In times in which continuity doesn’t allow for a constant within the velocity of the epoch, even the deconstructed post versions of notions such as identity, history, and truth disappear in the flow of information, things manifest themselves with retrospective references; let’s take a look at an old word. The origin of the word “şekil” [ʃekil] is rooted in the Arabic version “şakl” شكل z [şkl]. Şekil which means shape, form, feature, appearance is “şaklīl/şiklīl” שכלל z [kll] in Aramaic which implies completion, shaping, adornment; is “şuklulu” [kll] in Akkadian which amounts to complete, whole or completion, fulfilment.
“Şekil” in Turkish refers to an image or a shape visualizing certain mathematical entities or used for demeanour, attitude, path, manner, style or else a particular way through which a concept, an idea, an event is differentiated or a whole that is configured. The sound ensemble ş k l and all its relevant contexts have given shapes to various concepts and words such as eşkâl [eʃkal] (depiction, description), teşekkül [teʃekkyl] (figuration, configuration), teşkil [teʃkil] (organization, formation), müşkül [myʃkyl](ambiguous), şâkul [ʃakyl] (plumb). Thus, it is worth examining the ensemble ş k l and the related words as mediums or singularities. As literally the word şekil is attuned with morphology, both in biology and linguistics.
“Şekil” with its simplicity and impartiality precedes emojis, signs and symbols. Geometric şekil is the name given to 2-d polygons (with a determined space and circumference). However, şekil doesn’t necessarily require a space or a volume, a letter of an alphabet is şekil as well. Şekil as an intermediary unit organizing a notion or as an incomplete notion embodies a certain dynamism (transference or morphology), yet it is a feature which is apparent in its relation to here and now (time-space)—in a way that is akin to taking a photograph. A definition assigned to a part of a whole, shape: a drawn contour. One might say that it is a form that often indicates the content without intervening or embodying it. It is flat and very much on the surface; a signifier that is not interested in the inherent or doesn’t investigate it, but rather observes the situated. It exists with connotations that are as collective (looks, trends) as personal, as abstract as archaic—a pyramid can tell us as much about Egypt as well as it is an abstraction and a geometric shape. A word to meld singularity and multiplicities… It can be used in myriad ways in a lot of contexts and always with its reference to the contemporary—such possible translations: image, figure, shape, form, mould, feature, manner, configuration, style, fashion, model, way, format, mode. With its poetic articulations and its affinity to arousals derived by word of mouth, to slang and metaphors; with it being completely ungraspable, its openness to interpretation, we can say that it is a seductive, gleaming word. For example: “You’ve pulled a şekil” or “What is şekil?” [more like what’s up here, asking the mode, with the insight of the appointed subject’s environing what’s around, as a container.] What is the colour, atmosphere, texture, dynamic of the environment? While the effects are affecting one another, it’s a state that appears in an unbiased, incomplete fashion that nevertheless suggests completion. If we were to remember the famous line of Bruce Lee, “Be water, my friend”; the carrier of the water can be interpreted as şekil and it suggests total flexibility and fluidity regardless of fixation.
Yet it’s also an interesting word that can’t be single-handedly covered by an interpenetrating “look”; one that is not essentialist however still contains a reference to physical or conceptual volumes along with conscious or unconscious, known or unknown protocols—a modulation of effects. How can şekil, namely ş k l be thought of within the proposed framework of the conference: “subjectivisation”?
Obviously, there is a particular perspective in question here. Movement: displacement, shapeshifting; estimates of time, space and moment are integral to this perspective. What are the (sub)(ob)jects that are all along shapeshifting through potential articulations, attitudes, positions, and situations that can only be thought of in relationship to systems + conditions? How can we think of these (sub)(ob)jects especially via multiple historicities via multiple configurations— what are our resistance or/and support points considering our modalities, ways, manners, forms, of voicing, of being actant? “Events are interconnected and they are cyclical processes; we are in a web. And our singularity is also in the web; thousands of chemical reactions live through simultaneous processes within our cells.” So, how to monitor the involvement and effects of such a sound ensemble? Thinking that language is very much like a biological or a mathematical abstract zone that is always being constructed and reconstructed, I take the act of uttering a word here as we are in an irregular playing field where shapes shift, bend, meld etc. and boundaries are negotiated.
In order to portray a perspective perhaps it’s important to say that my practice is very much shaped by object-oriented ontology, and I deal with objects, space and time and so language. How does the body remove itself from a given frame, a construct, a repertoire? By displacing? By breaking the continuity it is in?… Take movement; the movement only ever corresponds to its temporality. The inconsistency and uncertainty of the body cannot be separated from its movement. To portray an example, and this is from Timothy Morton, one morning you wake up in another city, in another house. The objects that surround you are unknown/unrecognizable to the eye. The door handle, refrigerator, the location of the window, the sunlight’s slant into the house… Morton says, "Then you realize how much your world was just a sensual object. Then it strikes you that your regular world was itself a kind of displacement of a certain real object(s). The sense of place is already a displacement.”
Let’s not take the word literally and discuss it further. We must elaborate the ways a concept provides us, dropping the frame of dominance, power and hierarchy. Mohammed El-Kurd, interviewing CNN in the midst of Israeli’s soaring violence, illegitimate occupation and ethnic displacement of Palestinians (May 2021), “displaces” the interviewer’s biased, inaccurate framing via the subject he is. The way he embodies himself as a subject, and the subjectivity of the Palestinian people along with it, is through the way of language. He articulates and changes the narrative when in fact he and his people are the ones that are displaced, or/and dispossessed in the most brutal ways. He corrects the interviewer, <<this is not eviction, this is a war crime>>. When the CNN interviewer asks El-Kurd: “Do you support the violent protests that have erupted the solidarity with you? And other families that are in your position right now?”, El-Kurd answers: “Do you support the violent dispossession of me and my family?” There comes a lapse, three seconds silence after. The CNN interviewer rephrases her question: “I’m just asking if you support the protests that are taking in support of your family?” El-Kurd repeats the lapse, a second of silence, and answers: “I support. I support popular protests taking place against ethnic cleansing, yes.” The actual brutality of displacement displaces once and for all with this speech act.
mohammedelkurd, writer from Jerusalem, occupied Palestine.
Objects/subjects/words are not in time and space; objects are predicates, they ‘place’ and ‘time’: In other words, they fabricate time and space. Objects/subjects/words are adjustments of associations in language. They are not complete occurrences, but ongoing events and interactions.
We’ve discussed the word şekil in the section above. Let’s take a closer look at the word şakul: A thread with a weight attached to it that shows the direction of gravity when it’s suspended. A reference point… Another word; “şekala” [ʃekala] that is “weight”. This Arabic word is derived from the Aramaic / Assyrian word şāḳūl שָׁקוּל "heavy". It has the same root as the Hebrew verb şāḳal שקל "weighing". What’s interesting here is to see how the object, termed as şakul, and the attribute to that object, heavy and the act that comes along with it, weighing is attuned in such ontology. We are roving around a noun, an adjective, and a verb and in a roundabout with ş k l.
Predicates and nouns do not switch just like that. Who is What and What is Who? “Arabic is a highly flexional language, in that, the same root can lead to various forms according to its context.” Arabic script usually does not encode short vowel. Diacritics (short vowels), placed either above or below the root indicate “the phonetic information associated with each letter, which helps in clarifying the sense and meaning of the word. A simple Arabic word could mean flag, knowledge, teach etc.” The meaning of the word is derived from the context of the sentence. It is as if the word is a unit that is a composition, a matter or an object—the complex morphology is the analyses of possible morpho-syntactic features (i.e, part of speech, gender, number, time, person, etc.) This introduction to Arabic is my departure point as I would like to arrive ş k l’s Turkish variants. Latin alphabet was introduced to our language at the beginning of the 20th century. I will indicate some words having this Arabic root ş k l (we do not have root system our alphabet) in Turkish as follows:
Such events that could be made by switching the letters' position in a root here convert to fixed words (bodies). We might as well take ş k l as our sub/ob/ject and I’m proposing a concept to follow with no regards to any linguistic rule. It is a visual abstraction per se. Sounding the words with indicated vowels, the meaning is not that slippery nor ambiguous. Müşkül is the state in question doesn’t reveal its şekil, it is yet an undefined realm with challenges and obstacles. How about işkil [iʃkil]? Suspicion, even delusion… We proceed without fixating on the narrative nor the description. And so, eşkâl, is a figuration that covers all the details that might reveal the perpetrator in a crime scene. And so, teşkil or teşekkül are investigations of structuring, organization, and systems. Şükela is more like a buzzword suggesting that everything came together in the greatest possible way—don’t assume it is in the official Turkish glossary.
However, still, it is possible to pierce through them and see a pattern. Now take ş k l as guidance, as pattern, as trace, as feedback loops, as resistance, as support and so on. The truth is: We never see the object. We see the light altered by the object. “In object-oriented ontology (ooo), things are almost encrypted. Footprints are patterns where absence, loss, emptiness glows in a realistic magic that contains an archaeological past. The mystery of things is ontological.” It’s as if the words are somewhat permeable and if we drop the pattern which we recognize as ş k l we would strangely find ourselves in the layered/over-imposed realm of what José Esteban Muñoz would call queer utopia or queer futurism, where we might have a look at the ephemera as evidence; traces, glimmers, residues, and specks of things.
>I have mentioned earlier the notion of how, rather than what—this encompassing of both how and what, taking the word as an intermediary unit organizing a notion or an incomplete notion, embodying a dynamism yet also as a feature which is apparent in its relation to here and now and also then and there —in a way that is akin to taking a photograph. While discussing our subjectivities we can imagine humans to experience affect from a certain position, as in the photographic imagery of things. Of course, the photograph is everywhere. There is never just one photograph. Like the atoms that weave the universe, the images are subject to motion at all times, in all directions. As subjects with our undefined, indeterminate zones, we become screens of this translucent photograph of the whole.
Suggesting to simplify the word to its root body in this example, in order to sense what’s really happening, takes out us from the trapped subjectivities within the limiting normative time and present. The theme “Subjectivisation” can thus be discussed in ways through the words that are sampled above, within the axes of modality, affect and perspective. I’m proposing ş k l as a totality with unfixed, slippery boundaries and models that don’t subjectify the individual, but take the individual within assemblages and anomalies that can be traced along with dynamisms of <here and now>s and <then and there>s, so to speak.