We listened to Şenol Ayla’s story of how he started in radio, including his biographical account of Freud with Neuro-Psychiatry specialist Serol Teber, the still-listened-to Didik Didik Freud program that aired years ago, psychoanalysis, and Apaçık Radio, all from Şenol Ayla’s perspective.

Zülaysu Altındal: Firstly, hello and welcome.

Şenol Ayla: Hello. Thanks for inviting.

Ş.A: I’m happy to be having this conversation with you. I am a medical doctor. I’ve been working as a medical director in health communication for a long time. However, you know me from the program Didik Didik Freud (Freud Under The Microscope).

Z.A: While mentioning Didik Didik Freud, I would like to ask about Serol Teber. How did your paths cross, and in your words, what kind of adventure was it to set out for India and end up in America?

Ş.A: Serol Teber has been a psychiatrist I’ve known since my youth, and a writer. I loved his books very much and read them, underlining passages. We first met in 2002 when he came to Türkiye. He was living in Germany. After finishing his university education, he went to Germany, and when we met, he was 64 years old. He had written two books: one about Freud and the other about Tevfik Fikret. He had returned to bring these two authors to Turkish readers. I also met him on this occasion. At that time, I was working at a publishing house, and we wanted to publish his books. Serol Teber was happy that his books would be published by a house specializing in psychiatry. I had the chance to read his books and work together on preparing them. During the period when we were doing research and working on the books, he told me that he had a proposal for a radio program about Freud on Açık Radyo and wanted to do it with me. This made me very excited, but also quite scared. What can I possibly talk about regarding Freud? Could I be the person to discuss with someone like Serol Teber, who will soon publish a book about Freud?

I experienced this fear and told Serol Teber: “This is not something I can do, it’s a very good idea, I support you, but I am not the person to speak in front of.” Serol Teber was a very polite person and said to me, “No, you can do this, you are familiar with the subject. You read the book; you roughly know what we will discuss. I want you to do this.” I hesitated for a few weeks, feeling ashamed, and stalled him. I couldn’t do it, and I would find someone else. He finally convinced me. He said, “You might be the one to do this because I want us to talk.” I also finally agreed, albeit nervously. I wish I hadn’t upset him for weeks and had accepted right away. Because it wasn’t as terrifying as an exam. Throughout the program, I was someone who asked questions to learn more about his deep knowledge of topics I knew somewhat about. That’s how we started this program in 2004. There wasn’t a huge preparation period. I had already read his notes. Even though I wasn’t completely familiar with the subject, I had an idea of it.

Açık Radyo’s studio at that time was in Harbiye (Istanbul). It was a multi-story building. They showed us the studio where we would do the program and talked about the process. “There will be a break every nine minutes and the music playing is about to start.” Serol Teber had given lessons to an audience, spoken, and participated in seminars, but radio was a different place.

We were talking to each other in a studio. There were a glass window and a technical desk across from us. It wasn’t a live broadcast, but it gave us a very different kind of excitement. Especially because we had to be silent every nine minutes, which made us quite nervous. We even prepared our timer and wrote down the minutes to keep track. Now I understand how important that nine-minute interval was for us as a barrier. Because during the first program, we focused more on how to manage those nine minutes than on what we would talk about. When the ninth minute came, we discussed making a move and acting accordingly.

We had previously discussed how we would make the program, but it wasn’t a days-long preparation. When we met in Harbiye headquarters for the first episode, we immediately agreed at the door, saying, “We’ll talk about why we’re making the program.” The questions I would ask and the introduction to Freud, our main topic, were already decided. We also brought the music to be included. Since there was no digital music back then, we brought records and CDs, and would hand them over to the technical team, saying, “This is the third track, this part here…” The pieces were played in between. I remember we finished the first program and left, not knowing how it turned out. They hadn’t given us the recordings right away either. Completely unaware, we came back to the studio the next day for the second program.

“What do Tevfik Fikret and Freud have in common? People might ask why these two. I also asked. He said, ‘I explained the common points of these two melancholic people.’”

The radio show was supposed to be broadcast every week, but since Serol Teber was living in Germany, we tried to record five or six episodes during the weeks he was here. That’s why we also went back to the studio the next day for more recordings. Speaking consecutively required a clear mind and good mental state. On the other hand, because no significant time passed between recordings, it felt like we were continuing the previous day’s conversation, which was more beneficial for us. However, during the recordings, some things happened; even though it was summer, I caught a cold. Since we recorded back-to-back, I had a blocked nose for five weeks while doing the show. There were funny things like this too, but we focused on what we were talking about ourselves, thinking, “Look, we skipped this topic, should we mention this in the next one?” and gradually built the content along the way, resulting in a very wonderful 26-week recording process. Our program was published as a book by Açık Radyo and Can Yayınları after many years. The most important part of what we did with this program, regarding why we did it, is explained by Serol Teber in our first episode. I also emphasized this in the preface of the book, and with your permission, I would like to read it: “This program is not just about psychiatry and Freud. It will be a program about life, death, and everything else, and we will embark on a Columbesque adventure. It’s like setting out for India and ending up in America. That’s a beautiful illusion. But setting out for India and arriving in India is a bad thing”. When I first said this, I didn’t understand it very well. It was a nice thing, but I came to understand it as we progressed through the 26 weeks. We started talking about Freud, but within that, there was so much more – life, death, depression, melancholy, excitement. Following Freud, we investigated archaeology and literature, then jumped into cinema. We discussed many things. Honestly, on the path we took with Freud, I felt like we didn’t go to India but to America. I think the listeners may have felt the same way.

Mustafa Burak Avcı: Do you have any information about how Serol Teber’s special interest in Freud and Tevfik Fikret developed and how he decided to study them?

Ş.A: I had said I wanted to press. One was Bilimsel Bir Peri Masalı (A Scientific Fairy Tale) about Freud, and the other was Aşiyan’daki Kahin / Tevfik Fikret’in Melankolik Dünyası (The Oracle in Aşiyan Tevfik Fikret’s Melancholic World). What do Tevfik Fikret and Freud have in common? People might ask why these two. I also asked. He said, “I explained the common points of these two melancholic people.” He was also a melancholic person. He shared some traits with them. The things he saw in them that made him angry, the habits and behaviors he scrutinized, the experiences they had, he had those too. While preparing his books, he visited the places where these people lived. He repeatedly visited Tevfik Fikret’s house in Aşiyan, read his paintings and books, and took notes. He sat there trying to connect with him. He prepared his books after intense journeys. I realized that Tevfik Fikret wrote a book about these two melancholic people when I saw that he was also melancholic during the program process.

“Back then, we didn’t know who listened, what they said, what they thought, or how they felt… A few friends of Serol Teber and mine would say, ‘It turned out really well, great job, congratulations.’ We also thought, ‘They love us so much, they don’t want to hurt us.’ We didn’t know how many people were listening. There were no podcasts, no digital recordings.”

Ama Serol Teber was never a closed-off, unhappy person who looked at everything negatively. He was very lively and full of life, but he was also affected by the negative situations he encountered. The reason he could see these things was that he was an open-minded and sensitive person. After reading these books and meeting him, I also gained a better understanding of what melancholy truly is.

So, in this program, it wasn’t just Freud, but you also got to know Serol Teber. From what I saw during those two short years, he was someone who opened doors of curiosity for the listeners and me, guided us, and shared things about himself. I realized this over time. I started out without knowing exactly what we were getting into, but it was a very happy process for me.

M.B.A: When looking at the phrase “We are atomizing Freud” inside the book, one might expect to encounter dense theoretical knowledge. However, when you get into it, you come across a more everyday narrative that touches on life. Being able to present this without delving into scientific explanations or methodology is very nice.

Ş.A: We started out not to explain any theoretical stuff. That was also what comforted me because I could never master theories. No matter how many books I read or how many bread and butter I earned, I couldn’t argue with that. The person we discussed on the program was Freud. His shortcomings, his dislike of music, his admiration for literature, his socks, his strange attitudes in human relationships… All of these made him a real person. For example, when we discussed the Oedipus Complex, we talked about the path he took to uncover it. We didn’t do this by just explaining theories; instead, we talked about what he experienced at the time and what he read to make it easier to understand. Maybe some theoretical insights can be drawn from it, but they weren’t dry sentences. Since it explained how Freud thought, how his ideas came to him, and what his experiences revealed, I think the program became easier to understand. After all, even people who know nothing about psychology listened to this program.

Of course, we made this program in 2004. Back then, we didn’t know who listened, what they said, what they thought, or how they felt… A few friends of Serol Teber and mine would say, ‘It turned out really well, great job, congratulations.’ We also thought, “They love us so much, they don’t want to hurt us.” We didn’t know how many people were listening. There were no podcasts, no digital recordings. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the exact time, but I do recall that the program started at 11:00 on Monday. If you didn’t listen to the episode at that time, you missed it. If you caught up the next week, you listened. Those were very nice times for us. When we ended the show, we couldn’t really understand who was listening or how they felt, but we were very happy with this project. Because we loved sharing stories and enjoyed the process so much, we decided to continue. That was also Serol’s idea. We considered a program called Didik Didik Stanley Kubrick (Stanley Kubrick Under The Microscope). This time, I accepted immediately, without saying no at all. In fact, during our last few recordings, we took notes about it and made plans on which movies to watch first

As you also know, unfortunately, a few weeks after the program ended that same year, we lost Serol Teber. We scrutinized other people thoroughly because of him. We were so eager and hungry that we even started thinking about who to scrutinize after Stanley Kubrick. For us, scrutinizing someone was also a way to scrutinize ourselves. Because I know that during that journey, we learned many different things about ourselves. I found a lot about myself. I also know it was for Serol…

Z.A: So why Freud and psychoanalysis? Why is he such a complex and self-examining person?

Ş.A: I realized quite late how much Freud has influenced, cast a shadow over, and played a role in many parts of our lives. Jealousies, the dreams we see, slips of the tongue, psychoanalysis, and even the surrealist movement in art, all these branches extend from him. Freud is not just the serious-looking man we see in photographs. He is someone who makes jokes, has characteristics, and whose work has permeated culture. For Serol, talking about him was very enjoyable.

Following the paths we take, ruins in Rome and Pompeii, sculptures, findings from the Rosetta Stone, interpreting dreams, slips of the tongue… All of these are everyday experiences in our lives,things we find funny, some that cause us panic, situations where someone is inside us, but we don’t really know it, moments when we encounter that inner person. If we learn to look at these, we can uncover many things about ourselves.

And if there’s someone else who knows how to see these things, it’s very beautiful and exciting to realize that a person can be someone other than the person they think they know themselves to be. You can’t really define yourself as “this is who I am,” and even if you try, it’s incomplete. There are things that happen unconsciously, suppressed emotions that appear in our dreams, unspoken desires, and our ongoing search to understand what our true self is like-things that don’t always lead to successful results. I believe those listening to this program also have curiosity about these topics, enjoy examining themselves and others. We didn’t know how many people listened when it first aired, but ten years later, it was re-broadcast digitally. This time, everyone could access Açık Radyo recordings whenever they wanted. It was a huge luxury. I was finally able to learn how listeners felt, their feedback, how many people listened, and whether it attracted interest. Unfortunately, Serol couldn’t find out this information, but I was very surprised that so many people listened to it. Just like the question you asked, “Why Freud? Why do people listen to Freud?” I asked myself the same thing. Yes, Serol Teber spoke sweetly. Maybe we were in good communication, but in the end, we were talking about Freud; we were discussing the Oedipus Complex, psychoanalysis. Why do hundreds of thousands people listen to this? I also thought about it a lot and debated internally. After the digital records were released, many people reached out to me, and all of them said they found something in themselves. Maybe the answer to your initial question, “Why Freud?” is hidden here. People start to understand things about themselves. Even if they don’t fully understand, they begin to ask questions. This is like setting out to India and discovering America. It’s a very exciting and enjoyable journey. It doesn’t always end happily. It can also cause pain, but once someone sets out on this path, they don’t turn back, and they follow the doors of curiosity. They go across that sea, with that ship, trying to cross those roads.

If Serol Teber had heard this feedback, I guess he would have said: “Oh, come on, that’s not true.” Because he was a very polite and modest person. When you told him a compliment, he would always take it humbly, feel embarrassed, and be uncomfortable. If I had told him that so many people have listened and are saying these things: “Oh, really? What did we do? Truly?” I am sure he would have been happy. Because knowing that others had gone down the same path he did pleased him. That was the purpose of writing these books. For someone to read, draw conclusions, and reach a destination. I think Freud also had a melancholic personality that served these purposes. Similarly, Tevfik Fikret was the same. We were about to finish the Didik Didik Freud program, and we were talking about, “Next week we will kill Freud. What will we do then?” The dear Ömer Madra, the General Director of Açık Radyo, had asked, “Could you also talk about Tevfik Fikret?” So, we started the program to talk about him for a few hours, and it ended up lasting six hours. He shared many points in common with Freud; Tevfik Fikret was also sensitive, a very honest and melancholic person who was deeply affected by evil and suffering.

I think that analyzing these and talking about them was also good for Serol Teber. It didn’t really improve his melancholy, but there are people like me who do these things, and that made him feel better. I’m not a melancholic person, but I got to know them closely. Serol was a very nice, friendly person with great conversation skills. He was one of those rare people who always told you the truth but did so politely without ever hurting you. They say a friend tells you the painful truth, but he could do it without causing pain. Serol was someone who could tell the truth without hurting.

“Wilhelm Jensen’s work Gradiva was a topic we discussed at length on the program. The book tells the story of a man who, driven by a subconscious impulse he doesn’t fully understand, goes to Pompeii and is deeply influenced by a wall relief called Gradiva’s Walk.”

Z.A: How did the idea of approaching Freud not as the father of psychoanalysis but as someone like us with vulnerabilities come about? What kind of awareness does it create to consider such historically significant people not as icons but as human beings?

Ş.A: Of course, people don’t think Freud was like us. Serol Teber knew this and thought about it. As I read more, talked with Serol, and delved deeper while making this program, I came to understand better. When we reveal certain pathologies, psychological states, or aspects of normal psychology that belong to us, he could do so from himself, because he is a human. He’s not an icon; he’s a human like us. That’s why he has dreams and slips of the tongue… He doesn’t see everything in his clients and patients; he also experiences some of these things himself.

A person who has spent a lot of time analyzing and scrutinizing their dreams, past, and subconscious. Because of that, these things have come to light. He is just an ordinary person; he doesn’t like music, doesn’t want music played at home, and even hates phone ringtones. The person we see in the photo on this wall is not Freud. This is a person. Freud gets angry at his children. A very strict father.

In fact, his children say years later, “Yes, we were free, but our only freedom was being terrified of our father to death.” Such a strange person. When I say strange, I mean someone we wouldn’t love. Maybe we wouldn’t want to sit and have a chat with him – or maybe we would, I don’t know – but he is a person. We understand that. Even when they become scientists or writers, they are still people. It was nice to see that.

In my opinion, especially starting from the dreams he sees, revealing some impulses he doesn’t understand, and peeling back his life layer by layer while analyzing psychoanalysis… These are very exciting things like detective stories. In fact, when you say detective stories, he even gives examples from Sherlock Holmes. He draws a lot of inspiration from literature, Hamlet, Sophocles, and theater plays, and from looking at them, he derives insights. This also shows us that he is a human being, not just a scientist to be put in a box, but someone who lives in life.

M.B.A: He loves Shakespeare very much, and the phrase “a scientific fairy tale” also comes from his fondness for him, doesn’t it?

Ş.A: He loves Shakespeare very much. In fact, he says that Shakespeare and many other artists and scientists sensed and revealed things before others did. He is more impressed by Hamlet’s father being killed by his uncle and waiting to act until he is sure, rather than just suspecting. Freud spends a lot of time thinking about this, and he has drawn many conclusions from it. We see these in the program as well. There, we go to Hamlet, talk about Shakespeare, or discuss Father and Sons. All of these are essentially the possible human stories that writers and artists have drawn from real life and told through real people. One of Freud’s differences is this. He derived many things by looking at them. During the program, I also realized there was another Freud besides the one I knew. He read more literature, archaeology, theater plays, and writings about art, and these played an important role in his life; each one served as a reminder to develop his theory.

M.B.A: I think there was also a saying that goes, “Artists and writers see the truth first.” Can we elaborate on that a bit?

Ş.A: I don’t remember the entire sentence, but what he said was Freud’s: “Artists see things before scientists do, and they are the first to bring them into their works.” They do not reveal why this developed this way, the impulses that lead to it, or its consequences. Instead, they express this human condition through their art sculpture, painting, literature, theater plays, and poetry. After all of this, scientists say, “There is something here,” and it can be grounded in scientific evidence. Freud did the same. Wilhelm Jensen’s work Gradiva was a topic we discussed at length on the program. The book tells the story of a man who, driven by a subconscious impulse he doesn’t fully understand, goes to Pompeii and is deeply influenced by a wall relief called Gradiva’s Walk.

Freud then goes to Pompeii and sits in front of the relief. The woman named Gradiva lifts her skirt, extends her foot, and tries to connect the events in the novel to reach our subconscious. Based on this, yes, this artist saw this and wrote about it in the novel, but it is a scientist like me who uncovers it. The artist has already revealed it. He has great respect for them. He draws clues from all of this and works like a detective. We also talked about these. That’s why the program flowed like a series or a film. We told a story and then discussed its theory.

Z.A: I think these days we’ve lost the ability to see great authorities as human. We know Freud as an authority to some extent, but what is he like at home? What does he enjoy? If he were in this room, would we want to sit and chat with him?

Ş.A: Yes, you’re right about our view of authority, but I think authority wants this a little bit. I don’t think they want to be seen as humans. They want us to think that they don’t eat, don’t go to the bathroom, don’t sweat. But when you lift that up and look underneath, you can see the reasons that drive them to this. Maybe when we know their childhood, we see different reasons as well. In my opinion, it’s very important to talk about things that broad audiences will be curious about and understand when discussing a scientist or a scientific topic.

The reason we were able to do this successfully in “Didik Didik Freud” is that both of us looked at the subject like normal people and were curious. We talked about the things we’re curious about. We didn’t speak like authorities. We broke Freud down into detail. That’s probably why it was an easy and surprisingly engaging program to listen to.

“There’s a caricature of Freud that everyone knows. Shakespeare is the same way. When you make a comment about him, people think you’re saying something very heavy. But Shakespeare is very much involved in life-jealousy, love, scheming, negotiations…”

M.B.A: Freud is a name that even people who have no knowledge about the subject talk about. At times, he has become a symbol of fake intellectualism. In your opinion, how did this happen? How does everyone know Freud?

Ş.A: There’s a caricature of Freud that everyone knows. Shakespeare is the same way. When you make a comment about him, people think you’re saying something very heavy. But Shakespeare is very much involved in life-jealousy, love, scheming, negotiations… I mean, unless you get into it, they just remain icons, and it’s easy to make such fancy statements. I think Freud’s presence as a figure, unknown and exalted, stems from his thoughts on sexuality and what he revealed. He’s a person with mysteries. When you say something about someone who is unknown and inaccessible, I think it also comes across as heavy.

M.B.A: Freud is a highly debated figure both during his lifetime and afterward. There are those who completely reject psychoanalysis in a very radical way. For example, we don’t see the same heated debate about Lacan. In your opinion, what might be the reasons behind these discussions about Freud?

Ş.A: The psychoanalysis put forward by Freud, along with his theories about dreams and the unconscious, was dismissed by some scientific circles as nonsense, a fairy tale, and lacking a scientific basis, so much so that, as Serol puts it, they devalued psychoanalysis. However, many theories have been developed based on his work. Today, it’s not possible to say that Freud is entirely correct or entirely wrong.

There are many different points of view, starting with Freud: numerous theories, many psychoanalysts and psychotherapy experts, their studies, and the approaches they have developed. Of course, as in all sciences, there is no situation where it can be said that everything is finished, and this is the final word. Over the years, many things have developed beyond his work, and development continues. Opposing theories are also evolving, but there is a consensus that it is not a fairy tale; many truths have been uncovered, and everyone accepts this. The reason people can approach with aggression may be because Freud has become a figure. When Lacan is attacked, how many people know about it? Attacking Freud might bring more ratings.

Z.A: We also want to look at it from a publishing perspective. What we are listening to is not just a collaboration, but also the blossoming of a friendship. Did you have any disagreements with Mr. Serol during this process?

Ş.A: In this process, we started as teacher and student and ended as friends. It was a huge gain for me. He is still a friend I look for. I would have loved to consult about some things. We didn’t have disagreements because I was like his assistant. At most, we might have said, “Let’s play this song instead of that one.” He was considered a migrant here. His home was in Germany. He was also here, but he didn’t have the kind of musical background to bring music here. That’s why I was bringing the music. At most, there might have been things like, “Should we play this instead of his sonata?” but he already handled those very sweetly. Everything went very well, and we never had any disagreements.

Z.A: If I’m not mistaken, your first program in publishing was Didik Didik Freud. When you think about this experience, how do you position radio and podcast broadcasting? What do you think are the main differences between the two platforms?

Ş.A: Radio and podcasts are very different places for me. I am a radio person. I have only a few podcasts that I enjoy listening to. I listen to them, but when I have free time, I don’t think, “Let me listen to a podcast,” I think, “Let me turn on the radio.” Because I don’t choose the flow on the radio, it feels nice. Someone is playing something for me. It’s like going to a nice restaurant and having your order taken for you. I like that. If I don’t like it very much, I can change the channel, but with a podcast, you open it knowing what you’re going to listen to. I think the magic of the radio is that whether it’s music or talk shows, someone prepares something for you, and you don’t have to choose.

This feels comfortable and luxurious to me. With a podcast, you have the freedom to listen anytime you want, even in places where radio doesn’t reach, like the subway, plane, or car. I find those parts useful, but I am always a radio person. I am a member of a generation that grew up with radio.

Television had entered our lives later. Our house was one where the radio was always on. Whatever played there, that was what we listened to, and that was a good thing. It played fairy tales; it played folk songs. We also listened to Turkish music and pop music, and we enjoyed it. I still love this now.

Z.A: Didik Didik Freud is not only making its way into the podcast world recently but is also finding a place in literature. Publishing is progressing within the flow, but putting the discourse into writing stabilizes the moment. Like our previous question, what is the most noticeable difference for you between print media and audio broadcasting?

Ş.A: This podcast was turned into a book after many years. Once again, dear Ömer Madra really wanted it. In fact, for many years, I thought there was no point in transcribing the audio recordings into text. But I was convinced later.

I’m glad we did it. Because this time, the listeners became readers. When they told me they followed the authors in the book because they couldn’t understand or remember certain words, or because they couldn’t take notes, and that they underlined, folded the pages, and valued the book, I realized we were doing the right thing.

The book is always permanent, but the voice is not. The reason I wanted my voice to be recorded back then was because it was a program, and I thought, “Let’s not put this into writing, it happened and it’s over.” But later, I realized that having it as a book was more useful. People who read the book shared photos with me. I also informed Serol about each of these; I told him, “Look, this is happening, people are reading it, they are highlighting parts.” I wish he could have seen all this too.

Z.A: It would make us very happy to see both of you here today.

Ş.A: He would have liked me too. It should have been him. I mean, I’m speaking on his behalf, but the program was Serol Teber’s. We were like Kavuklu and Pişekar. I was just helping him. Everything came from his mind; I wish he had been the one, of course.

Z.A: Actually, when we look at it, you must take on a kind of legacy in the absence of Serol Teber. I’m sure this is challenging for you.

Ş.A: There is such a great legacy, and I am carrying it. When you invited me, I came running because I can’t make that decision. I assume Serol would have wanted it that way. Z.A: There is a strong music selection that fuels the program. So, has there ever been a time when a part of a music piece changed the flow of the segment? Ş.A: It didn’t work out because, as I said, the questions we would talk about were already known. Based on that, I was selecting suitable pieces from my not-so-extensive music archive. CDs were preferred at the time, so I would bring them to the technical desk. Of course, it also created some emotion for us, but it didn’t change the flow.

Z.A: One of the most beautiful parts of Didik Didik Freud is when, after listening to an exciting story, music suddenly intervenes and calms you down. For a few minutes, it feels like a moment of tranquility, then it starts to rise again and then calms down once more.

Ş.A: I think these nine minutes mean something. Even though they stress us out at first, you really don’t get to rest much longer. Like on a roller coaster, when you reach the top, you want to relax. I realized later that those breaks are helpful. If I skip the music and just listen, the flow doesn’t seem smooth. You can go from one intense topic to another, even more intense one. Putting music pieces in between really makes sense.

Z.A: So, let’s also talk about Açık Radyo. How did the spirit of Açık Radyo shape the atmosphere of the program? Do you think the same program would have the same feel if it were on a different platform?

Ş.A: I think being inside Açık Radyo completely changed your whole spirit. We were given a wide freedom there. Aside from the nine-minute segments I mentioned, we had no other restrictions. We talked about whatever we wanted, and no one interfered with us. We were never told to “add this” or “remove that.” The only request came from Mr. Ömer; it was Tevfik Fikret, whom we enjoyed talking about for hours. We initially decided on two hours, but we couldn’t finish in that time and ended up spending six hours discussing him.

The freedom we are given was very liberating. We asked each other if there was anything we needed to say, but no one told us anything. That’s why it’s very important to me that it happened on Open Radio. Didik Didik Freud also became an iconic program for Open Radio. People still call it a legendary program. That means a lot to me. Now that I think about it, I would never want it to be on any other platform.

Back then, there weren’t such opportunities. In 2004, there were almost no options besides music radio stations. There was no platform to speak like this, especially not one that would say, ‘Come here and talk about Freud for 26 hours.’ Maybe there are different places today, but the same spirit wouldn’t be there. These things can be explained to Açık Radyo listeners, but not necessarily on every platform. Because their audience is curious, detail-oriented, serious, and professional listeners. If you make a mistake, they’ll tell you right away and say you’re wrong. That’s why they deserve such a deep conversation, to spend hours of effort on it.

Z.A: Today, despite having dozens of channels, the intellectual freedom provided by Açık Radyo at that time looks different. Do you think Apaçık Radyo was able to fulfill the same function?

Ş.A: I think the radio continues to serve the same function. The only change is that terrestrial broadcasting has been cut off. For example, when I’m driving, I started listening through the app instead of terrestrial broadcast. Of course, terrestrial broadcasting also has a separate mission; it’s a special space accessible to everyone, even functioning during earthquakes. But now, it’s not just a radio; it’s a cultural hub. It sponsors some exhibitions, publishes books. Apaçık Radio is also expanding its mission and growing.

Z.A: So, Didik Didik Freud, if he started from scratch today, what do you think would change?

Ş.A: I hope nothing has changed. The process developed very beautifully and spontaneously. We knew what we were going to talk about, but since we didn’t read from a written text, it felt more relaxed and easier to understand. When they restarted digital publishing in 2015, I opened a Twitter account and shared visuals. The feedback was very positive. Maybe I would have liked social media platforms to exist back in 2004 as well. It would have been great if there was a platform where people could see the photo of Lou Andreas-Salomé, whom we talked about during the broadcast. However, I would have hoped that our conversation wouldn’t change. I also received some feedback here today; I heard that it was discussed in classes. Being used as a reference, being cited, and having people listen and understand is very gratifying.

Z.A: The Didik Didik Freud program is like a wonderful conversation I listen to quietly in a house filled with the people I love. At the same time, it’s a product that nourishes me greatly. So, among the feedback you received, what was the most memorable for you?

Ş.A: There are many responses that make me very happy. However, one of the most impactful was: “I came across this during a very difficult time. I was depressed, withdrawn, and not going outside at all. Then I found your program, and it helped me get back to life.” I was very surprised when I first heard this. Afterward, I was even more surprised to see that it was possible. One listener also said: “It was winter, it was snowing, and I was very unhappy. I was thinking about how I might die. I went outside for a walk, and I came across this program, and it brought me back to life.” This is something that still brings tears to my eyes when I think about it. If this program has provided such individual kindness, I believe it is lifesaving and very valuable.

Z.A: Thank you very much for coming. It was a great pleasure for us to host you here today.

The Anatomy of a Scientific Fairy Tale: Didik Didik Freud yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.