In Vienna Austria, four Turkish bus drivers have been terminated due to their use of a symbol known as “the grey wolf”. This symbol, whose origins date as far back as the 1970’s, was used in Turkey by young political activists engaging in street battles against leftist organizations and the “rabia”, another hand sign, today is associated with the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), a party closely associated with the party of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. President Erdogan has been using this symbol since the Muslim Brotherhood’s coup d’état in Egypt.
There are two bodies at work here that serve to identify points of discussion of global leadership: on the one hand are the actions of the state of Austria; and on the other is the state of Turkey. This article brings to light several aspects of cultural diversity in global leadership: symbols/gestures, deficient conflict resolution, and possible ethnocentrism.
In 2014 Austria passed a law banning the use of particular symbols or gestures that both Ankara and the European Union found to be associated with extremist terrorism. This act became known as the Symbols Act. The Symbols Act outlawed use of the “bozkurt”, or the “Grey Wolf”, “the rabia”, as well as signs used by the PKK, an extremist group which has been outlawed by the United Kingdom. The bozkurt is used by the MHP: a legal political entity associated with the ruling political party in Turkey. The rabia is used by many Muslims in countries including and outside of Turkey; while the PKK’s sign is used by Kurdish ethnicities within Turkey who have been trying to assert their political influence over that nation’s government for some time (Ahval. Turkey blasts Austria…2020).
Austrian leadership appears to have included in their ban both symbols of the PKK party as well as those legal political parties not deemed extremist organizations. This action reflects both ethnocentrism, egocentrism, and stereotyping on the part of its leadership. Though of a different ethnicity, the assumption inherent in the actions of the legislature to group the symbols of a known extremist group with that of legal political entities implies stereotypical behavior and an assumption on the part of the Austrian government that all Turkish people or those from that region are alike which defines the meaning of ethnocentrism. It also implies a lack of diversity and inclusion within that country. There exists a contingency of Austria Turks in that country and the Turkish President accused Austrian leadership of both grouping extremist Muslims and non-extremist Muslims together as well as failing to address the white nationalist attitudes apparently inherent in its own population. Such an action, if true, would indicate egocentrism which would bring into question the true motives of leadership in passing legislation detrimental to groups of one ethnicity but failing to address the actions of those of its own citizenship. As the text, Managing Cultural Differences states, judging a person or group by their look as distinguished from their actions implies a surface-level diversity and can lead to stereotyping, ethnocentrism, or racism. The act of displaying this symbol was a surface-level display (physical, outward) of diversity emanating from the deep-level diversity (those values and beliefs) held by the Turkish people. To contrast, had the legislature banned all symbols associated with terrorist or extremist groups, even those whose origins may have originated in its own country from white nationalists, then its move in passing the Symbols Act would likely be construed as an unbiased and impartial act to eliminate acts or symbols of terrorism. If inclusion was present in that country and meaningful attempts to understand the culture and history of the Turkish people were made, then perhaps the legislature would have designed the Act with more care and addressed the actions of those in its own country whose behavior falls outside of its values.
The values of a culture are the attitudes possessed by the people which drives their actions which in turn reinforces their culture. With that being said, the culture of a people has a reciprocating effect on the formation of those values by instilling them in those of its region, thus creating a cyclical effect. And those within a culture receive their vertical identity from their parents and caregivers which are those traits and features that characterize them and make them who they are; while they receive their horizontal identity from their peers and others outside of this familial circle.
Another article (SETA 2018) also suggests anti-Muslim sentiments on the part of the Austrian government but the author alludes to another possibility: an act by the legislature to restrain the political involvement of a sect of its society in an effort to prevent them from obtaining political strength. He implies that Austria is taking this position against Muslims yet fails to demonstrate how this act affects anyone but Turks living in Austria.
The other major component of this article is that of the Turkish people to include its President Erdogan. As this author has learned in Managing Cultural Differences, symbols are an expression of one’s culture which contains the historical values, behaviors, history, experience, and culture of a people. Considering this and what the meaning of one symbol may mean to one culture holds no bearing on how another culture may view it. One does not know the history of Austria with this symbol or the others implicated in the Symbols Act of 2014. The Turkish citizens currently residing in Austria could perhaps aid in their own inclusion by being sensitive to the values of their host nation, realizing that there is likely a cultural difference in values that exists as well as a difference in language. One of the reasons this conflict between these two groups may exist is a failure on either one or both parties to integrate this group into the culture of Austria or identify their similarities. Since it is known that differences between groups are not as extensive as those within groups, opportunity exists to identify similarities and improve relations between the two. As Hofstede suggests (Moran 2014) culture exists within experiences which he suggests can be either universal, collective, or individual. The universal experiences are those that we all share and would be an excellent starting point in a discussion of diversity between two varied cultures; while those experiences that are collective house the characteristics of culture, and it is likely there the differences will be found.
In summary, this article displays several topics addressing global leadership and the many pitfalls one can encounter when dealing with those from other cultural backgrounds. Turkish President Erdogan’s response to Austria’s legislative move in terminating the employment of the four bus drivers as a result of the passage of the Symbols Act of 2014 states that these actions are hurting bilateral relations between the two nations (Ahval. Turkey condemns Austria…2020). This statement displays the impact that lack of diversity and cultural training and understanding can have on not only the people within a region but nations at large and displays the ripple effect that can occur.
Resources
Ahval. Turkey Blasts Austria for banning Turkish nationalist and Islamic symbols. Last accessed February 06, 2020 at 00:48 https://ahvalnews.com/austria-turkey/turkey-blasts-austria-banning-turkish-nationalist-and-islamist-symbols
Ahval. Turkey condemns Austria ban on grey wolves symbol. Last accessed February 06, 2020 at 00:52https://ahvalnews.com/austria-turkey/turkey-condemns-austrian-ban-grey-wolves-symbol
SETA. (2018). Last accessed February 06, 2020 at 01:11 https://setav.org/en/assets/uploads/2018/12/49_Perspective.pdf
Moran, Abramson, Moran. (2014). Managing Cultural Differences. (9th ed.). (New York: Routledge)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.