This article intends to reexamine Naito (1996, in Japanese) and Sen and Goldberg (1994) in the light of various data and documents including newspaper articles, and to present a perspective of investigation on the so-called immigrant problem, especially Turks in Germany. Both Naito (1996) and Sen and Goldberg (1994) insisted that Turks in Germany are discriminated against not only by German people in everyday life but also by German institutions including the law of nationality and that such discrimination leads Turks to Islamism. But there are differences in the method of discussion between the two books. Sen and Goldberg (1994) considered that the discrimination stems from the prejudice of Germans against Turks as Muslims. These authors wish to remove that prejudice and describe the everyday life of Turks in Germany. They do not, however, discuss the logic of the relation between the “discrimination” against Turks and the spread of Islamism among these immigrants.
On the other hand, Naito (1996) presented his own logic on this theme. According to Naito (1996), Turks in Germany have no other means than to resort to Islamism in order to resist discrimination and to obtain their own identity. This Islamism is not the so-called Islamic fundamentalism or terrorism, but means only that the Turks wish to follow an Islamic life. Furthermore, Naito insisted that all kinds of discrimination against Turks in Germany have their roots in the German law of nationality. He regarded this law as a manifestation of the ethnocentric nationalism of the Germans.
There is certainly some truth in the opinions of Naito (1996). But not all Turks in Germany behave as he described. According to the present author's estimation, at most less than half of the Turks in Germany belonged to one of the Islamic communities in the early 1990s. According to Sen and Goldberg (1994), only one-third of the Turks practice the Islamic life. It is also not clear how much the number of members has increasedd in each Islamic federation since discrimination against the Turks became more severe. We should also take into consideration that there are several Islamic federations that differ greatly from each other. The actual characteristics of each Islamic federation are not also clear, because Sen and Goldberg (1994), Naito (1996), and other documents describe them differently.
At any rate, there is multiplicity among Turks who live in Germany. On the other hand, German society is also not dominated by a single opinion. We should take not only the policy of the Federal government, but also the various policies of the Länder governments and municipalities into consideration when we try to evaluate the role of German institutions in the relationship between Germans and Turks in Germany. We should analyze the confrontation and cooperation between Germans and Turks more carefully, recognizing that there is pluralism or multiplicityy both among Germans and among Turks who live in Germany.

View full abstract

Discussions about “geopolitics” have flourished within the field of geography in recent years. In Japan, where geopolitics (chiseigaku) had been associated with empire expansion as well as German Geopolitik, the critical issues in geopolitics were not for their own features, but how they reveal ambivalent aspects of geography in general. In particular, two critical issues in geopolitics, political intentions and subjective interpretations of the world, make us realize that geographical descriptions may inevitably be political.
Today, the term “geopolitics” is not used to designate a branch of study, but has a variety of contents at the general level. In this paper, by referring to the definition of “orientalism” by Said (1978), I suggest the necessity of analyzing geopolitical texts from the standpoint of criticism. An author of a geopolitical text is not an individual subject. Whether (s)he is a politician or an editor of mass media, (s)he represents the government or nation under a wider umbrella of ideology. From such a viewpoint, we could establish a research agenda that critically examines various geographical descriptions under the term “geopolitics.”

View full abstract