From Objecthood to Subjecthood: Globalization and Kurdish Identity
Author: Loqman Qanbari, PhD in Political Science
Globalization has a complex, dialectical, and multilayered relationship with Kurdish identity—a relationship that cannot be reduced solely to threat or opportunity. On the one hand, by compressing time and space, expanding communications, and weakening cultural borders, this process has confronted local and ethnic identities with challenges such as cultural homogenization, consumerism, and the commodification of symbols. On the other hand, the same process, by destabilizing dominant metanarratives, has opened a space in which marginalized, suppressed, and forgotten identities can redefine themselves once again. Kurdish identity, which for decades was subjected to assimilation and denial policies in various countries, has in this new space not only found an opportunity to be heard but has also been able to move from the margins to the center of certain global discourses.
The most important manifestation of this relationship can be seen in the displacement of Kurds’ position from “object” to “subject.” In recent decades and in the age of globalism, the scope and scale of Kurdish studies institutions have increased dramatically; whereas Kurds were once the “object or object of knowledge” of Orientalism, Persians, Arabs, and Turks, today, with the growth of opportunities arising from the “glocalization of knowledge,” the possibility has emerged to witness “the transformation of this Other or object of study into a subject who has himself become a researcher of his own history, culture, and identity.” This process can be summarized as the “subjectification of Kurds”—a subjectification that is the product of the destabilization of colonial metanarratives and the emergence of the possibility of “Kurds’ exit from being the object of Orientalist studies.”
The subjectification of Kurds can be formulated within new concepts such as “Kurdish geopolitical subjecthood.” In the age of globalization, the decline of the nation-state’s status and the destabilization of the classical geopolitical order have provided new opportunities for non-state actors; among them, Kurds, by passing through the “geopolitical suffocation of the Sykes-Picot order,” have been placed on the path to becoming an “active geopolitical subject” capable of challenging power equations in the Middle East. In this view, globalization is, on the one hand, “an ontological challenge to Sykes-Picot states,” and on the other hand, “an opportunity and possibility for the emergence and expression of Kurdish geopolitical subjecthood in order to overcome the exploitative and imposed geopolitical structure” over Greater Kurdistan and the Kurdish people.
Accordingly, globalization is regarded not as a threat to Kurdish identity but as “an opportunity for the re-conceptualization of identity and the re-territorialization of the homeland in the monitoring of the collective mind of the Kurdish human being.” Citing Stuart Hall, one can say that in the age of globalization, “marginal and suppressed identities such as Kurdish identity will find the possibility of re-homelandization.” From this perspective, the subjectification of Kurds, through “the destabilization of dominant identity-making metanarratives,” has provided the ground for Kurds’ re-identification and allows Kurds to “create their discourse of identity-seeking and resistance nationalism against the hegemonic metanarrative over Kurdish identity.”
This epistemological transformation has also reflected itself in the emergence of new concepts and terms in political literature—concepts that indicate a metatheoretical transformation in the epistemological, methodological, and ontological dimensions of studies of Kurdish nationalism. Concepts such as “Kurdish Parliament in Exile,” “Kurdish extraterritorialism,” “Kurdish geopolitical subjecthood,” “Kurdish digital nationalism,” “Kurdish diaspora,” “Kurdish cyber nation,” and “Kurdish digital public sphere” all indicate that Kurdish identity today is redefined not only within the framework of classical nation-states but also in a transnational, networked, and digital space. This conceptual transformation is itself a product of globalization and shows that the subjectification of Kurds has been able to distance itself from being an object in Orientalist narratives and, relying on global theoretical and media tools, offer a new narrative of itself.
The philosophical context of this conceptual transformation is that in the age of globalization, identity is no longer a fixed, essential, and predetermined matter; rather, it is a fluid, dialectical process constantly in the state of “becoming.” Kurdish identity is no exception to this rule and increasingly finds meaning through difference from the “Other,” dialogue with other cultures, and presence in transnational space. By emphasizing “identity politics” and “the question of difference,” globalization has provided an opportunity for the rebirth of national identity and Kurdish re-homelandization. In this condition, being Kurdish is not limited to geography, mother tongue, or lineage; rather, it refers to a set of experiences, narratives, voices, and cultural and emotional ties that can be reflected in virtual space, music, cinema, and literature.
If we accept that the subjectification of Kurds is a fluid and transnational process, then the question arises concerning the objective mechanisms of reproducing this identity. In response, it must be said that new media and digital technology play a central role in the formation of this transnational identity. Kurdish identity-seeking movements in the age of globalization have acquired a networked, dynamic, and decentralized character. In this model, centralized leadership, rigid party structure, and geographical borders play a lesser role; instead, spontaneous actions, dispersed narratives, emotional solidarity, and digital content production play the main role. Research shows that Kurdish Generation Z youth in Britain and Germany, by using digital platforms, build a space they themselves call “Digital Kurdistan”—a non-territorial space in which transregional solidarity around music, dance, food, and language is formed and creates participation more than party content does. The Kurdish activist today, beyond classical media, produces identity-seeking content on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and X; from music and videos to memes, podcasts, political analysis, and protest campaigns. A concrete example of this transformation is the song “Kurmancî Here Gulê,” which was made using artificial intelligence and quickly became a trend on global platforms. This song is performed in Kurmanji Kurdish—a dialect that was subjected to repression and assimilation for centuries and now, through technology and social networks, has reached audiences beyond its traditional borders. Such an example shows that globalization can be a tool for the revitalization of language, culture, and the subjectification of Kurds, provided it is used as an opportunity for cultural production and redistribution.
Another example of this digital activism is the global electronic signature campaign in support of the “Save the Kurds Act” in the U.S. Congress. The Kurdistan Diaspora Confederation, by launching a petition on the Change.org platform, was able to collect more than 151,450 signatures and use this digital tool to exert pressure on American legislators and gain bipartisan support. This example clearly shows how the Kurdish diaspora uses global tools to influence macro policies and erases the boundary between local and global action.
This digital activism is not limited to politics and media alone; alongside it, cinema, music, and cultural festivals have also become arenas for redefining Kurdish identity on a global scale. Kurdish cinema is especially a clear example of the transition from objecthood to subjecthood. If for decades the image of Kurds in dominant cinema (especially Turkish cinema) was represented in a distorted and stereotypical manner and Kurds were depicted as a silent and exotic “Other,” today Kurdish filmmakers in the diaspora and Kurdistan, by creating self-aware narratives, have reversed this image. A prominent example is Kurdwin Ayub, an Iraqi-Kurdish filmmaker residing in Austria, whose film Paradies! Paradies! (2016), as an autobiographical work, is a reflection of the redefinition of her hybrid and transnational identity. Researchers consider this film an example of “the fusion of global media culture with traditional Kurdish folklore” and “quasi-ethnographic filmmaking with the aesthetics of new media,” in which the filmmaker represents her hybrid identity not as an object for others to study but as a narrating subject.
Another example is Şerwan Haci, a Kurdish filmmaker and actor from Rojava (Syria) who has lived in Finland since 2010. In 2026, he received the Finnish Film Academy Award (Jussi) for the film My Name Is Hope—a film in which Kurds themselves are the subject and narrator of their own story. Haci had earlier gained international fame by playing the lead role in The Other Side of Hope by the famous Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki, and today, as a member of the European Film Academy, he has transformed from being subjectified to being a subject-maker. Also, the short film Yek Deng (One Voice), directed by Zagros Çetinkaya, a Kurdish filmmaker residing in Norway, with the theme of the Kobani resistance and the inner journey of a diaspora Kurd, was screened at six international festivals and received the Best Drama award in London. Çetinkaya emphasizes that “Kurds must tell their own stories,” and his film—the fire lit on a mountaintop in Norway by a young man of Kobani origin—is both a symbol of transnational connection and a sign of Kurdish cinematic subjecthood.
Alongside these events, the documentary Jinwar, directed by Bayan Salah, a Kurdish woman filmmaker from Erbil, about the women of Rojava, was selected at the 2026 Cannes Film Festival among only 11 selected projects of the “Spotlight Projects” program, and production companies from Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the United States competed to participate in its production. Salah says about this that her film shows an “unfiltered and free” image of Kurdish women, and this is precisely the point that challenges Orientalist objectification; because European directors were astonished to see the autonomy and self-confidence of Rojava women and asked whether a professional actress had been used—a question that itself shows the depth of Orientalist stereotypes and at the same time proves Kurdish cinematic subjecthood.
In the field of music, too, remarkable developments have occurred. Specialized streaming platforms such as Dilan and Dangify, with access to more than 500 Kurdish artists from the Sorani, Kurmanji, Hawrami, and Kalhori dialects, present Kurdish music to global audiences. The song “HACEL OBASI” by Sadiq Nargis, a Kurdish singer, reached No. 1 on Spotify’s Global Viral Chart in November 2025 and also entered viral lists in Turkey, the Netherlands, and Germany; this song gained more than 30 million streams on Spotify. Also, joint Kurdish-Swedish music groups have formed in Stockholm whose lyrics are performed in both Kurdish and Swedish and who present Kurdish music as part of Swedish culture. These examples show that Kurdish music has moved from the margins to the center of global markets and has become one of the effective tools in strengthening and reproducing the subjectification of Kurds at the transnational level.
Finally, globalization and the subjectification of Kurds must be understood in a reciprocal and constructive relationship. Globalization does not eliminate Kurdish identity; rather, it forces it to redefine itself on a broader horizon. Kurds, too, by using global tools—from media and technology to art and the university—reproduce, strengthen, and introduce their identity to others. This process can be considered a kind of “glocalization”: the Kurdish local becomes global, and the global is placed in the service of reconstructing the local. As one Kurdish researcher said in an interview: “When we arrived in Europe, we realized we were Kurds”—a sentence that well shows how migration and the diaspora experience have not weakened but strengthened identity consciousness. In such a condition, Kurdish identity not only does not collapse under the pressure of globalization, but by relying on its transnational ties, new media, art, and historical consciousness, it finds new grounds for its continuity and flourishing.