He Is The Free Voice Of The Silent World Analysis
. Her husband, a strong advocate of Erdoğan listens to his speeches constantly. Usually as the mother is annoyed by the voice of Erdoğan she asks her husband to listen to it in another room, but she still can hear Erdoğan’s voice when her husband is at home. Consequently when her husband is not at home, Erdoğan’s voice is also gone. In this case where she misses her husband, she symbolically fills the absence of him by opening Erdoğan’s speech. Erdoğan’s voice resonating in the house makes her feel that her husband is present at home. The interconnectedness of voice and presence is an issue that Derrida touches upon, “the voice associated with time, is represented as an acoustic signifier that is more or less collapsed with the signified, hence
…show more content…
Although this silence slowly began to break off in the following years, AKP regime became the first period where the distribution of voices was eventually reconfigured. The more religious camps found their voice in AKP especially in Erdoğan who became a symbol of their unity. Therefore it is no surprise that the song written for him starts with the lines, “He is the vibrant voice of the oppressed, he is the free voice of the silent world,” and continues with indicating that he “takes his power from the nation”. The reconfiguration of the voices starting with the AKP regime although was strongly advocated by certain parties from conservatives and liberals, the modus operandi of AKP changed within time; from a heterogeneous network that maintained a liberal political agenda it turned into a relatively more homogenized unity that operates though identity politics. Accordingly as AKP continued to win the elections, the volume of Erdoğan’s voice increased, and his tone became more aggressive. His voice became more authoritarian, often transcending the national law; what he said would eventually be done even if it didn’t fit the constitution. He even continued to give “unofficial” speeches for AKP in the general elections after he quit the party and became the President. This change can be read as a transformation of his voice to what Dolar defines as the authoritarian voice. Dolar argues that, “all phenomena of totalitarianism tend to hinge overbearingly on the voice, which in a quid pro quo to replace the authority of the letter, or put its validity into question,” (2006, 116). As the volume of Erdoğan increased it started to be perceived as the source of law, that holds a potential to undermine the written law, which transpires to “letter” in Dolar’s lexicon. It becomes therefore necessary that he continues to perform his speeches frequently to make his voice heard, to
Although this silence slowly began to break off in the following years, AKP regime became the first period where the distribution of voices was eventually reconfigured. The more religious camps found their voice in AKP especially in Erdoğan who became a symbol of their unity. Therefore it is no surprise that the song written for him starts with the lines, “He is the vibrant voice of the oppressed, he is the free voice of the silent world,” and continues with indicating that he “takes his power from the nation”. The reconfiguration of the voices starting with the AKP regime although was strongly advocated by certain parties from conservatives and liberals, the modus operandi of AKP changed within time; from a heterogeneous network that maintained a liberal political agenda it turned into a relatively more homogenized unity that operates though identity politics. Accordingly as AKP continued to win the elections, the volume of Erdoğan’s voice increased, and his tone became more aggressive. His voice became more authoritarian, often transcending the national law; what he said would eventually be done even if it didn’t fit the constitution. He even continued to give “unofficial” speeches for AKP in the general elections after he quit the party and became the President. This change can be read as a transformation of his voice to what Dolar defines as the authoritarian voice. Dolar argues that, “all phenomena of totalitarianism tend to hinge overbearingly on the voice, which in a quid pro quo to replace the authority of the letter, or put its validity into question,” (2006, 116). As the volume of Erdoğan increased it started to be perceived as the source of law, that holds a potential to undermine the written law, which transpires to “letter” in Dolar’s lexicon. It becomes therefore necessary that he continues to perform his speeches frequently to make his voice heard, to