A Review of The Line: Women, Partition and the Gender Order in Cyprus by Cynthia Cockburn

Reviewed by: Amelia Haque

The mid twentieth century marked the decline of traditional imperialism, which left many  newly independent countries unprepared for the sudden challenge of sovereignty. The  Mediterranean Island of Cyprus was no exception to this plight. Imperial presence in Cyprus  lasted for three thousand years, most notable were the Greek and Ottoman Empires. When  Cyprus gained independence in 1960, Northern Cyprus was home to the island’s minority Turkish population, who claimed rights over the island from the Ottoman era. The  South was dominated by the island’s majority Greek population, who argued they had ancient claims to the island; yet many other imperial powers could dispute the ethnic identity of Cyprus, considering its restless, three-thousand-year-old history. Nevertheless, the two main ethnic groups were antagonistic to the point of fighting over control of the entire island. In 1974, North and South was divided through partition to preserve Turkish and Greek identities, respectively. Both sides conflated their ethnic identities with patriarchal and political ideals, but both Turks and Greeks dismissed their female population. Ethnic nationalism and traditional patriarchal values were crucial in maintaining partition until 2003. 

In 2004, feminist sociologist Cynthia Cockburn published ‘The Line’ to explore the much  needed perspective of the experience of women and how they were affected by partition. Most of  Cockburn’s insight derives from interviews, and she uses a linear historical approach to frame  the narrative of the interviews. Her book centers on her participatory action research done in Cyprus, from individual and group interviews with women from both sides of the partition.i Typically, partition is discussed in a political sense, but Cockburn’s contribution to the study of  partition expands on politics. Therefore, her book is unique because she centers the experience of  women who suffered from and eventually worked against ethnic nationalism and patriarchal  oppression.  

Partition was not a sudden event; decades of antagonism pushed the Turkish and Greeks Cypriots into conflict. Cockburn analyzes the fostering of political enmity, exacerbated by  patriarchal values. The Ottoman Empire seized Cyprus in 1571, which some Turkish Cypriot  interviewees argue was an “imperialist [and] male power” heritage on the island.ii Against the  weakening Ottomans, Greeks were influenced by the ancient Greek male society that shaped  Cyprus a millennia ago. Ethnic nationalism reached a high in 1821 when Greece fought against the  Ottoman Empire in hopes of uniting all the lands where ‘Greeks’ lived.iii Cockburn reveals  through her research that the partition, over a century later, was the result of male-dominated,  ethnic-centric Greece and Turkey that jockeyed over control of Cyprus. Most Cypriots on both  sides blamed the arrogance of the opposite’s political leadership as the cause of conflict and  partition.iv Most Cypriots, however, overlook patriarchy’s integral role in maintaining partition.  One of Cockburn’s interviewees, Turkish Cypriot Fatma Güven-Lisaniler, recounts “a haunting  moment” in her life during the late 1960s; her mother asserted herself against traditional male  and ethnic values. The family was stopped for a petty cause at a characteristically severe Greek  checkpoint, and Fatma’s mother (Cockburn uses interviewees’ given names) stood up to the  Greek guards, to the humiliation of her male family members.v Years later, Fatma was still  disturbed by checkpoints, and her male counterparts were ashamed of needing a woman’s  support. Cockburn reveals that female resistance to ethnic and patriarchal division was long established in Cyprus. 

Despite ethnic and sexist oppression in Cyprus, from the 1980s-90s, the island’s women  have been striving for peace. Cockburn’s research is meant to broadcast the activism of female Cypriots against the partition. She focuses on a modern bi-communal movement called Hands  Across the Divide (HAD), created in 2001.vi The women of HAD were committed to Turkish  and Greek understanding, which they hoped would lead to peace in Cyprus. Cockburn describes  HAD’s unique approach to ending ethnic and patriarchal oppression, some women wanted outright political action whereas others wanted social activities. Above all, Turkish and Greek  Cypriot women wished towards “understanding each other;” member Bahire Korel asserted that  both sides “are Cypriots. We must make the decisions.”vii In addition to evidence from  interviews, Cockburn adds credibility to HAD’s mission by adding her own observations and  archeologists, historians, and sociologists’ secondary sources throughout ‘The Line.’ 

Cockburn could have used historical context more frequently, but the scope of her book was based on participatory action research instead of archival, and the given historical context  was adequate. If Cockburn had used primary sources from the partition era, particularly women oriented, then her argument on the gendered effects of partition would have been more  comprehensive. For those more interested in the modern effects of conflict, then ‘The Line’ has  more than adequate evidence to keep readers’ attention.  

Cynthia Cockburn leads the reader through the tumultuous history of Cyprus through the  lens of women, and for that reason, ‘The Line’ provides unique context and hope to the state of  ethnic and patriarchal oppression in Cyprus. She uses a chronological, historical approach that  supports her firsthand accounts from women in partition. For sociologists, historians, and those interested in the modern-day effects of partition, ‘The Line’ provides specific and valuable insight from women regarding this field of study. 

This piece was written by Amelia Haque, and edited by Tooba Abid

Expand for Notes

i Cynthia Cockburn, The Line: Women, Partition and the Gender Order in Cyprus, 2004, 12. ii Cockburn, The Line, 2004, 43. 

iii Cockburn, The Line, 2004, 44. 

iv Cockburn, The Line, 2004, 56. 

v Cockburn, The Line, 2004, 63. 

vi Cockburn, The Line, 2004, 158. 

vii Cockburn, The Line, 2004, 159.