In “Rediscovery of “Ideology”: The Return of the Repressed”, Stuart Hall indicates that the effects of class struggle may be traced within the linguistic system; since the meaning of signification is a social accomplishment. Indeed, tough not mentioned in Hall’s article, Mikhail Bakhtin has long before described the language as a “living”, and as a “socio-ideological concrete thing.” Therefore, meaning in the language no longer depends on how things were in reality, but on how things are signified in different ways and contexts. In this socio-culturally oriented linguistic system, the same word might signify different meanings to distinct groups of people, as Hall exemplifies with the word “black”. Here, my aim is to speculate – from Marxist and structuralist points of view – on the different perceptions of the act of “apologizing” in Armenian-Turkish relations of late.
First; both three acts of apologizing have thousands of supporters. Some apologize to Armenians in newspaper columns, using the same formula Turkish intellectuals presented. The opposite camp apologizes or expects apologies in accordance with the meanings signified by their counter statements mentioned. At this point, the significance of language as a phenomenon – which not only is structured by subjects in order to attain particular meanings but also shapes selves, constructs social belongings, reproduces existing social subjects -, is realized; since in a language system, which is at the same time a social system, speakers were as much “spoken” by their language as speaking it.
On the other hand, Turkish intellectuals’ act of apologizing to Armenians can be interpreted in Antonio Gramsci’s terms. According to Gramsci, “all men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but no men have in society the function of intellectuals.” In our case, the “function” of intellectuals is to speak out the Armenian catastrophe. The declaration is crucial for the ways in which it exposes the oppressor on the one hand and sticks up for the repressed on the other. Furthermore, the declaration functions as a stance against the (dominant) political power, (which, as mentioned, reproduces its hegemony by ISA’s) which is, according to Karl Marx, merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. Although class struggle is not the right expression for stressing the conflict between Turkish intellectuals and the Kemalist-Nationalists, I believe that Marx’s depiction of the relations between the oppressor and the oppressed is useful in analyzing this particular conflict in Turkey (This approach is also handled by Walter Benjamin). Hence, concerning the relation between the oppressor and the oppressed (or the ones who intend to give voice to the once-oppressed (victims of catastrophe)), a Gramscian approach would precisely state the role of intellectuals as the leaders of the struggle of the oppressed against the perpetrator.
Finally a Marxist point of view would remark that in the course of this struggle, the aim of the followers of the “I apologize to Armenians” cause should prioritize to gain more and more control of political power in order to destroy the existing apparatuses controlled by the Kemalist-Nationalists. Tough not a Marxist point of view in the strict sense –since no mention of class as classical Marxism would perceive, plus economic relations as the infrastructure– Althusserian and Gramscian ways of interpreting this conflict provides the Turkish Intellectuals (apologizing to Armenians) an intellectual space within which one can effectively speculate on the existing relations of the oppressed and the oppressor and seek for the ways to provide political power for the oppressed nevertheless; so that in future, the oppressed can take control of the state power and exchange the existing state apparatuses of the oppressor with a quite different ones of the oppressed (this was simply what Marx wished for the proletariat to do).
 Stuart Hall, “The Rediscovery of “Ideology”: The Return of the “Repressed” in Media Studies” in Culture, Society and the Media, M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran and J. Woollacott, eds., Open University Press, 1986, p.77.
 Mikhail Bakhtin. “Discourse in the Novel” in, Literary Theory: An Anthology. Blackwell Publishing, 2004. p. 677.
 Stuart Hall, p. 77.
 Ibid., p. 80.
 Ibid., 72.
 Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” in Mapping Ideology, Slavoj Zizek, ed., London and New York: Verso, 1994. p. 108.
 Ibid., p. 112.
 Antonio Gramsci, “Hegemony, Intellectuals and the State” in Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, John Storey, ed., Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1998. p. 213.
 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. “Manifesto of the Communist Party” in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist Manifesto, pp.203-243, Buffalo, NY, Prometheus Books. p. 231.