolution of the Cyprus
problem by bringing together two parties as equals without disturbing their
large-group identities is a source of hope.
During the fall of 2008, three Cypriot Greeks competed for the presidency of
the Greek side, known internationally as the Republic of Cyprus. The
incumbent president, Tassos Papadopulos, was ousted during the first round
of elections in November. This was a big surprise. The new political leader of
Greek Cyprus, Demetris Christofias, is perceived to be pro-solution.
On February 19, 2008, Cyprus Mail, the prominent daily newspaper which is
published on the Greek side in English, printed an important news item. The
newspaper had learned that the United Nations had been making plans to
extricate itself from the Cyprus quagmire had Papadopoulos been re-elected.
This would have meant international acceptance of a permanent partition of
the island. Now there appears to be new hope for further negotiations.
What I know about the psychology of both sides discourages me from being
excited about the possibility of finding an international solution. I also fear
the resurgence of the oldCypriotism concept. Unfortunately, I believe that
Cypriot Turks will continue to live in an invisible enclave for some time to
come. Looking at the past should not inflame an affected society to become

revengeful, but it should provide a realistic foundation for a psychologically

informed and workable strategy for co-existence as neighbors.
REFERENCES:
1- E.H. Erikson, (1956.) The Problem of Ego Identity. In
American Psychoanalytic Association, No.4, pp.56-121.

Journal of the

2- V.D.Volkan, (1979.) CyprusWar and Adaptation: A Psychoanalytic

Hiostory of Two Ethnic Groups in Conflict. University Press of Virginia.