Sociological Dimension

Chapter  II

ANATOMY OF A RESISTANCE: “VEIL” THAT UPSETS THE SWAGGER OF THEORY

Ferhat Kentel•

Translated by Hasan Kaplan

The issue of "veil in the public sphere" which tops Turkey’s agenda in recent years, creates deep fear and concerns among secular groups on the one hand, and causes victimization among the "veiled" women on the other. Although the object of the problem at hand is the same ‘veil’, the assessments over the object is polarized and this division seems to be very difficult to overcome. Undoubtedly, the different assessments that made at the level of detached identities have a significant share in this strained polarization. While the expression of fear has been uttered by the secular identities, the expression of grievance has been voiced by an identity constructed by young women who have been expelled from schools; can’t work and hold any position in public institutions; and face many bars due to their veil/hijab and rather vaguely defined “public space” mentality. Therefore, it is not possible to understand and resolve this tension, which has been constructed around these detached and un-communicating “identities”, whit the ordinary identity categories. 
In this article, we try to examine the possibilities of an alternative method of thinking by approaching the issue, which does not show itself other than polarized context, in a social developmental frame in which these two different identities touch and relate to each other. The main thesis of the article is this: The fundamental process of change that shared by fears and grievances is the Turkish modernization, and different social segments give different responses to this process. To complete this claim, a discussion based on two assumptions will be carried out. According to the first of these, the roots of differentiation in the responses of different social segments exist in "Everyday life" as a rich world of practices that they share together. According to the second assumption, these different responses have been polarized because of the characteristics of “Turkish Modernism.” In other words, in order to make this discussion, modernization in general characteristics must be addressed. 

Modernization and Public Space First of all, even though restriction with a single geographic area limits the understanding, it is possible to associate the modernization process with Western Europe. The modernity as we experience today and the process of modernization seem to be multi-dimensional, complex and largely coincidental but very influential process of change in Western Europe.

To understand this change, the capital movements that emerged in the Middle Ages,  urbanization, "discovery" of remote continents, colonialism, dynamics of capitalization, the war between landlords and status owners, religious wars, wars of political sovereignty, class struggles,  compromises and treaties, the developments in the world of ideas  that was realized  with "the Enlightenment,"  the increasing authority of science, establishment of sovereign nation-states and  the factors such as nationalism and others must be taken into consideration.  Undoubtedly, all these multiple dimensions and dynamics, coming together, have created a result.

However, all these dynamics of each may also be manifested in other formats and coming “together" as a total they could make a completely different result. For example, all throughout this long period, a different outcome from the West and the Ottoman Empire relations or from the West’s own internal wars could change the face of the general relations network toward a direction we can not imagine now. Hence, it can be easily determined that what we call modernity today, which emerged in a certain time period in history as a result of concentration of the complexity and multi-functionality in one direction- a network of relationships that impacts individuals and societies is not a "requirement"(Hall, 1999; Friese, 1999; Smart, 1999).

However, even if it does not contain requirement, and nourished with coincidence and "unexpected results" we still need to see the most basic axis of modernity as a “result.” Undoubtedly, the most important among these basic axis, is the "power relations" in all that complexity and dynamic of "conflict” between powers (Touraine, 1992). In other words, emerging results is in fact “the victory of powerful”; the negotiations to make this victory legitimate in the long term; getting a large mass of people to accept this final victory as a "reality" and its learning process by this mass.

As a result, it is the neutralization of the modernity, which carries the stamp of "power”, and its achievement of theory and knowledge of progress as a stage in history to be reached. When approached from another angle, a result based on the power relations, can not stand only by the support of “naked force” (Foucault, 1979). To express more concretely,     a power which is not internalized by people or a power standing outside the people, is always at a risky position just like two armies facing each other.  Yet, the power  of modernity has been provided with having left the army to fight against; “convincing” those who can fight and become an army; positioning itself as "mandatory", "normal" and "good"  before the people and actual participation of people in the recognition. In line with this it can be said: such acceptance is only possible participation of people in manufacturing and reproduction of modernity, meaning, this could be possible with people’s turning into the carrier of this mentality, or to become missionaries of modernity.

After determining the general abstract framework that we think as required to read this modernity, we can take more concrete steps toward into modernity. Let's try to understand the internalization of  modernity as a mindset and the distinctive features that emerge within the above-mentioned network of relationships by means of two entangled important processes-industrialization / capitalism and of modernization - and through the "public domain"  as a common area they are both represented.

First, the concept of "public domain" goes parallel with "modernity" in the historical process or it is a concept produced by modern societies. It is equivalent to an “overcome/transcend”. It is an area created to transcend the old one, the religious and ethnic cultural loyalties and their legitimacies for the salvation of the modern capitalist relations. It is an abstract sphere where reason replaces God and "rational" ideas and interests are learned.  It means individuals’ giving up pre-modern way of being a community to have a shared objective. As such, with the differentiation of modern public sphere and private areas of human life; and with the division of the human mind and heart; with the definition of rational and irrational, it has instrumentalized (Touraine, 1992).

At the same time, for the newly emerging order, market, and modern nation-state the reason has become an “instrument”. The factory goers modern human beings do not need religion, mother tongue, and culture. In another terms, there is no need to own private world of meaning. Modern men are expected to leave these at home. Every human feature except "reason" is “locked” in private sphere and,   in a sense, it is declared "obscene". This "private sphere" includes religious, ethnic and traditional cultural ties, family relations, birth, death and disease; in short, it contains everything not useful for material production.
The “old” and the “primitive” are expected to be rationalized and modernized gradually during the modernization process. The modern order represented in public space is expected to invade the private sphere and thus supposed to have a “total” control.

The division of “public and private space” that emerged parallel to evolution of modernity in conflict and power relations in accordance with the idea of progress and capitalist permeation means the construction and education of a new “order.” This is expected to make a direct impact on individuals. So, each individual need to provide an internal “transcending.”  Public space assumed an important function for people who are isolated from their own spirit and feelings; broken from the community and lost all strength other than his own power and has become lonely and individuals who want to use his “reason” to discover different lands and human conditions. In this process, public space is a new domain where individuals can overcome their loneliness and can be referred as a source of inspiration and legitimacy for their struggle.  Inspired from Bauman(1995), we can understand the “public” as a source of reference to the integration, regulation, and order or the representation of order.

On the other hand, the basic dynamic is the process of modernization that provides “normalization” of the capitalist relationship where the most concrete form of power is experienced in modern societies. According to Elias (1975) civilization is the education of progress and bringing people out of “savage”, “primitive” and “pre-modern” human conditions that not based on “instrumental mind?” It is here that public space has a special function: it provides the control of “dangerous classes” that emerged as a result of crowding people to cities and can create risk if not adapted to the system. To put differently, he purpose here is to control the “rude” and “ignorant” people whose culture and taste have not been “refined” (the “wild”, “idiot” and “blind animals” in Voltaire's phrase) by education- teaching them what is "right and wrong"- in a “civilized” system(Bauman, 1995). This process of education provides the education of codes, etiquette and “civil” values of new system to all people needed to be modernized; and active participation of those educated themselves in the system. The most important instrument of sanction to make large crowd of people to adopt these values is the “feeling of ashamed” (Elias, 1975). The feeling of “emulation” created by new values that carry the stamp of powerful ones causes “feeling of ashamed” too. In order to be successful, powerful ones should be imitated; not having what powerful people have is a matter of shame. In order to transcend his/her  own pre-modern totality, each individual learns the distinction between private-public as well as struggles with  the “primitive” and “shaming” elements of his/her personality. To the extent of their success in this struggle, they can appear in public space and participate in the production of modernity with the powerful ones. Therefore, one can say that the public space emerged as an instrument to transform the mass of “primitive” people into the objects of modernity. Thus, public space is the domain of a “power” that is founded on the mass of people who live in “natural” environment-compared to the modern one- and works with the symbols of civilization.

We need to make little more clarification about the groups we characterized as “powerful” and we need to look at  a class who has a primary importance in the process of capitalization and civilization, the bourgeoisie and its movement as a ruling class. Thus, public space emerged in time as a place where the bourgeoisie “discussed” and “publicized” its ideology while marching toward its own supremacy.

As a new rising class in the process of modernization, which breaded in power relations, the bourgeoisie legitimized its ideology (free markets, free enterprise, liberal economy, etc.) and interests in the public space and left its mark on it with "free discussion" and "Free ideas." Therefore, today what we call public space in modern sense and argue about it is in fact “public sphere of the bourgeois “because of the central role of the bourgeoisie (Habermas, 1978). Therefore, the birth of modern public space, where the new class and power relations breaded, corresponds to the bourgeoisie’s search of “freedom for their own ".

In the sense of Foucault's (1979, 1985) argument, this is the story of the bourgeoisie’s capture of the discourse within the productive power relations. Capturing the discourse means the establishment of the power of knowledge and obtaining the power of “defining”. So, the public sphere constructed by the bourgeois gained a place of character where the language of “power” is learned on the one hand, and the "critical-discussion" and "participation” is sought on the other hand. The interests of the bourgeoisie class were adopted with the high-persuasive "technology" (Foucault, 1985).  People "discussed" and thus the "joined" in the functioning of modern capitalist system.

The rationalization of the bourgeoisie that hold the management and control of modernity and rising industry marked this debate. An understanding of science believed that human being can conquer nature and humanity and is above all things accompanied to this. Having audited information became the instrument of power. Debate was conducted under this "knowledge". Therefore, people – or the mass called “savage” in the past- “debated” in this discussion arena, but this discussion never become between equal sides... This debate was carried out under an existing dominant ideology, a system in which strong supervised, banned (when needed) and terminated the debate when it reached to the dangerous dimensions. That is, "inequality" has become unchanging feature of the public space. Capitalist ideas, the socialist idea, the idea of democracy or "etiquette" all took place in the public space. But these ideas and ideologies never came from the sky. Public space is always became a domain of "struggle".  This struggle was “learned” as a non-violent, "civilized" struggle. Public space as a domain in which a class, an ideology, a system exercised its own might needed autonomous individuals to participate in management.

The individuals of modernity were autonomous against everything in a private life such as communal, religious and ethnic loyalties. Natural (i.e., "wild") and irrational private life had to be marginalized in the face of the public sphere as a modern field of power.  To ensure the total control of this power, the private life had to be imprisoned and silenced ...
At the end, the public sphere is a field dominant class. It is a place where power shows itself with its ideology and signs and symbols. It is a place where religion, region, local language, and local powers are defeated and the legitimacy of bourgeois ideology is instituted. It is a place where the legitimacy of ruling elements of old regime such as aristocracy and the clergy is replaced with free enterprise and the liberal ideology.

Public space is turning the land in the hands of the old class into "nation" space and establishing "national market" where capital can move freely. Public sphere is where "nation" is built; it is a field where a new citizen adopts the symbols of nation as part of the new world of meaning and “forgets” what is "pre-modern." Public sphere is the field where the "modern" one is entitled to go out and talk. This is a field of “free discussion" of what is modern. It is a field everyone; "Left", "right", socialist, liberals or other political movements race for being rational. It is remaining of free discussions within the modern paradigm. Therefore, public space corresponds to a concrete historicity and a specific time period.

However, it is universalization of something historical to all times and all communities; and imposing an ideology of a particular class- bourgeois- on all classes and the entire regions.

Turkish Modernization

Turkish modernization and the construction of public space in Turkey too allow us to do parallel reading with  the story of modernization we have attempted to summarize above. However, there is a difference; the modernization in Turkey that society faces occurred as mounting of a "result", which emerged out of a stage of European modernization, to the community. In other words, based on the "result", a "process" that society does not live, was tried to be operated in Turkey. Thus, during the process of modernization implemented by the state and elites, contrary to European experiences, sharp polarization and tough fights occurred due to implementation of a modeled result.

The most important objective of the Turkish modernization, a model imported from France and put into practice, was to create a new "nation" according to the model and to provide change especially in the field of religion. Religion was identified as an obstacle in front of the nation to be established by the use of the “instrumental reason”, the most important source of reference in modernity.

Multi-faceted effort has been spent to reduce the reference power of religion and to remove it from the public space which would be created with an authoritarian understanding of secularism. Strategically, through the Office of Religious Affairs, a "right religion” rendition compliant with the modernization was tried to be established.  While reinterpreting the religion, secularism- with the support of secular nationalism- became almost a “new religion”. Along side with the institution of Religious Affairs, with the help of socialization instruments such as school, military, etc. religion and traditional religious manifestations as “anti-modernization” were represented as the elements should be "ashamed of", and thus abandoned.  The "modernizing secularism" as such has become the discriminating and emulated feature of elites and elite mentality that holds the power. 

Imposing of imported model from top to bottom through the state and elite caused the level of negotiation with society stay at the minimum. The relationship between the carriers of the model of modernization and society became in fact a relationship of tension. The model faced the society with the harsh and repressive form could not include people exist with the meaning of traditional world.  But at the same time, the people of the traditional world have rejected the model and head towards to itself re-construct their own sheltered world.  The public space in Turkey, where modernity is learned, experienced and finally adopted, is not a place of negotiation and discussion but rather a domain of those who succeeded in “internalization” of the model.

As a result, the division of “public-private space”, which has functionality in terms of modernity, has become two different areas of life. Each of these areas found in each other the figure of “the other” that ensures their legitimacy.  On the one hand, the private space, where the traditional and cultural loyalties and life styles rule, has become evident as a field in which "the backwardness", "civilization deficit," and “the obstacles to progress " were realized. On the other hand, the public place, where traditional or "pre-modern" life is abandoned, stayed in mind as a field of threatening insurmountable "foreign power". 

The routes these two worlds follow side by side but disconnected from each other can not protect their independence and remain separate forever. Because before everything else, realization of modernity is possible by forcing or overcoming the limits of modernity to happen, or conquering the new geographies. In the most general sense, this victory will be take place by the creation of the nation and the capture of national market necessary for the national bourgeoisie. At the same time, another meaning of this victory is to capture the mind and the bodies of those who would carry modernity. In other words, a confrontation was inevitable. The vertical and horizontal progression of institutions and practices such as central administration, the industry, market, school activity etc. within the community, quickly increased likelihood of touching the traditional world.

The greatest problem that “uncivilized” world, declared as "obscene" with its languages, religions and traditional values and lifestyle, creates in terms of modernity emerged in this encounter: This “primitive and old world” which both kept outside as “the other” functioning as a negative reference, and  desired to conquer, did not give "expected" responses as seen on the original model. The modern power with its imported features never became fully powerful. An absolute success in disciplining/civilizing the body and mind could not be ensured. Indeed, modern world witnessed infiltration of people wanted to be used in economy and capture culturally. In other words, even though, modernity as an "Ideal type" surrounds the large segments of society with this encounter, a modernization process emerged as such, followed a track quite distant from the ideal type in the mind of elites.

Since it includes "conquest, resistance and negotiation”; creates complicated results; and occurred perhaps more radical and faster than the original model, it is possible to read this encounter as something that reveals power relations internal to modernity.  This means the following: Because of its weakness, Turkish modernization encountered a traditional resistance against its efforts to conquer people by dividing them.  The social segments referred to as pre-modern (“archaic") resisted against the foreign with the integrity of their own world of meaning.  The resistance, whether or not successful in practice, on the one hand, ensured drawing the attention to the unity, on the other hand, signaled the possibility of an alternative existence against the alienation brought by the modern-capitalist form of life.

It is not possible to say "resistance" provided an absolute protection as the efforts of "conquest" did not provide an absolute success. Although the Turkish modernization encountered several religious, ethnic or ethno-religious resistances during the various periods of the history of the modern Republic, the type of resistance that marked the process has the characteristics of "negotiation".  The resistance of people who live in the world of old-traditional structures against the strategies of modernity that holds powerful weapons (mainly armed forces and secular nationalism, Kemalism, secularism, centralism, the official history…), occurred as a struggle of “existence”.

As Michel de Certeau indicate, during this struggle of  existence, the strong language, techniques and procedures produced as a result of “strategy” were being consumed (1990). Thus, new "tactics" have emerged. Consumed with cultural change for centuries and practices of daily life, modernity produced second or other type of modernity. The original model has been continuously “distorted" by the different social group that adopted different way of “becoming modern”. Descriptive boundaries of the public space have corroded; the "primitive elements" that were pushed to the private space, entered into public space as "free discussion” and "power" domains.

This intractable alternative modernity caused the vulnerability of the world that elites wanted to create ideologically and discursively, and the corruption of the balances that considered available as default or should be established "scientifically".  The continuous re-establishment of these broken balances was ensured by the military coup by the army, the main foundation of the model and the elites, or through the similar methods of violence found legitimacy from laws. The re-establishment effort of modernity as an ideal type by the army revealed the discriminative and exclusive mindset and ideological background of Turkish modernization. In other words, in spite of  values and principles such as "Republicanism", "equal citizenship", "national unity", "Democracy" that  exist as a discourse, elitist mentality has given up these values when new segments of society tried to enter the game.

In this case, the following determination can be made: the segments that negotiate with modernity enter into with their own interpretation and nourished from the world of cultural meaning outside the ideal type, do not have a “primitive” essence to be ashamed of as defined by the model of elites. These attributions are nothing but cultural linguistic categories elevated to scientific rhetoric, used by the powerful actors in modernity to tame the other classes and social segments and to protect their own positions and status in the community. And, the social segments in question have not been “civilized” as expected. However, at this stage, it is also necessary to add: Resistance and negotiations never performed on a single route with similar tactics.

The different segments of society produced different resistance and negotiation processes according to their proximity and distance to the center of modernism and depending on the power of their group and cultural references; their individual level of economic, cultural,
traditional capital; and the dose of violent exposure caused by the élites at the rate of "danger" they create. Similarly, even though there is a common axis of domestication, the project of modernization approached the different segments in different periods with different tactics. Therefore, the methods practiced as the basis of domestication strategies of modernization, even though sometimes intertwined, produced different axis of polarization in different parts of the society.

In addition to the most basic polarization Between pious people and secularism, in the problem the Kurds, in the relationship between tradition and modernity, the official and unofficial history, between Sunnites and Alevis, between left and right, between intellectuals and the public, "cosmopolitan" Istanbul (or "bureaucratic" Ankara) and  Anatolia, between Christianity and Islam, recently "National-assertion" and "vision of the European Union", even in discussion between the "Ottoman" Turkish and "pure- Turkish in old times the polarization has been very violent.  The first and foremost feature marked this polarization is the vertical polarization experienced with the state that represents the center of the strategy. However, in parallel, there is another horizontal-polarization can be considered as "success" of the reform strategy; this is drawing another segment periodically in the system when polarization occurred with a segment of the society.  Another words, the different segments of the society that produce different resistance, negotiation and answers, segments that produced different “modernity”  saw each other as a threat and has been divided into different identities and polarizations.

Headscarf and “Maleness” of Modernity at this stage, we now can get into the issue of headscarf, the main topic of this article. According to the reading of modernization that we problematized up to this point, religious people are not the only segment of the society that Turkish modernization targeted to domesticate. Similarly, headscarf, the most obvious manifestation of religiousness, too is not the only “issue” in the civilization / modernity. As a result, religious people are not “the only” side of axis of polarization created by Turkish modernization, and neither is veiled women the only victims of this process.

Considering primarily the victimization of head-scarfed women, gender studies can be very effective analytical tool to consider also the victimization of other segments of society. The polarizations created by modernization in general and Turkish modernization in particular can be read parallel to gender studies.  For example, according to the representatives of the second wave feminist movement like Simone de Beauvoir, women were built as the "other" or "negative” of men.  In other words, it is a “deficit” that masculine identity differentiates and distances itself (Extracted: Butler 1999). This is an important note that explains the construction of a weak femininity in relation to an average masculinity.

Ganders can be "recognized" and “defined" through the masculine / feminine binary; at the same time, can be taken away from other contexts containing class, ethnic, racial, and power relations. Thanks to this dual structure, identities fall into both sides are perceived with their own internal consistency. For example, man construct himself culturally as male based on perception of "physical differences". Due to the cultural dominance in a patriarchal structure, man reconstructs his "physical superiority". In this case, both men and women have learned that they have a “core,” and have developed behaviors appropriate to this "core".

However, based on the discussion about gender, another important expansion can be made about the construction of masculinity and femininity as a binary opposition. Based on Luce Irrigaray'e words, "deficiency" and "otherness" of femininity is not the defining element of masculinity; Furthermore, the feminine gender is the "unrepresented” one; and it is not an identity referred to with its “incompetence” feature.

However, both men and women are built within one masculine language systems. In other words, those who are both subject and object are the “masculine” basis of masculine language. This language realizes its authoritarian purpose by total exclusion of feminine. The rhetoric we perceive as masculinity and femininity and the differentiated form of this rhetoric, are diverse manifestations of the monolithic masculine language. This language system also leaves out a language or languages that can contain completely different meanings and signs (such as "feminine") (Irrigaray, 1997).

We can read this approach that provides radical criticism of the West and hegemonic representation of the Western modernization and its logic-basing the modernization on "one and only core"- together with   Judith Butler's analysis on “sex” and “gender”. Accordingly, in our modern language, simply it is quite problematic to think the  sexes are separated clearly from each other and have two different cores: ”natural” “pre- rhetoric”. On the other hand, it is also problematic to consider gender as cultural and social construction. Because, the "natural gender" too has been constructed under the hegemonic discourse of modern culture. In other words, there is not a pre- rhetoric (or independent of discourse) “natural core”. Culturally constructed as "gender" identity, construct pre-discourse “natural gender differences" or refer to “core” must be accepted as "natural"(Butler, 1999).

Undoubtedly, these debates on gender are not just discussion about power relations between masculinity and femininity. These debates are directly interested in the other power relations in society. Power relations, the dominant discourse, binary opposition and so on in gender context feed other power relations such as class, race, and ethnicity and can be fed in reverse by different power relations. But, at the same time, above analysis developed on masculinity and femininity, may have metaphorical function to reed different power relations in society.

Seen from this framework, we can talk about the double layer construction of modernization, especially Turkish modernization, which carries the characteristics of language of the dominant "masculinity". The first of these layers includes all genders and all social segments and put them under a single language; the second layer rhetorically de-composes and polarizes identities under this stereotypical and reductive language. At the first layer we meet both “male” and “female”; “modern” and “traditional”; the “secular” and the “religious”; or both “Turks” and “Kurds” (or other ethnic groups)   as prisoners of the modern language.   At the second layer, identities of female as the other of male; traditional as the other of modern; religious as the other of secular; Kurdish (or other ethnic) as the other of Turkish are established. 

In this case, modernity does not aim only to tame and educate the woman, the traditional (or religious) or Kurds; but at the same time imposes sanctions on categories like "modern self"   attributed in binary oppositions. In fact,  as Tayfun Atay points by saying "masculinity crushes men the most ",  an individual raised as modern  has to re-construct his modernity constantly  and  must always  pass the modernity test (Atay, 2004).

However, this exam never reaches a full success. Because it is impossible to comply fully with the ideal description drawn by language of hegemonic modernity (or masculinity) due to demographic, social, class and cultural diversity exist in the background.  There is another obstacle beyond these simple impossibilities about compatibility. The continuing dominance of powerful classes in society depends on putting distance between themselves and the large segments of society. Ruling classes need to distance to take line’s share from the wealth of society instead of sharing it equally and to protect the prestige and the status that legitimize this unequal sharing.

In short, this jealousy guarded distance makes it difficult for the broad public groups to adapt.  The more the envied ideal description get closer, the harder to get it.  Therefore, just as gender discourse victimizes both men and women, that is to say, one language creates two victims; the language of modernity creates two victims on the axis of modern-traditional, secularism-religion, etc. In this case, the following can be said about the veil: In fact, head-scarfed women are not the only victims; those who have learned “head-cover-less-ness” (unveil) is also a victim. They pass through the domestication process of modernity and have learned to shame.

But the response of this “modernized” group against the other segments of this population depends on an observation needed to be underlined.  They  ( head-scarfed women), never or not exactly passing through the test of modernity , try to  be in public space with their “pre-modern” state and intend to enjoy fruits of modern world without pain, which modernized people have reached after overcoming many difficulties. And today, the presence of head-covered women make visible their (modernized) repressed source of shame ; "traditional", "backwardness" and so forth which is thought to have been overcome .  They see their struggle in the direction of modernization is blighted; but they think going back now is impossible, and they see the impossibility of going back to original state - "the shame”. This self determination of not going back to “shame”  turns to become the hardest response against the carriers of “shame”   that emerge without “embarrassment”.  

The  efforts of head-covered women to go out in public space  as an area of power means the shocking emergence of the invisible tradition, which survived silently  in the time period when industry and urbanization movement were not strong, and all the related manifestations. The modernist-masculine discourse that contains neither “the name of woman” nor “the name of traditional” gets into crisis exactly at result of this emergence.  This crisis of modern and masculine language is not limited to only the topic of head-cover. Crises is expanding with the concussion coming from the other areas; an “un-existing” history and “non-exist” ethnic identities too come into sight. 

The efforts of “non-existed others” of top-down radically imposed modernization, to appear in public sphere deeply affect the existence of domesticated bodies; and make them feel under the multi-pronged threat of "un-captured” woman’s body, the East, and the tradition. However, one of the most important features of modern-masculine discourse is its capacity to construct the others “one-dimensional” While offering itself as “single reality”.

In other words, according to this discourse, there is a “uniform individual and community” against” one type of modern individual and society". More importantly, the segments of society who managed to remain outside the effects of this discourse too gave the appropriate responses to this uniform and built themselves as a homogeneous whole.  However, in spite of all speculations of such discourse, there is a very rich range of practices in everyday life under these conjectures. Those how behave appropriate to modern discourse and those “vet blanket” are plural. 

The borders between these two are vague. Contrary to the claims of the discourse (and the counter-discourse) transitions between them are very intensive. All segments set as bilateral are in both common as well as the utmost different practices. In short, just as women are being plural, men are the plural; modernists or plural as much as traditionalists are.   However, this plurality begins to talk with one language in the face of pressure. When it comes to identification women imitate men and the traditional imitate the modern. Because, there is no other alternative other than constructed conflicting discourse.

However, this imitation or requirement to speak in dualism imposed by the dominant discourse annihilate the complexity of everyday life and nested transitions. Considering Michel de Certeau, individuals who have to speak in the area defined by secular-modernist "strategies", subject the same strategy with different formats- " with tactics " -,  to "a second production" (Certeau, 1990) Therefore, the strategy is in a continuous change. The groups who internalized the modernity and think they lead the strategy or those who are domesticated are not the only actors of this change; those who have “no name” or have been the invisible “victims” tried to be bend or stoop by the modernist discourse are also the actors of this constant change.

Head-cover: A Complicated Reality ın another study (Kentel, Ahıska, Young, 2007),  we underlined that "the veil" alone  does not mean anything; especially, contrary to the claims of modernist discourse, too far away  to be a "symbol" , it is a practice contains  many different comments, causes and habits.

Accordingly, beyond the rhetoric ("it is an ideological tool", "it is the order of Allah" it is a political message, “it is a democratic right", etc...)  All around the head cover, there is a wide range of meanings of head-cover provided both by the veiled women as well as people watching them.   Wearing headscarf in these range of meanings can be explained by various reasons such as "traditionalism", " habit (or force) family coming from the family ", "To be comfortable,” and "security".  Thus, the head-cover put on by o rural and the traditional older generations (“the grandmother") just because how they ‘saw’ it in their "ancestors ", can enter urban life with a variety of other reasons. Even, the form of head-cover has taken very different urban styles and the value of grandmother head-cover style has been lost.

While the head-cover of grandmothers or  head-covers of service professionals(caretaker, doorman, janitorial ) who do not obliged to carry the modernist discourse was not seen by the modernist discourse, this the new-shaped plural ‘head-covers’ have occupied the streets of the city life, that is, the  public life of modernity.

With this occupation, the crisis has started. Using the grandma’s headscarf as a nostalgic reference, the modernist discourse has waged war against these new veiled occupier and resister women.  From the moment of attempt to enter the public domain, head-cover, which finds meaning with the tactics in everyday life, has met with meaning concentration ( "political symbol "," democratic rights "," Allah's order ", etc...).  But, in spite of this concentration, tactics fed by everyday life keep surviving and continue to resist at the hardest core of the strategy.  The most hard core of strategy are educational institutions, universities, where science and modernity are taught, and other public institutions, where modernity is represented. The experiences of head-covered women who are forbidden to enter these institutions, for example, testimony of victims of head-cover compiled by Mazlum-Der (Associations of Victims) reflects clearly the capacity of resistance and transformation.

Hurdle Race

First of all, these witnesses show that women who have come to university with headscarf met with bans follow different routes to life in a very wide range. However, one of the interesting points among these different routes is the desire of a significant portion of these women to get out of their lower social position under the call and attraction of education, one of the most basic pillars of modernity. All the stories told are example of efforts to achieve despite the all social, class and traditional obstacles, difficulties, and even pressure from the family.   For example, Sevim's and Arzu's experiences or the story of Mary refer to a traditionalism of a normal social environment that one just born into. Traditionalism they experience is “normal”; a “normalcy” that different from what modernity taught…“normalcy” as a pressure sometimes prevents education of girls…

"I also wore shalwar (baggy trousers) and covered my hair with yazma (a kind of traditional headscarf) until I got married and came to city. In my village, during my childhood years, it was a shame for women, girls, as well as men to go out in public with bare head. The elderly peers of my deceased grandmother used to look upon the foreigners coming to the village with bare head by saying ' an infidel came to the village ".  If you are a woman in the East of this country, you have a big problem. The others decide when to sleep when to rise; Where to go, where not to go; what to wear or not wear; even what to drink or not to drink.
 Of course, it was not different for me... but I want to give my own decision in each subject, I was a child of a poor family, I had no other choice but education. Some people even thought I would be indecent if I go to University. I used to read a lot. When I read about Islam, I realized that in Qur’an women were ordered to cover their head.

In the last year of high school I have covered my head with my own will. Suddenly, people’s perspectives and ideas of me have changed. Because, to be covered here is a desirable behavior."

“We were a middle class family. What would change if girls get educated? As if everyone around me was against me. Nevertheless, I kept going school and I am committed to finish.” 

Dürdane’s story is the tale of efforts to overcome “the social shame” caused by poverty   marked her childhood. As a student I had lived in a small town, under very difficult conditions half hungry -half full. The distance between home and school was one hour by walk. Winter used to be severe in town. I used to leave home in the morning and return in the evening. I could not eat lunch. My family could not afford to give me allowance.  They could not pay transportation fee either.  One day, I was coming home, walking in the knee-deep snow.  I got stuck in the mud because of melting of the snow. I was determined to build up with mud. There was an old summer shoe on my foot. The bottom of shoe broke away from the top. That cold winter day, I came home barefoot without shoes. In evening, I drained my shoes next to stove and then I stitched the pieces together. Then I went to school in the morning wearing them again. At that time, I was a seventeen years old young girl. I have never forgotten the constant staring of our history of art teacher on my shoes while I was trying to hide them.  I have never had separate clothes for winter and summer. I was thinking get out of these conditions by education.”

The goal of these challenging stories of poverty is success and this success will be earned by educational achievement. As Yildiz’s experience indicates… "I was six years old when my father died, my mother had no job and profession, she was illiterate too,  she was pregnant to my fifth sibling when she was widowed…She took us to Izmir, near our relatives. She raised us with the lowest orphan pension and cleaning homes.”

These life stories are not limited to solid facts of a traditional world; as in the case of Nevin, these stories reach to pick point (family breakdown) with the “tragedies” experienced with the family and spouses:
 
" Year 1989: I got admitted to Atatürk University, Faculty of Theology, but, based on the circumstances, my family could not afford to support my education. I got married the same year. It was a marriage shaped with the solid tradition of the East. I do not want to tell the persecution and torture my husband did to me as an Imam."

Nevin's story kept going later with a continuous struggle and the family dramas. Divorce, giving the custody of daughter to father as a of family pressure, going to Ankara, college preparation, work in factories, in the year, migrated to Istanbul in 1995, working as a secretary, re – preparation to university exam ...

But, because of changing dress regulation, this "hurdle race"  can continue after the graduation.  For example, Melek’s story that started at Uludağ University in 1998, parallel to the headscarf ban, continued in Cyprus Eastern Mediterranean University in 1999, then in Kırıkkale University in 2002, she was expelled after two years because of being absent, accounts unending ordeal.

Emel’s “hurdle race” in university alone exceeds 20 years and obstacles after university are still in progress:

"I graduated from Çapa Teachers College in 1973-1974 academic year as an elementary school teacher. Next year I was appointed to Zonguldak.  In 1975, I registered to University. In 1978, I got married while I was a student at faculty. In 1980, I had a son. Due to my pregnancy, I missed the classes and exams and I lost two years. In each exam that I attempted to take in 1981, I was warned and forced to leave the exam room.  14 years later, by taking advantage of the student amnesty in 1995, after completing my remaining 5 courses, I graduated from Marmara University, Business School. (…) My diploma in Teaching, also the diploma I received from the Business School and even the career I have made abroad about the Islamic Economics Islamic banking were useless; because I was veiled!" However, Scarf ban does not hurt veiled women alone. Experiences of Sevim, Yıldız, and Nermin can be characterized as "family size prohibition"... Because of Sevim’s Headscarf, her husband, an officer in Air Force was fired with the decision of Supreme Military Council; her daughter, graduated from Imam Hatip High School, can’t go to university.

Because of Yıldız’s headscarf and religious lifestyle, her husband was investigated. ‘When he de-promoted from his Assistant Manager status and appointed to Hakkari (remotest region of Turkey) as a teacher, he succumbed into depression and divorced me holding me responsible for everything happened.  In addition, although I was not a teacher anymore, state found me guilty and I was reprimanded and punished. (...) My son was going to the same school where we were teacher, after we were fired; our son was harassed, beaten and failed in class by some teachers calling him as ‘son of bigots’. Although I reported to the authorities, the issue was overlooked; the witnesses were silenced and offenders got away with little penalties.’’

Nermin's older sister had to leave school because of her headscarf, and she gets married; her veiled mother, who comes for the exam of her younger sister, was not allowed to enter the university: Whereas friends and relatives of every exam takers were waiting in the building, like a diseased people, my mother had not been allowed". 

In short, young women and their families who try to overcome the obstacles of tradition and class-social victimization, and enter the circle of modernity, have been eliminated by the exclusive mechanism of the same modernism. This is not just an individual exclusion; it is a process has been breaking up families as well…

Coercion Tactics of the Strategy

A student achieved to enter university with headscarf  means a "twitch" discordant with the image of “modernity” built in the frame the Modernist strategy dominates.
In order to get rid of this twitch, mechanisms discipline is implemented.  These mechanisms may occur with bans, which regulated by legal references, exclusion, isolation and, implicit or explicit pressure and violence.

“Headscarf ban”, which can express these practices in a general term, is performed with the "surveillance and control” techniques in fairly different areas of life and university life. Melek’s "Happy start of an Academic Year” in 1998 witnesses the demonstration of strategy’s control with all nakedness:

"In every course we attend we write letter “T” next to our names’ indicating that we were “head-covered” students, on the roll of attendance paper. This is requested by the course instructor personally and it is also controlled by them."

One of the most important tools of Turkish modernist strategy-in connection with its effort to monopolize the interpretation of religion- is secularism that defined as a life style and presented with religious insight.  These seculars and the domesticated "modernists” try to control the “Islamic knowledge”, powerful reference of veiled women, and prove the “wrongness” of wearing veil. Fatma and Nevin are just two among hundreds of people who were tried to be “persuaded” to take off their veil when they enter the university:

"This time, mixing the verses and Hadith, (he) began to offer Islamic references to me…But, of course I put my position clearly and went out. Of course, I did not register... "(Fatma)” When the saw the photos, they took me in a room politely. As soon as I enter the room, I understood that this is the famous (!) 'Persuasion room'. I was facing T. S. She told me many things. ‘It would be waste of my 3 years; and waste of family efforts and labor.’ But I told her that Allah is the owner of life; He is the one makes the rules; I will never violate the rules". (Nevin)

However, this control is not just based on the deterring “fine” technologies (marking with "T letter", controlling "information" with "Islamic references") that show the “otherness” of people.  Control turns to oppression when the fine technology is not enough.  First in classroom later in the action against the ban:

“If a head-covered student bypasses Security officers and enters to the classroom, teacher would not accept them and call security. Our first expel occurred just like that. While we were Prof. C.’s lesson, one of them female five security guards came and kicked me and my friend out of classroom."(Melek)

“We were participating in country wide protest called light a candle for ‘Freedom and Respect to Values’. We were besieged by polices at Bursa square and transported to Police Department. 

 Our unveiled friends, who came to support us, were released. Their aim is just to get us. We are about 150 people. Nevertheless, we try to be enthusiastic with applause and anthems. We stayed all night there until next morning, 11 am, to appear before the court. Police escorts us to the bathroom and telephone.  In this way, we give news to our family. We make several depositions. Finally, I was acquitted after the months lasted trails. (Melek)

One of the most important procedures of fight that strategy has against headscarf is to prevent the demand oh the headscarf as the cultural, religious or democratic rights.

Instead of counter representation in this direction, to presenting headscarf as a "public security issue" and suppressing it severely, play an important role in isolation of head-covered students.

“Just like in previous years, I went to my school on the first day of school.  There were police almost more than twice as students. They were from anti-terror division to control students aged between 13 and 18 and have only book in their backpack.  They were waiting in front of school with the necessary tools and equipment as if a terrorist activity is about to happen. We thought there was an event at school. To our surprise, all these Panzers, the helmets, truncheon, weapons and bullet-proof clothing was for us! (...)

"(After a year) once more, lots of police filled in front of the school with their batons in hand, with Panzer, arms (!), bullet-proof clothing and helmets.  But this time there was VIOLENCE. We were pushed, beaten, ridiculed and insulted by the police. We were put into the police cars by force and left no man’s land.”  (Esma, a student in Imam Hatip High School)

"I was also participated in demonstration took place in Ankara Abdi Ipekci Park to protest headscarf ban. I can’t forget our running from the police baton. That fear still lives in me. I still do not know why we have been beaten! "(Arzu)

The discipline aimed to create the bodies "appropriate to representation” and tried to be implemented by means of    the school administration, "persuasion rooms", violence, police, bureaucracy and judiciary, puts the veiled women in professional life, in the position of "terrorist":

"After a period of 15 years 8 months, my whole life and my health were broken with a new regulation. For 2 years, I've been treated like a terrorist. I was depressed by going to give deposition every time I was called; being advised as if my faith is unnecessary and harmful; and being ridiculed.

I am not able to tell by writing the inhumane treatment such as  not being allowed to school, waiting in an empty room, not allowed to speak with my students in the hallway, repeated appearances in the court, and listening to judges saying “ go find another country for yourself if you want to work with your headscarf.” (Yildiz’s)

 The abundance and diversity of tactics against headscarf have been wrapped in the nature of "total war" as totalitarian practices.
 
"In 1998 too, because of my headscarf, an administrative follow-up was initiated when I was appointed to Tuzla Imam Hatip High School by the Ministry of Education. I am having difficulties to tell what I lived through those days such as punishments, psychological pressures, exile, isolation etc."(Fatma)

One of the most striking examples of “forced civilization” of the headscarfed women can be seen in Armed Forces, the castle of the authoritarian Turkish modernization. In another words, not only women, but men too, have been tried to be disciplined excusing their veiled spouses:

"My husband, an officer in the Air Force, was being under constant watch and pressure because of his religiosity and my veil.  Although my husband tried to make me feel comfortable, this pressure used to create stress, affect our peace of mind from time to time. There was a pressure for religious officers to join the parties and meetings with their spouses. They were punished if they don’t! We were kept under control with various visits to our house and reports were prepared about us. "(Sevim)

With these reports the "criteria" of “backwardness” is determined; For example, features such as “drinking alcohol” can help to understand whether an officer is “backward”. These features are the part of surveillance mechanisms of strategy:

"The most interesting aspect is; the commander of troops was warned that religious (backward) officers are the hardest working and the most disciplined personnel to camouflage themselves. My husband, who was a first lieutenant in those years, was a very industrious person.

He was graduated successfully from military school and carried out pilot studies but had to leave because of alcohol pressure (if you don’t drink alcohol, you are automatically assumed to be a religious fanatic). Since he left the flight training willingly, he was appointed as a radar controller…"(Sevim)

Prohibition and corresponding “punishment” do not have “legality” concerns all the time.  Which is prohibited, and prohibited practice in violation of “punishment” of the “legality” of the transportation concerns always not necessary? The strategy that produces its own legitimacy "does not carry the obligation to protect the "Legality of prohibition" in practice. With “fine tactics” can be push aside:

“Although both Esma and I had top scores (5) in all classes, our certificate of appreciation was not given. (…)A day before the religious festival, I was thrown out of school as a disciplinary punishment.

Moreover, I was defamed with drug and alcohol use, smoking, damaging school equipment, bringing a stranger to school and slurring on the teachers."(Şeyma, Imam Hatip High School student)

We must note an interesting paradox here: on the one side, the tactics of the strategy considers "not to drink alcohol" as a sign of religious fanaticism, on the other side, “drinking alcohol” can be included into the examples of “disrespect “behaviors.

Prohibitions of the Strategy and its Socialization

According to Michel de Certeau, "strategy" is not a plan, a program or a language enforced by a ruling class. This refers to the rule of “information” that has emerged with the power relations in society; and its borders define the “other” inside and outside. Strategies develop totalitarian systems and discourses in that limited “space”. In other words, the people are not independent of the strategy; they search for their own way in those strategies and try to be accepted and survive. Therefore, the sanctions brought by strategy to reproduce itself are used both by the “strongest” who holds the watchtowers of those strategies, as well as by ordinary people (Certeau, 1990). Ordinary people overlap with strategy.

What Gonul describes is examples of the manifestation of this total strategy in relation to various faces of headscarf ban and its socialization:

"This forbidder mentality sometimes was a faculty dean, we could not enter to our schools; sometimes it was an elementary school principal, we could not attend the flag ceremony; Sometimes it was a busybody security officers, sometimes it was a dentist you run over her when you have the pain in your teeth; and sometimes it was your colleague that you encounter in the courthouse."

The effect of ban can create results in unexpected areas of life.  While "University" lecturers, who try to establish authority on Students by pressure and have become the watch tower of the regime, coincide with the language of power and receive their share of power, similarly, another case can be seen in Imam Hatip high school where religious education is given. Before the ban, these teachers used to teach veil as a requirement of religion. But, after the ban, with the legal and financial pressures they internalized the discipline and unwillingly became the follower of the status quo:

"And this (removal of the veil), was wanted by some teachers who give Islamic education. Even, a few of them in these schools were father of those girls! "(Esma)

Undoubtedly, there is a “fear” and “disgust” in veiled women caused by this "technologies of pressure and intimidation”, however, there is more effective indirect result: feeling of left “alone”  by other students and social environment influenced by these technologies… This feeling of “isolation” brings "defeat" with it:
 
"Except one or two friend of us, no one wants to support us or even to be witness "
" In the meantime, most of our friends want to remove their headscarf without any objections to get in the classes. We break this case is the great moral support would be waiting all alone. This is very depressing. We were left alone while hoping their support. Because of their position, the school administration is much harsher in their response to us. Our school Identification cards are confiscated.”
 

“People of Bursa is watching us in silence (against the police intervention during our protest), this much indifference and apathy bothers us.

"We are U\unable to enter mid-term exams; the results of the exams we could enter are not posted. There is no end to punishment, this time instead of a month of suspension, I get one semester suspension. I think I can’t go on like this and I leave the school.” (Melek)

The power of strategy is coming from the production of social indifference, insensitivity and apathy toward people isolated from populations by categorization and ostricization.   However, the concept of strategy exist with "tactics"; the tactics that transform and twist the strategy in the process of the "integration" is a “resistance” at the same time to make life sustainable and to stay alive... the route of young women who try to enter the university with the veil is, at the same time, filled with the stories of resistance.

Resistance
Strategy renew itself by applying new tactics; in order to suppress new movements, new languages and new forms, or to assimilate them, new methods of pressure and persuasion put in practice. However, tactics, in fact, are “the weapon of the weak". While strategy is built upon a fixed place and acceptance of the dominant language for all time, tactics are dependent on "time" and move on that fixed place. Headscarfed women (or all individuals, groups, etc live there.) can manipulate advantage of variability and flow of time against strategy that try to fix headscarf ban. Therefore, the resistance path that occurs through tactics and depending on the tactics different production of strategy brings change with it.

Tactics may be manifested in the view of "tricks”, "small or large heroisms", “the different interpretations”, and sometimes only the "compliance and submission". But in any event, there are tracks that all these left on strategy.
 
"This practice continued for a week, in this time period no one removed their headscarf (the turban not) and does not go to school. Male students too boycotted the classes to support us, at the expense of to be beaten by teachers who suppose to teach us God’s orders and prohibitions…” (Esma)

The resistance of the head-covered students in their school requires first a "moment of decision" and sometimes it can turn into “wrist wrestling":

"We had a half-hour respite, in this half hour everyone had to remove their headscarf. If one does not remove, would turn in to the administration. And the moment of truth ...
all girls without exception removed their headscarf. (…)Suddenly, a peace came into me and I put all the indecision aside and made my decision. I put my headscarf on again and I said to girls: 'Who is coming to principal’s office with me?" (Şeyma)

"Soon after, I had to face all these fears in the National Security course at the second year high school. The teacher said he would not start the lesson as long as we stay in classroom with headscarf. Head-covered students had to leave the classroom. Since no one changed their status, he had left the classroom. "(Nigar)

And much more concrete than the tactics, a new word - "resistance" - is being learned:
"Every day, fresh news used to reach; Police will wait at the school gates and put students away. In those days, we met the concept of ' resistance '. We could not get education in our own country, in our own school as we believe in. We would resist ... "(Nigar)

Perhaps, the capability to “hold” gained in the educational adventure in the character of “hurdle” from the beginning, brings the effort of "going to school no matter what" and not to give in:
 
"And, since the beginning of the third week, security officer of  the university stand at the gates. They stop head-covered students there. But when the officers leave for a short-term we can enter inside, skipping from the window when we get an opportunity... "(Melek)

Continuing struggle, constant tactics give a new dimension to the resistance of head-covered students which has gained a "movement" quality: "Experience" or "accumulation"...

"We did not idle of course.  During 1998 academic year we organized many marches and protests to make our voice heard. Mazlum-Der, armies of lawyers, swat forces were always with us. While we were beaten by the police, lawyers used to defend our rights, and press used to publish our photographs."(Nevin)

Initially, the sporadic relations in which people from different social and cultural root share only sympathy in the face of victimization, becomes "organized struggle of a new identity," with the experience gained in the struggle itself...

"some marches were attended by 30 thousand people. But this number decreased over time. First, friends from different view left the line. Then, those who wanted to have a job left us.  Now, certain people had been in the field. And we did not leave our cause in order to be the witnesses. In 1999 we established Ozgur-Der ... in 15 December 99, a month before the Association was founded, I was taken into custody with my 21 friends in front of the Faculty of Letters. This was another experience in my life. I remained in custody one night. We sang freedom march until the morning. The next day at noon we were at the court. "(Nevin)

Simply, the struggle of veil is no longer the story of “young girls who want to get education”. "Head-covered girls" are face to face with the modern state, the most concrete representation of the strategy and its judiciary power. This is the phase which "purity" meets with a new phase, with the court wall, the judiciary corridor, the "suspect" and "conviction" statuses and even  “illegality".
 
"The process of ban has been applied differently in every high school. During our administrative inquiry, we were summoned to the court. We could not explain to friends, relatives and neighbors why police is looking for us"(Ayse)

“Soon after the court I've found guilty with other seven people. The decision appeared to be arrested by default and we had hidden for days. However, this decision was removed later..."(Nevin)

In short, the checkered route of life until university with headscarf, meet a new breaking point with university; is a new experience together with a break: the story of life at the individual level transforms into the story of a collective movement. However, this process is a “painful” process that contains “legal struggles” and sometimes brings penalties and “isolation”.
"Towards the end of the year, I got the news that my entry form was canceled. Then I began to knock the doors of lawyers. None of my friends, who have agreed to fight as a group, was with me.  Most of them could not get support from their families.  I pressed a charge with the help of lawyers who supported me "(Nigar)

“The case has resulted in two years. With the help of my lawyers, I sent my file to European Human Right Court (AHIM)". (Nigar)

"Courts, fines, teachers’ pressure to persuade…none of them intimidated me. I found myself in a legal fight that would last 3 years. I went to prep school for two years to keep my knowledge fresh. I did not lose my hope in any way. I waited patiently for the day I will receive my diploma.
 
(...) After 3 years my case went to deadlock. Meanwhile, we searched for the alternatives of the graduation from the eighth grade. When I reached fifteen years old, I registered to open primary school" (Seda)

However, in spite of everything, collective perception of the problem, the individual faith and thought of not being alone, causes constant "hope" and search for solution. Life experiences open the doors of other people. For instance, being witnessed to the advice of some teachers, who teach Islam, to give up headscarf, while solidarity of some other teachers with headscarf, expand the perception of young Headscarfed girls; brings them face to face with some other realities.

"And this teacher was someone who does not have any Islamic lifestyle, like for many other sensible people; this practice was ridiculous for him."(Esma)
 
Moreover, doors of other worlds open, international experience is gained.

"That was the end of the day; I was thrown out of school. The reason for my suspension was giving head-covered photo for re-registration. But this is our country. I kept positive attitude thinking this as the order of Allah. When I start Austria Vienna University Computer Engineering department and obtained my head-covered school ID,

I was happy like children. "(Mülkan)

"During my education abroad I understand that dialogue can be established with all kind of people… I want you to know that I gained a lot” (Ayse).

Identity and Social Movement between Hope and Despair

What is at stake here is a social movement with the open end. As we can see in any social movement analysis, here too different results from the will of the actors may emerge. Again, as we can see in any social movement, head-covered young people may carry the new collective identities that they have built in this difficult process and defensive and exploring features at the same time. Similarly, they may have a character containing both desperation (crisis tendencies) and hope. With these features the movement of Head-covered women has a sociological richness.

.
First, ban is everywhere, experience also is everywhere. "We are in 21st century, and still there are millions of victims of the ban... You cannot go School, you cannot go to the hospital, you cannot enter the judiciary... with this ID, and you cannot enter any place that is called public sphere. "(Seda)

With such an experience, the bewilderment, frustration, leaving a successful professional life, the decline and fall as social-class, rewinding back to where you were at the beginning, in short, a process of a total disappointment can be lived:
 
"Being fired because of my headscarf made us confused. Because, for years, with this outfit, I got my education in state schools and applied for teaching and was accepted with this outfit. Now, what was suddenly changed that I lost my name? (Fatma)

“Since I'm 12 years old, I went to school always with head-covered and I also taught with my headscarf. I did not open my head at any stage of my life. Because I believed headscarf is ordered by Allah; that is why I used to cover my head. (...)I was always appreciated in my student and professional life. I was able to overcome any obstacle under difficult circumstances. However, this time headscarf put in front of me as a barrier. Anasol-M government began to see us as traitors. This attitude of the government has disappointed us. Soon after, our rights of work and the freedom to dress up were taken away from us and we are fired"(Dürdane).

"Now, I am an ordinary housewife with no value, almost trapped in the house and has been made ineffective person. Even, I struggle in financial strait with my 4 children. I can’t even afford educational and nutrition needs of my very clever and successful children. Every day, I’m getting into debt. I do not know when and how to pay this debt."(Dürdane)

"I was trapped to home during the most productive age of my youth. Many of the ladies around me are primary school graduate; it is very difficult to find a mate to share my thoughts. Before 'let the girls' go to school. So, we did. Now, I cannot go to school even if I want to study. We were said: 'get education and get a job! Do not be a slave to your husband'. I want to work, but I was not allowed.  They made me slave to my husband. I cannot tell you how ashamed I am when I want money from him. "(Arzu)

"As a result of 20 years of education I reached to my biggest goal, being a teacher and I designed a life accordingly. I had a certain carrier and I had standards. But, now being fired, my life was completely overturned. Now I cannot work in any school because of my headscarf. When I applied for clerkship position in a store, owner offered very low wage. When I asked why such a low wage, he said nobody hires a head-covered woman anyway, so take it and be happy that you have a job” (Esma A.)

Undoubtedly, this fall is not just a "change of position". While progressing in the way of modernism, being taken away from school and years of professional life because of the pressure of control tools that monopolize the language of modernity can be the source of lifetime trauma.  This detachment from the signs that makes life meaningful, also means inability to find a container to put a sense of responsibility learned and gained with struggle of life. The case of Arzu who is no longer practicing her teaching profession is an example for this:

 "I have heart ache when I see children with blue uniform going to school in September. Do you know how chalk smell? I'm afraid even to go to my child’s parents’ meeting. Any school I go I feel sad. I remember my students I used to hug when they cry; I used to wipe when their noses run; and children I used to play games with... I am getting upset. "

However, on the other hand, head-covered women have a "capital" that could balance this traumatic situation prevent it to become crisis “faith”… Faith, in the face of exclusion and repression, provide a higher sense of the meaning than the school or the profession carry; "Sacrifice" as a higher sense of meaning can compensate the sense of lost:

" The Lord, who created me, give me a life and an infinite blessing, want me to cover and obey Him. I did it; I put my dreams, my hopes and expectations at aside with my backhand. (Emel)
 
While Emel was "putting her dreams, hopes, and expectations aside", the results of the ban has transformed Zahide’s despair to “mourning”.

"I used to say ‘the criterion of mastery in the eyes of Allah is takva (fear of God), the best translation of takva is to have the responsibility for Creator and creature’…. My religion does not allow despair; so, I am not in despair. But I am morning for my beloved profession which taken away from me by force. These days I am always wearing black clothes. "(Zahide)

 Even though despair is in proximity of a constant feeling, when a special individual issue reaches to a collective dimension, the individual despair opens door to a collective expectation. The issue of ban is added to a much more general conflict; historically, the idea of a "meaningful” struggle and the consciousness of being an actor of a social movements have become evident.
 
"Then I realized that this fight is not a simple fight, this fight is the fight of right-wrong which has been ongoing since the world established. First, headscarf ban in universities, then in private prep-schools, after in public offices, then perhaps curfew. So, now I do not want to end the fight. If this ends, the rest will come. This I believe with all my heart... "(Nermin)
"I hope we can go to middle school, secondary school, an university in our own country with headscarf… Hope of Almighty Allah should never be forgotten… we should never give up... This is a test, should be patient ... We should resist ... "(Esma)

"Perhaps, time took away a lot from us... But our hearts, our faith and our hope were always fresh. We were not deterred and we did not get tired… This is why the system was unable to get what they want… Maybe we were not able to finish our school, we were unable to make a career, but are still standing with our faith and headscarf. We are going to be in all fields of life. Of course, outside the public domain!!! "(Nevin)
 
What is in question here is not the struggle of a social actor; Head-covered women are under the support of a very strong reference.   Therefore, in spite of any negativity and despair, confidence in society and social change has become evident. This trust with the power of resistance has strengthened "Self-esteem" too.

“Today, just like in the past, human history is witnessing to the struggle of people who wants to live and get education according to their beliefs.  Sooner or later, right can be returned to owners, justice will prevail."(Nigar)
 
"Now, I think, yes we had the pain and hardship. Our wounds were deep. This ban took away too much from us. But, in fact, we have learned what we have and what we need to have. We learned how to fight against all kinds of injustice and the paths of finding justice. We paid the prices in the names of our values and our struggle. Those who still fight against the ban which still maintain its existence, adds power to our strength. We're right."(Nigar)

"They have to understand this: Our struggle for our headscarf and our identity will continue until the end even if some of us give up. They like it or not, headscarf is the order of Allah, and there is no higher order. We are all under His power. If this is an exam, we have to be successful." (Seda)

“I believe one day the injustices will be ended and I will return to my profession, I hope so. Because I know of people who lose hope has not nothing to lose. The light of truth is strong enough to eliminate the darkness of tyranny, just like the disappearance of night with the sun rise.” (Fatma)

Modernization, Globalization and Public Space Today

The image of modern life is changing through these "head-covered people". Headscarf disfigures the image, hypothesis and representation of “well-functioning modern structure". Individuals are individual scattered in different corners of this structure even though they share similar values (equality, freedom ...) and demands (recognition, democratic rights, welfare ...).

Crystallization of headscarf as a symbol of resistance that gained urban experience provokes reaction of the secular strategy that uses smoothing language (“headscarf is a political tool”).  Headscarf is in fact a form of everyday existence. Contrary to all claims, it is a religious, social and cultural practice. Since headscarf as such questions national integrity, perceived as a symbol of more general resistance or an irritating “un-docile” state and therefore it is being reacted. 

However, if we open a parenthesis here, the issue is not a society divided just because of headscarf. Besides headscarf, there are several social pieces that differentiated from each other with their symbols and rituals, more important than this decomposition, these segments hate and fear from each other. In addition to religiosity, there are similar divisions such as Alevism, Kurds, non-Muslims, Armenians and especially different reading of  1915 event, in the society that threaten to break the homogeneity claim and representation of modern nation state.  We can say that, as in the case of “headscarf”, these different “others” in the society have been exposed the mechanism of exclusion. In spite of this exclusion and control mechanisms, controlling the life and uniting the much differentiated social sectors do not seem possible. Discussion of the meaning of public space today is needed in order to understand this differentiation and the reactions against it.
 
First of all, “public space”, one of the most important stages of “civilization process” which associated with the struggle of the bourgeoisie by Habermas (1978), faces a major challenge in every corner of the world today. Since wealth and capitalism cannot be restricted to national borders, public space too is no longer "national". Sovereignty is over the national borders. Public space is also globalized as a "free discussion" area.
 
In the meantime, it is impossible to do a coherent "public space" description by looking at applications and the official or dominant discourses in Turkey. In fact, it is more accurate to talk about an imaginary apparatus that instrumental zed by élites according to their interests.  Therefore, public space sometimes can be "airport apron", sometimes "Operation room", sometimes "school", sometimes "council", "court" or "green space". But, beside this instrumental zed domain, there is a concrete area struggle in question.

So, appropriate to the logic public domain, it is a field where power struggle and representation of citizen are realized. Therefore, even in this way, it is parallel to the public space struggle in the West. Especially, similarities with France, which Turkish secularism was imported, are clear.  Undoubtedly, in spite of differences(such as Islam and Catholicism, top down establishment of modernity and the emergence of the strong classes As a result of  relatively  dynamics challenges), each country looks like each other in terms of severe and "revolutionary"  attitudes against religion, and reflection of these attitudes in the public sphere. But in other countries, for example, in Germany or in the United Kingdom, the "free discussion" aspect of public space is more visible. This, of course, is due to well adaptation of these countries to the globalization process. But this feature does not mean that public space is not the field of power struggle or fight against the classical modernism. 

In fact, the public sphere has never been faithless. Rising modern bourgeoisie had to preach "unbelief" to exit from the traditional social structure based on a kind of faith.In fact, it had a belief faith too:

Belief in “instrumental mind”… all set up, narration, and the world presented as an imagination were based on faith. However, the magnetism that bourgeoisie has created national level; Great-Modernist (capitalist or socialist) march of nation cannot go on today because of so called differentiation and the decomposition. The communities today cannot create itself as the society of bourgeoisie in the context of "nation", "national market". Incarceration to such a narrower field muffles modern people and they want to “reintegrate" themselves and their decomposed parts.

The strongest opposition against the hierarchical structure of modern society and the dynamic of "rational progresses" comes from cultural references that pushed into the private area. This opposition today enters the field of "free discussion" with the wind brought by dynamics of globalization (violations of border as a result of the fluidity of capital) and comes with alternative beliefs.

Abundance of references, the extraordinary diversification of the world, and divided parts in the face of the "evil" that modernity brought alongside the "goods", try to get together to make life meaningful. These efforts create a profound crisis mostly in the national level.  This does not mean that global level is without a hitch. However, in any case, the separation of public space and private space in new times starts to presents an anachronistic feature; because modernity already entered to a special area. But the private space entered de facto to public space. No spirituality, no language, cannot live just home; because they are all learned language of modernity. Practices confined to everyday life enter into today's modern life. The effort of Modernist, nationalist language to define public space as in the 19th century means that the groups who used to hide themselves behind the nation are no longer can manage this. 

So, today, the desire of some people to go public with their belief is in fact a demand for transparency; it is normalization. It is a closure of a historical parenthesis. This brings to think over normalcy again. For instance, let’s think about the issue of "veiling children ". In a secular environment of Turkey, it is usually talked about the fear that this children may create for future. So, accordingly, veiling small girls is abnormal and it is very difficult problem to solve.

However situation is much more simple. Young age "to wear headscarf” in young age is normal in the religious or traditional family environment where the young girl lives. Just like, "not to wear veil” at an early age is simply normal in and around the modern-secular family and environment... The difference is this: the modern-secular groups passed through the entire operations of domestication and internalized new and imported homogeneous values as “normal” activity around the entire modern operations and the end of the inhabitants of the past exposure to for new and imported "normal" as improved internalization; religious groups, on the other hand, internalized the practices of “head-cover”, which comes from a much longer process, as “normal”. 

In fact, veil is a manifestation of another older strategy rival to the domestication practices of modernity that tires to “capture children's bodies"… In short, the modern strategy and its Kemalist version cannot tolerate this competition. Moreover, as the quoted testimonies above indicate, headscarf is put on for different reasons in different practices. In the face ban, rationales such as the order of religion, traditionalism, patriarchal pressures, and habits upgrade to a modern democratic political claim on the ground of a social movement.
Removal of headscarf from the public space can be interpreted as reduction or imprisonment of modernism in a specific format.

This is in modernization of modernism itself. Using the language of modernity, this is backwardness of the ruling class, who cannot keep control of change and not able to alter with change.  Because, the largest problem of bourgeoisie, leader of industrial society, was to include the ostracized others via modernization and transformation.  Today, those others, not only in Europe, the cradle of modernity, but also in Turkey, where top-down modernity was realized by elite, want to be included. In fact, instead of falling into the "defensive" and "reactionary" position, which is contrary to logic of modernity, the dominant class could develop their hegemony in the face of "the others" to want to enter the public sphere.
But, instead of strengthening the “insight”, developing reaction by fear, shows that these elites is not cognizant of the logic of rationality that they are hiding behind.

Here, when we consider the classical meaning of secularism, we can establish similarities with the process of the public space. First of all, secularism, like in France, depending on Protestantism and capitalization, is a radical solution reached as a result of fight against the clergy.  In a sense, it ensures the above-mentioned "separation" in order to establish power on the earth and to manage the community rationally. It is the suspension of transcendental references from the center. In other words, secularism is a tool of modernism, and because of this feature, it is not “natural”, it is “ideological.”

Similar to the discussion of the public sphere in Turkey, “Kemalist model of secularism " is very complex; because it is too far away providing an appropriate respond to the change of social life. For example, is secularism removal of religion from public space? If so, what is the meaning of the Office of Religious Affairs? Or is it education of rational citizen under the view of Religion? Or is the opposite? Is it education of religious citizens under rational view who demonstrate almost religious loyalty to the republic? A model of secularism created with “Kemalist” adjective is a strategically instrument for the supremacy of a group. Into "inadequate" by adding the editing a model of secularism, a party to the ruling is a strategy that is used. It is “management of religion” in a non-secular way by attributing sacred features to Atatürk as a symbol. 

Theory of Modernity and Lost of “Scientific” Identity

As a result, the public space of modernity could not realize its claims not only in Turkey, where modernity is imported and "special circumstances" such as social engineering, hard secular applications and military coupes exist, but also in European countries which claim to be the center of modernity and civilization. Or, the modernity that they have realized has been challenged by other maternities in different parts of the world or by the immigrants in the Western countries. Humans, defined as rational beings, could not fully internalize being divided into two.  Private life-just like nature- be a wholesale destruction, could not be imprisoned.

Modernist project’s identification with universality is now impossible. Their claim of universal truth is losing its credibility both in the level of thinking and living…Power relations within the context of public space has increasingly come into the open ... And an absolute monopoly over it or gaining power by  insulting  or declaring illegitimate is not very possible now... Because modernity is no longer represented by "aristocracy". "Being Modern" is no longer occurring in a public space defined and controlled by the nobles, and ruling elites. It is happening in a redefined public space in a different way. “The crew of the people " reduced to position of ignorant and savage categories,  now moves their  imprisoned features into public space:   the ecological environment against invasive polluting industries; female sensitivity against the cold world of the dominant male; the spirit of life, heart, feelings, religion, and language against the mechanized "rational" life are being brought to the public space one by one.

In this case, it is necessary to redefine the public space. Because, as a field of power, public sphere produced "unexpected results" ... People are becoming autonomous both in their private life and in the face of government. Today, it is impossible to understand and accept public space as presented by aristocrats and bourgeois… So, the public sphere is now a field of power and a discussion; it is both private space and field of becoming autonomous in the face power...
 
The ruling "aristocracy" has lost a stern position in this struggle; they lost their privilege of having "the one and only truth"... And the "savage" people who were insulted by the nobles, sat ironically in the middle of "public space" via weapons of modernity-science, manners, civilization- with their "natural" and private lives as well as differences...

To redefine the public sphere, following can be pointed: what is mentioned as public "space" is not a “place"; it is an abstract form of relation that includes space.  For example, mosque, with the dome and minarets, is not only an architectural space, but also a place of existence and a place of conversation. School is not just tables, chairs, walls and classrooms, but also place of education, science, and relationships between people. Government, parliament, buses, minibuses, television, street, etc. all is a field of struggle. It is a plural field where you can find more than one right.  It is an abstract ground where plurality and unequal and different powers can co-exist with a balance.

Re-thinking Public Space
Depending on the idea of such pluralism, like public sphere, secularism too, has gained the meaning of ‘maintaining equal distance to the various form of religiosity in the community’ in time. The important element in this definition is ‘religiosities’; so, secularism is the state of plurality in the society or it is recognition of religious pluralism in the society. In a way, secularism of modernity is modernized at least as a philosophical definition. Today, it seems necessary to add a new dimension to this pluralistic definition. We need to make a new definition of secularism that maintains equal distance to all kinds of religious manifestations; not only to classical religious beliefs but also to atheism, secular interpretation of religion and differentiated interpretations of same faith. This however, may be possible by eliminating the state of division, meaning, all the elements of the plurality should enter to the management. This pluralism means all faiths or beliefs in the view of disbelief are considered and accepted as normal everywhere and every field.
In such a case, we can talk about ethics of living together against the threat of anomy and degeneration in a frame of respect.   We need to use new inclusive language, language of love, as Zali Gurevitch put it (2001), to overcome the separation and fragmentation in the society. Thus, through this language we can own and share problems of different cultural, religious and ethnic groups of society.

Finally, the following can be said: the construction of social movement of head-covered women and their actor identities does not mean that their struggle will definitely succeed.  However, the experiences that head-covered women have acquired during all these processes are much more important as a new insight. This experience is participation of head-covered women in modern life with their headscarf and having a ‘friendly chat’ with modern life and other people. Even though entering into modern life is an important change for them, changing and transformation of modern life that includes them is much more important.
As an example for changing of Modern social life and the practice of putting the fragmented lives together, let’s finish our discussion with the story of Nevin who went through a long route of ordeal with her headscarf:
"In the meantime, I was enchanted with Istanbul. We used to live in Fatih. I have learned to love İstanbul via this neighborhood.... it was my 7. Choice (…) I was accepted to the Department of Library... My family was very surprised of course; because they wanted me to get married. I was going to stay in the house of a foundation. A new period was beginning (...) since then, many changes and developments have occurred in my personality and my Islamic identity. Now, there is a self-confident and hopeful Nevin who will never exchange the standards of Allah with virtually nothing.  The pain in me was ossified, burning me from inside out, but I had nothing to do… My family never provided a financial or moral support for me.
 
I used to survive barely with few scholarships. But it was not the problem. When I get the opportunity, I used to go to the cinema, theater, seminars and conferences; I used to find places for myself in social life. Istiklal street was my favorite place. 8-9 years ago, you could not find a headscarfed woman there. But, when I want to forget myself, I used to go there immediately… "(Nevin)

REFERANCES

Altınay AG. (2004). The Myth of the Military-Nation: Militarism, Gender, and Education in Turkey. Palgrave.
Anderson B. (1983). Imagined Communities. London: Verso.
Atay T. (2004) ‘Erkeklik’ En Çok Erkeği Ezer!. Toplum ve Bilim; 4, s. 11-30.
Bauman Z. (1995). Yasa Koyucular ile Yorumcular. İstanbul: Metis.
Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S. (eds) (1995). Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern.
Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck U. (1998). Politics of risk Society. Der: Jane Franklin, The Politics of Risk Society. Cambridge UK: Polity.
Press & Institute for Public Policy Research; Malden MA: Blackwell, s. 8-21.
Bell DSA. (2003). Mythspaces: Memory, Mythology, and National Identity. British Journal of Sociology; 54(1),
s. 63-81.
Berger P, Kellner H. (1977). Marriage and the Construction of Reality. Der: Peter Berger, Facing Up to Modernity. Basic Books.
Berger P. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Bhabha H.K. (1994). The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Bhabha H.K. (1996). Culture’s In-Between. Der: S. Hall and P. du Gay, Questions of Culturail Identity. London: Sage, s. 53-60.
Butler J. (1999). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York, London: Routledge, s.
Sage,s.53-60
Bulter J.(1999).Gender Trouble:Feminism and the Subversion of identity.New York ,Lodon:Routledge,s.
3-33.
Chowers E. (2002). Gushing Time, Modernity and the multiplicity of temporal homes. Time and Society;
11(2/3), s. 233-249.
Colebrook C. (2002). The politics and the potential of everyday life. New Literary History; 33, s.687-706.
Connell R.W. (2005). The History of Masculinity. Der: Connell, Masculinities. California University Press, s. 185-203.
Connell R.W. (2005). The Social Organization of Masculinity. Der: Connell, Masculinities. California University Press, s. 67-86.
Connell R.W. (1987). Gender and Power. Polity Press.
de Certeau M. (1984). Believing and Making People Believe, The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press, s. 177-189.
de Certeau M. (1990). L’invention du quotidien 1. Paris, Gallimard: Arts de faire.
Dubet F. (2002). Le déclin de l’institution. Paris: Seuil.
Durakbaşa A, İlyasoğlu A. (2001). Formation of Gender Identities in Republican Turkey and Women’s Narratives as Transmitters of ‘Herstory’ of Modernization. Journal of Social History; 35(1), s. 195-204.
Elias N. (1975). La civilisation de moeurs, La dynamique de l’occident. Paris: Calman-Lévy.
Foucault M. (1979). Governmentality. Ideology and Consciousness 6, s. 5-21.
Foucault M. (1979). The History of Sexuality, Vol.1. Penguin Books.
Foucault M. (1985). Surveiller et punir. Paris: Gallimard.
Friese H, Wagner P. (1999). Not all that is solid melts into air: modernity and contingency. Der: Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash, Spaces of Culture. City-Nation-World, SAGE, s. 101-115.
Gardiner ME. (2000). Agnes Heller: Rationality, Ethics and Everyday Life, Critiques of Everyday Life. Routledge,s.127-156.
Gellner E. (1964). Thought and Change. Londres Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Giddens A. (1995). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Göle N. (1998). Islamism, Feminism and Post-modernism: Women’s Movements in Islamic Countries. New
Perspectives on Turkey. Der: Keyder Ç, Öncü A, Pamuk Ş. Tarih Vakfi, s. 53-70.
Göle N. (2000). Modernist Kamusal Alan ve İslami Ahlak. Der: Göle N., İslamın Yeni Kamusal Yüzleri. Metis.
Gurevitch Z. (2001). Dialectical dialogue: The struggle for speech, repressive silences, and the shift to multiplicity.
British Journal of sociology; 52(1), s. 87-104.
Habermas J. (1978). L’espace public. Paris: Payot.
Hall S, Gieben B. (1999). The Development of the Modern State. Formations of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity
Press, s. 71-117.
Irigaray L. (1997). This Sex Which Is Not One. Writing on the Body: Female Embodiment and Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia Unv. Press, s. 248-256.
Irigaray L. (2006). Ben sen biz. Farklılık kültürüne doğru. İstanbul: İmge Kitabevi.
Kandiyoti D. (1997). Cariyeler, Bacılar, Yurttaşlar: Kimlikler ve Toplumsal Dönüşümler. İstanbul, Metis Yayınları.
Kandiyoti D. (1997). Gendering the Modern: On Missing Dimensions in the Study of Turkish Modernity. Der:
Temel Boyutları ile Türkiye’de Başörtüsü Yasağı Sorunu
63
Bozdoğan S, Kasaba R, Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey. Unviversity of Washington
Press.
Kaya A, Kentel F. (2005). Euro-Türkler: Türkiye ile Avrupa Birliği Arasında Köprü mü mü Engel mi? İstanbul Bilgi
Üniversitesi yay.
Kentel F, Ahıska M, Genç F. (2007). Milletin Bölünmez Bütünlüğü–Demokratikleşme Sürecinde Parçalayan
Milliyetçilikler. TESEV.
Kentel F. (1997). Turquie: les identités au pluriel. La recherche de l’unité dans un espace démocratique défini
entre la modernité et les religiosités. Der: Michel P, Religion et démocratie. Paris: Albin Michel.
Kentel F. (1998). Recompositions du religieux en Turquie: pluralisme et individualisation. CEMOTI; 26, Juillet-
Décembre.
Kentel F. (1999). L’expérience du Refah au gouvernement: un conservatisme entre démocratie et islamisme,
Islam en Turquie. Les Annales de l’Autre Islam; 6. Paris: INALCO - ERISM.
Kentel F. (2004). 1990’ların İslâmî düşünce dergileri ve yeni Müslüman entelektüeller : Bilgi ve Hikmet, Umran,
Tezkire. Modern Türkiye’de Siyasî Düşünce. İletişim Yayınları.
Laroui A. (1987). La Crise des intellectuels arabes. Traditionalisme ou historicisme? Paris: Maspero.
Lash S. (2000). Risk Culture. Der: Barbara Adam, The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory.
London: SAGE, s. 47-62.
Lefebvre H. (1962). Introduction à la modernité. Paris: Ed. de Minuit.
Lefebvre H. (1968). La vie quotidienne dans la vie moderne. Paris: Gallimard.
Léger DH. (1993). La religion pour mémoire. Paris: Cerf.
Mardin Ş. (1994). Islam in Mass Society: Harmony Versus Polarization. Der: Heper M, Evin A. Politics in the
Third Turkish Republic. Oxford: Westview Press, s. 161-168.
Michel P. (1994). Politique et religion. La grande mutation. Paris: Albin Michel.
Nash K. (2000). Democracy and Democratization. Contemporary Political Sociology. Globalization, Politics
and Power. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 216-272.
Sennett R. (1999). Growth and failure: the new political economy and its culture. Der: Fetherstone M, Lash S
(eds), Spaces of Culture. City-Nation-World. SAGE, s. 14-26.
Smart B. (1999). Reflexivity, Modernity and Sociology. Facing Modernity : Ambivalence, Reflexivity and Morality. London, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, s. 67-87.
Touraine A. (1992). La critique de la modernité. Paris: Fayard.
Touraine A. (1997). Pourrons-nous vivre ensemble? Egaux et différents. Paris: Fayard.

Chapter 3

FROM “EXCLUSION’’ AND “OSTRACISM’’ TO THE SCOPES OF ‘’FREEDOM’’: HEADSCARF AND PUBLIC SPACE

Alev Erkilet•

Translated by Hasan Kaplan

Recently, the phenomenon of "social exclusion" has become one of the popular topics in social science. Especially in European social sciences, the dual concepts of Social exclusion, and the concept of social inclusion / empowerment has been used in the analysis of many issues.  Poverty analysis and social policy debates are at the top of these topics. Sometimes related to these issues sometimes not, the concept of social exclusion appears in citizenship and human rights debates.  The concept of social exclusion - in the context of global exclusion - is also used to describe the relationship between the modernity and “others.” The problem of “the other” and the distinction of 'civil’and ‘primitive’ are some of the topics that can be evaluated in this context. The discussion that one never finds in the literature is the relationship between the veil and exclusion. This article argues that the concept of social exclusion is useful conceptual equipment, in terms of all three above-mentioned senses, that can reveal the meaning of the veil and being veiled. In order to make this correlation understood more clearly, it is necessary to show what the exclusion means in the context of poverty, citizenship and globalization, and we must establish its relation to the veil with concrete experiences.

I
Ronaldo Munk (2004: 21) notes that the concept of social exclusion has been proposed by Amartya Sen whom he characterizes as “the international leader of poverty work.’’ According to Munk, the reason why Sen prefers this concept is its ‘bridge function to examine the state of human deprivation’; ‘it focuses on the multi-dimensional aspect of deprivation’; and ‘it emphasizes relational process rather than individuals.’ The significance of the concept of exclusion for Sen, is its suitability to examine not just poverty but deprivation as well.

This is an introduction to the contemporary venture of this concept. However, the theoretical roots of this popular concept are quite old. According to Lister (2005: 75) the term "social closure" coined by Weber refers to a group that has a statue held against out members and characterized with the secured privileges. Upper-status groups emphasize and reinforce their status by distancing themselves or excluding others. They make clear the distance between themselves and the others by depriving  ‘the others’ of certain practices and privileges such as "wearing special clothes," ‘eating certain food’’, "carrying weapons", "getting a monopoly of certain commercial activities" or "non-involving" into such privileges at all (Weber 1987: 184.186). The upper layer that attempts to distance itself from other status groups, experiences this development as not only a course of an exclusion but at the same time as a process of withdraw.(see Erkilet 2007: 58 for an assessment of this topic in the context of headscarf).

Durkheim is another theorist in the classical sociology who deals with this issue. Durkheim highlighted the social integration and unity aspects of the problem and his works influenced R. K. Merton.  It is fair to say that though the concept of social exclusion is rooted in classical sociology, the most mature and institutional interest has been shown in recent times. This is not a sociological and analytical interest alone; it also brings about social policy proposals about “what can be done about the status of ostracized’ For example, this issue holds a privileged place in the European Commission or the EU.

In this interest, the main purpose has been the integration of the least privileged segments of the society. Thus, in EU’s main debates about social exclusion,  a new  definition that refers to “the dynamic procedures which work in the direction of total or partial exclusion of individual  from social, economic, political and cultural systems that determine social integration,” has emerged (Munk 2004: 22). In this context, there is another definition to refer: “Exclusion is a multi-dimensional process combined with various forms of exclusion". For example,“the participation in decision-making and political processes, employment and access to financial resources, integration with common cultural processes “(Munk 2004).

However, the interest of European countries in the paradigm of exclusion is not monolithic? According to Munk and Lister, French, British and American (outside Europe) approaches to the phenomenon of exclusion are different. For example, the French version (Munk 2004: 23) is based on sociology of Durkheim and the Catholicism emphasizing moral integration. Ruth Levitas name this as the social integrationist / solidarity discourse model: this model exclusively focuses on exclusion from paid work. Indeed, root of this debate lies in the efforts to include marginal groups in the system that has fallen from the French security system during 1970-'80s (Lister 2005: 75). Lister separates British version into the three sub versions: RED, MUD and SID. RED implies redistributive perspectives; MUD is a moralistic discourse and coincides with the “underclass”   rhetoric claiming the outsiders live in a type of “the culture of dependency”. SID is a social integrationist discourse and focuses almost only on the solution in the direction of integration into society with the help of paid work. But of course, paid work is not being considered alone; the need of educational support is also accepted. Providing job accompanied with educational support is the best way of inclusion and integration into community (Lister 2005: 79). There are some criticism that this approach undervalues non- paid domestic services and voluntary activities. Nevertheless, they are not relevant in our current discussion.

Here, we are interested in EU and the British model of “education + job equation" as an important social policy instruments against the exclusion of certain social groups. Because, this approach shows how headscarf ban infringes the rights of education and work systematically. Therefore, understanding this issue as only a legal victimization is not enough. Headscarf ban must be read as the attempt to deprive of legal, political and social rights without the legal basis for exclusion in it. In terms of EU and other parties this must be understood in this context; meaning, in the context of infringement on their basic contracts. Account of a head-covered woman who was fired and doomed to poverty because of her veil, is a clear example in this issue:  “Because of my headscarf I can not work in any school. I applied for a clerkship; shop owner offered me a very nominal fee. When I asked why he offered such a low wage, he told me that no one gives job to head-covered women and I should be happy to have this opportunity.  After so many years of education, I can not get job even as a clerk!  I have 3 children. One is 8 years old in third grade, another is 6 years old and goes to kindergarten; the youngest one is 3 years old staying at home with me. My oldest child is hyperactive. According to psychiatrist, he must join in sportive activities. But I can not afford. My other two children is allergic asthma. Our Living condition is not suitable for their health.  We live in a very small rental apartment. It is not sunny enough form my asthmatic children. We can’t afford better conditions. We started to live well below the standard of living that we were accustomed. This situation disrupts our domestic peace and, therefore, disturbs psychology of my husband and children "(with E.A.).

...
"Staying other side of the door during the exam, while my so-called friends passing by with notes that I prepared, without noticing me- to enter exam room was the bitter memory from those days that hurt me the most.”  (A Medical School Student).

The above examples were about at the first phase of the process to eliminate women, who were subjected to discrimination and exclusion because of their headscarf, from the possibility of generating revenue. There are innumerable examples of this type. Furthermore, there is interventions divestiture an income from work and pension rights after many years of working. Following interview with a former teacher illustrates this kind of discrimination and exclusion:

"I was fired after serving 16 years as a teacher without any compensation payment. This sudden unemployment frayed me financially. To complete payment of my remaining 4 years of retirement, I had opened portable stationery in front of my school. Thus I could see my students too. However, the school principal and some teachers interfere with my sales by saying
"She was thrown out of school because of her veil, but she still stands in front of the school" I tried to fight by writing to the authorities. At the end, I closed the stationary.  Now, without health assurance, I am paying premium with the help of my relatives to get external retirement, hoping to survive with 300-400 million T L (approximately 200 Avro) monthly salaries.
However, none of these would happen if I was doing my job and I would be retired by now. I pay rent, my son is at the university, I have no savings and I do not have health guarantee. After this age, what profession can I learn and practice? "(Interview with Y.T.).

“With my suspension, I faced many financial and psychological hardships. We were notified that we had discharged from duty and a lawsuit had filed against us. We had no chance to defend ourselves. Meanwhile, I learned that in addition to loosing my job, I had to pay fine. Since I missed the deadline I could not appeal. As a result, I had to pay 105 000.000 TL (70 Avro). In spite of the fact that I paid the fine and delivered the papers with my hand, I was arrested by police when I applied for passport, and this incident happened in front of my 4 year old child. I was held at the police station until my innocence was verified… I want to work but can not find job. Even former convicts find job in our country but I can’t practice my profession "(interview with BC).

….
"After a few years, I've completed my medical training in Hungary. If I could study in Turkey, I would be completed my expertise by now. Because of the ban I faced a huge financial and moral losses. Since my right to work in public institutions is prevented, I have to work at places has no social security. This dire situation worsens the socio-economic status of women and makes them dependent. Since my right to get specialist training is blocked because of my headscarf, I work as a practitioners earning less money “(Interview with D.G.).

These examples indicates that EU’s outshine sensitivity on the combination of “education + job "(working opportunities) about the issue of exclusion fully reversed in Turkey with headscarf bans. Headscarf bans in Turkey maintains an actual system of exclusion by making women uneducated and unemployed / without social security on the ground of their headscarf. 

II.
Apart from the “access to paid –work,” the discussion of exclusion-inclusion has another dimension called “active participation" that indicated by Cabannes (Lister 2005: 80). For example, exclusion works as creation of distance to block access to power-centers. The incident of Merve Kavakci, who was elected as a Parliament but blocked because of her headscarf and stripped off her citizenship, in Turkey is a concrete example in this sense. This deterrent application was an undemocratic intervention carrying threat of coup to warn political parties about their headscarved women candidates.  Deprivation of Head-covered women from active political life shows that exclusion is not confined to employment rights; it is a total exclusion including civil rights.
 
Indeed, one of the main areas of exclusion literature is the context of citizenship discussions.  According to the republican tradition of citizenship, overcoming the problem of exclusion is the the responsibility of the state (Lister 2005: 76).  T.H. Marshall, one of the prominent figure in this context, considers the exclusion in the context of civil, political and social rights divestment (Lister 2005: 75). Marshall argues that the scope of citizenship has been expanded to include legal rights in 18th century; political rights in 19th century; and the social rights in 20th century (G. Marshall 1999: 475). This theory that refers to civil, political and social rights has been subjected to rigorous criticism.

This is because Marshall refers to a homogeneous culture based on nation-state management approach and a growing capitalist economy. According to Nash (2000: 205-206), who emphasizes the transformation of the West to post-modernist, post-Fordist stage which characterized as globalization, individualization and fragmentation of cultural values, under these conditions the control of nation-states over economy has been reduced and structural unemployment emerged. This situation introduces a new generation of citizens rights. As a result, citizenship is becoming the most vibrant areas of the political science.

The debate of citizenship rights inevitably has taken the civil society into the debate.  That intent is to empower individuals to be aware and use of their rights:"The ideas and the role of civil societies to overcome the problem of social exclusion tied the individual responsibility with the concept of citizenship
 
 ... The understanding of social inclusion highlights the wrapping up by  social structure and
institutions "(Cleaver 2002: 64). In this sense, inclusion is something to be realized with the social empowerment. Ensuring participation in decision-making process is one example can be referred in this context. From this perspective, exclusion from the decision-making process and the institutions that make decision is considered as unwanted and marginalizing situation.
 
Scientist like Cleaver has already indicated that participation as defined by the experts in Western format may have potential preventive effects in terms of local realization.

But it is certain that in the Western development literature participation is “good” and something “should be” and it was taught ton on-Westerners as such.  So, it is necessary to accept that a prohibition that functions as obstacles in front of the citizenship rights and participation in decisions making process is a clear exclusion.  An example:

“I had to do research on a specific thesis at the Central Library of Istanbul University… But I could not enter the library because of my headscarf. I told them that I am not working in the library; I am not even a university student, I just want to do a research as an ordinary citizen. But I was denied. I applied numerous times to enter the library. The result was always negative. In this way, just I was not allowed to work in public and private institutions;   I was also prohibited to do research as a private researcher. If  I  had removed my headscarf or if I was a  man,  I would be a  professor now, working in a respectable university with  social privileges. I would have students and a broad academic freedom to do research. However, I was forced to work at the
temporary jobs way below my capacity" (interview with Z.Ö.).

As understood from the above quote, the citizenship debate has relevance with the more abstract form of the deprivation.  In this context, the form of divestiture that should be referred to is “the symbolic level of being silenced and deprived of rights and tools to produce ideological-political-cultural discourse "(Önder & Şenses 2006: 208).  This “symbolic level of being silenced” sometimes develops as the result of educational and cultural shortcomings caused by prohibition itself; sometimes it is applied to women who have achieved to complete their education.  
 
The first type is the direct result of seizure of the rights of work and education. In modern conditions, to condemn someone to un-education is to condemn to dumbness. In the second type, the issue is the denial of professional expertise because of women's headscarf. Indeed, the stories of women presented above and many untold similar stories (see Benli 2004) show that veiled women in Turkey have been deprived of basic rights that every citizen is entailed such as right to have job, right to get education (including the driving school), right to self improvement (including using the library), right to produce discourse, and right to participate in political and decision making process. This is a clear indicator of exclusion and unacceptable status neither by the EU standards nor in terms of known human rights agreements. If we add the “persuasion room” type psychological pressures exercised by the universities, to all these, the size of human rights violations, experienced because of the headscarf, will be understood more clearly:
"Professors and university officials had created “persuasion rooms”  to brain wash  head-covered young girls  ... and  in this way Turkey witnessed a historical heinous method called “persuasion room”... Many of these young girls are coming from Anatolia and already under a lot of material and moral pressure; we don’t know what kind of experience they went through in those rooms…   Those who were convinced removed their headscarf and registered… those who were not persuaded left huffing their labor, hearts and hopes” (Interview with N.Ö.K.).

Psychological pressure and prevention of women taking advantage of the fundamental rights, sometimes affect   spouses too. The investigation of public institutions because of headscarved spouse or suspension from duty with decisions of the Supreme Military Council represents a concrete example how basic rights are violated when the issue of veil is at stake.

Headscarf has become an element in ones life that causes victimization of families of head-covered women and their environment and tried to be repressed by the tribal revenge mentality.   One of the Council of State decision reads as following: "In a secular country, letting his wife to wear turban without thinking that headscarf, which has become the symbol of religious movement, would give wrong message” (T.C. Fifth Council of State, Basis: 1999/4212, Decision: 1999/4325). These types of expressions clearly indicate that the administrative judiciary does not consider women as active subjects but as dependent on “their husband" about how to dress. Moreover, several lawsuits indicate that the administrative courts do not limit the issue with the veil. Private books in the home are also associated with the claim and husbands are wanted to control the daily activities of their wives.   In this context, we can refer to the decision made by Istanbul 5th Administrative Court about the case of Suleyman Tutak, a teacher who filed a lawsuit because of his appointment to Hakkâri. Tutak had filed divorce proceedings against his wife, who is also fired from her job because of headscarf. However,  since “ he allowed reading books in the house” court denied stopping his appointment to Hakkâri.  These examples indicate that headscarf has become the subject of exclusion that involves open and direct destructive interference into the private space of individuals and family life.

III.

 Up to here, we discussed how exclusion is addressed in the national context.   However, in recent times, exclusion phenomenon has been started to be addressed in "global" scale. Especially after  September 11, with the effect  of clash of civilizations thesis there is a  global discourse of exclusion  . In fact, this is not a new approach. The "civilized-barbarian” separation that determines the approach of the West toward the Easter people since the time of Herodotus,  has prepared the ground with the concept of rouge state - homeland security for a process of exclusion at the global scale after September 11. Stereotypes are mental imagoes that characterized as "hard", "with narrow horizons," "resistant to change" and "humiliating"
(Marshall 1999: 701). 

In this regard, headscarved Muslim women are completely stereotyped and stamped. In the case of Turkey, we witnessed one of the most severe forms of these stereotypes: a head scarved  woman depicted as a  pig-face  in cartoons. This example stereotypes Muslim women by making the identification with something they don’t like and find dirty. But, though not so heavy and galling, an ordinary newspaper reader in Turkey is used to see cartoons depicting four veiled women walking quietly behind a man.  These women are always passive, colorless, dull, flabby, and in the last analysis, they are presented like impersonal objects. Therefore, according to this perception, Muslims women do not choose, do not think, can not be free and they can not ask freedom. Simply, they are not mature.  Again, this image implies that the right of making decision about inserting the needle into her veil, how to put on the headscarf and its length belongs to full citizens. Those who invented this image later started to believed in its reality. They do not notice that this was a form of stamping. Images were substituted instead of realty. That is exactly the image was reflected on a global scale as the excuse for physical invasions and threat of occupations. The symbol via exclusion is being performed is the veil itself that takes different forms according to cultures such as headscarf, burka, veil etc. Headscarf, which considered as the fundamental opposition to women’s freedom, is perceived as a threat in terms of the protection of the western lifestyle.  Under these circumstances, "mission of civilization" also inevitable will take effect. Thus, once more, the literature of anthropology and classical rhetoric of colonialism has emerged on the surface.

In order to be civilized pre-literate tribes had to be Christian, and in order to be a good Christian they had to wear clothes. Dressing was not made with the consent but force. Now, it appears that, in order to civilize Muslim women, they need to be undressed by taking off their veil.  There is a war going on to produce supporting excuses for this.  For example, Afghanistan is invaded and women are  saved from their “burka” and they are educated to be free.

In Turkey, on the contrary, basic rights of women to get education and hold a profession that would certainly liberate them, is taking away from them on the ground to protect Turkey turning into Iran, Afghanistan or Malaysia. In short, the rhetoric’s developed through the veil have become excuse for the global wars and the human rights violations at the national scale. 

“The archaic brutality of the crew of warriors with (beard) and kalaşnikof" (Habermas 2007: 12) and their pacified veiled women have become the subject of all kinds of artistic, academic and media humiliation.  However, moving out of the above reviews, analyzing headscarf phenomenon in the context of exclusion, does not mean to produce new victimization rhetoric.  Because each type of exclusion,no matter what creates various social movements claiming the rights. Social movements that fight against poverty and for civil rights are examples to this trend. Social movements that “aim to bring about change in the community or group that they belong to  or to  take action to prevent the change in the community "(Biesanz & Biesanz 1973: 555), struggle against  various forms of exclusion. 

Enough political struggles were given to call twentieth century as the age of revolution and war, and social sciences strives to analyze this process with academic and political concerns. However, a significant part of this analysis does not have a holistic understanding of reality. As a simple example, we may mention Roche’s ( who is closely interested in the freedom of women and  deals with the citizenship rights in post-modern society) classification of social movements into progressive and anti-progressive.   

IV.

Roche (2000: 233-234) points out that post-industrial capitalist economy has increasingly made the forms of labor flexible; this will lead to heavy terms in terms of the rights of citizens, income, employment and welfare distribution. The transformation of the welfare state has caused new generation of rights come to the agenda and of course it social movements that raises those rights. These social movements were discussed under the three topics: progressive, anti-progress and non-progress. In terms of our argument, classification to progressive and anti-progressive has special importance. Because Roche considers feminism, environmentalism, and social movements struggle against racial discrimination as progressive movements; he associates counter-movements (anti-progress) with groups that try to make of the women to return home and refuse to give full citizenship rights to ethnic minorities.

 This classification is very favorable to show how the issue of women has a paradoxical situation in Turkey. Here, it is usually reiterated that Muslim groups and political and social formation that they represent try to make women to return home.  Yet in reality, the” modernist" groups,  who claim fighting for the women rights,  eliminate the rights of the veiled women to be part of public life. If participating in public life is connected to the work, production, and education, it is not Muslim groups but the modernist elite that convict women to home, femininity and fertility.  Indeed, one of the Head-covered women who was interviewed with for various occasions, read the process that made her to leave the school and forced to go abroad with following words:  "in February 28 coup processes, what was indeed bothering those generals was the fact that Muslim women were not a peasant anymore, they were part of the modern life without loosing their  religious identity. According to them modernization is possible only through the Westernization. For me this is degeneration, not modernization… coming from Anatolia, Young girls completed their education and said: ‘ I have a right to make decision in this country,’ this disturbed them. In their eyes, Anatolian women does not have their own idea, Anatolian people can’t think for themselves, and cant produce. The viceroys of the West thinks for them, and society is a flock of sheep to be shepherd by them. Since head scarved women broke this image, they had to be eliminated. Today is Women’s day. I ask: for which woman? A handful of minority is going to celebrate this day and talk about rights and justice. Where they were when Muslim women were discriminated against their headscarf with unjust prohibits in this country? (Mazlum-Der, Footnote to History , Interview with M.A.).  

…
" These days we often watch  a TV commercial " Come on girls to school " unlike this campaign we were asked to join in "Come on girls home" campaign! (Because we were not the kind of girls they expected!)(Mazlum-Der, Footnote to History, Interview with E.S. ).

Such examples also do not belong only to Turkey. In the cases of Germany and France this type of prohibits are brought to agenda and legitimized similarly. Therefore, the classification criteria in the social sciences are not always reliable. They can be converted to the categorical classification that does not correspond to the paradox nature of the social reality. It is possible that movements classified as anti-progressive in social sciences are much closer to see women as active subjects than that of modernist movements. Then, first we need to consider women as active subjects and look at their containing struggle for their own rights. This would yield to more meaningful results than the analysis of the freedom discourse that maintained through them. When the veil becomes agenda, we think individuals who exercise their free will to organize their lives according to certain value systems. Gradually, these individuals raises demands and claims about the social order itself too. Indeed, according Touraine’s (1999: 43), central social conflicts takes place between the owners and actors of these cultural models and the sharers of them from a dependent position. Social movements have been directed to the domination on the historical form, cultural investment, and the model of knowledge and ethics: 

"Marx and Weber… the former (Marx) introduced the idea that power relations determine the social life, the latter (Weber) introduced the idea that actors act based on their values, to the  contemporary sociology. When these two ideas are merged a definition of a social movement can be reached… social movement is not the answer of a situation; it is a query into power relations of ruling class that entitled to administrate majority of available cultural resources(Touraine 1999: 44-46).

In his article about the analysis of new social movement in terms of “subjects”, “actors” and “traces of conflict”, Offe (1996: 56) argues that there are significant differences between the old political paradigms and the new ones.

According to him, during the growth-security paradigm of post-war years, the basic issues that occupied the agenda were the economic growth, improvements in individual and collective income distributions and legal protection of social status. New social movements are politicizing the kind of issues that do not fit easily into the "bipolar" frame of liberal political theory. For example, while liberal theory puts forward that all social movements can be categorized as “private” or “Public”, new social movements place themselves between a third category:

“The politicized issues are neither private nor public. But they contains results collectively concern both the private and the institutional political actors" (Offe 1999: 61).

From this perspective, it is obvious that headscarf itself has the aspects emphasized by Offe in the sense of being part of Islamic social struggle. Because veil is a choice of living that has both private and public extensions. It is private because it is based on the self –chosen decision of each of these women; in this sense, this decision has a dimension goes beyond (sometimes against) the expectation of family and relatives.

Religion itself also set women completely free in their preferences and give them the authority to exceed decisions of men if they object this. Indeed, many Muslim women we interviewed insisted that wearing headscarf and its (financial and moral) ‘cost’ to them was their own conscious choices:

 “ The first stage of prohibitions was my choice of Islam with my free will without any pressure. You know, we all coming from a Muslim home environment, our families are Muslim even if they are not living islamicly. Are we Muslim because they are Muslim? Or, it is our own choice? In my life, headscarf became such a matter of decision. I mean, my conscious choice of Islam, and whatever the cost of this choice…all is my own decision… (Mazlum-Der, Footnote to History, Interviews with N.A.).

….
"My family, my relatives and the social environment gave a very extreme reaction to cover my head”  (Mazlum-Der, Footnote to History, Interview with E.E.D.).
The results of a field research about the head scarved Turkish women in Germany carried on in 2006 have not confirmed the belief that headscarf is worn by the pressure of men in the family. On the contrary, a large majority explain this as their free choice, as the natural result of their perception of veil as a religious duty (Jessen & Moellendorff 2006: 23-24).
In the same research, the ratio of those who said their father did not play any role in their headscarf decision is ¾ , and the role of other men in the family(her brother and her husband) is far less. Research has confirmed that other people's influence on the decision to cover oneself is quite minimal. The result of field research in 2006, performed by Çarkoğlu and Toprak on behalf of TESEV confirms the above-mentioned trend.
In a research titled Religion, Society and Politics in Changing Turkey,  71.5% of the participant said ‘it is my religious duty’  answering a question about why they cover their hair; the ratio of those who pointed the family or men in the family as a reason is 1.1%.  Moreover, 100 percent of veiled women,  87.7% of Head-covered women, 94.1% of women with the turban indicated that  they absolutely will not uncover their head even if the people around them to do so (Carkoglu & Soil 2006: 69-70). These rates show that women are getting freer not only in the sense of making personal decision, politically as well. The action of selection itself recovers the headscarf from the traditional pattern and brings the subject to the level of active subjects.

V.

Finally, the matter should be emphasized is the relation between headscarf and public space. First, it must be pointed out that because of its nature headscarf/ veil is a public phenomenon. Women use veil to gout in public; not to remain in her private space or live with family and children.  

In this sense, the discourse against the existence of headscarf in public space means total prohibitions of headscarf if public space understood as physical locations or places of public services. According to religious instruction, there is no need to cover outside the public places anyway! The second issue to be dealt with in the context of headscarf-public space relation is the definition of the "public space" itself. It is Jürgen Habermas who contributed the concept of public space to the political philosophy and sociology. Ironically, for him, public space is the domain of freedom, not the domain of prohibitions and restrictions.

According Habermas, the essential feature of public space is the access guaranteed for all citizens (2005 [1964]: 49). The private issues are not addressed in this structure where individuals come together and construct a public formation.  Freedom of Assembly and association together with the freedom of expression and publishing are the foundations of this structure. It is obvious that this process of communication needs certain tools; newspapers, magazines, radio and television create this mediocrity. The political public sphere happens when public debates carried out on issues related to state activities.
According Hohendahl, Habermas’ public space should not be confused with the ‘public’ created by individuals’ gatherings; he rather refers to the institutional structure, distinguishing characteristics of it is its capacity to become concrete   through the substantial participation of people (Habermas 2005 [1964]: 49). Furthermore, state and public sphere is not conflicting concepts; on the contrary, they come up against as opponents. Habermas defines public space as the fields of non-governmental convictions.  From this perspective, the public space mediates between state and society. When a reasoning public mined forms, then we can talk about public space. According to Negt and Kluge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public ¬ _sphere) public spaces means both certain institutions, practices and a general social horizon obtained from experiences; a horizon provided by all inclusive experiences that concern every one. Seen from this perspective, public space concerns both professionals (politicians, editors, managers, trade unions etc.)a well as ordinary people.
 
This concept carries a spatial emphasize in the tradition Europe continental philosophy and references are given to social sites and arenas where meanings are produced, debated and delivered.  The case is the same in terms of the public space in the ancient Greek tradition. However, with thinkers such as Habermas and Arendt, a discursive meaning is inserted in the concept of public space next to the meaning referring to physical location.

From the perspectives of these thinkers the public space is not a place you can enter and exit according to the dress regulations. Arendt defines public space as an area related to "talk" and "action" and what is essential for him is the continuation of public debate which is important for the formations of individual's own ego- identity. 

Arendt, taking Heidegger's opinion -that existence should be based on the balance between authentic activities in private sphere and activities in public space- one step further, stresses that the only real and authentic self is the one in the public space (Wikipedia http:// en.wikipedia.org / wiki / Public sphere).

Giving reference to the Human Condition, the article of "Hannah Arendt" in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/arendt.htm) states following remarks about the public sphere: " Another way of understanding the importance of publicity and plurality for action is to appreciate that action would be meaningless unless there were others present to see it and so give meaning to it. The meaning of the action and the identity of the actor can only be established in the context of human plurality, the presence others sufficiently like ourselves both to understand us and recognize the uniqueness of ourselves and our acts.  This communicative and disclosive quality of action is clear in the way that Arendt connects action most centrally to speech. It is through action as speech that individuals come to disclose their distinctive identity: 'Action is the public disclosure of the agent in the speech deed'. Action of this character requires a public space in which it can be realized, a context in which individuals can encounter one another as members of a community. For this space, as for much else, Arendt turns to the ancients, holding up the Athenian polis as the model for such a space of communicative and disclosive speech deeds. Such action is for Arendt synonymous with the political; politics is the ongoing activity of citizens coming together so as to exercise their capacity for agency,to conduct their lives together by means of free speech and persuasion. Politics and the exercise of freedom-as-action are one and the same: '…freedom...is actually the reason that men live together in political organizations at all. Without it, political life as such would be meaningless. The raison d'être of politics is freedom, and its field of experience is action'’’

In short, public space represents the execution of the debate -about the general rules determining the relationships- in a location open to everyone, in this sense public space is the ground for political opposition too. In this sense, public space is not the place of exclusion but field of coming together, listening to each other, and giving right to generate discourse. Strictly speaking, it is the field of ‘self actualization and ‘freedom’.  The Turkish public space, which is defined in structural opposition to this, is the place of restricted freedoms, exclusions (defined on certain criteria)and preventions of basic rights, such as freedom of expression. 

The public space that carries an immanent meaning of mediation between state and society in  Habermas' definition, ironically  as it were spite to person who glossed it, has turned to be place of one way of state domination of society,  establishing the rules single handedly, the field has been turned into a one-sided set.The perpetrators of this offensive fracture is the modernist public bureaucracy of military and civil élites.

This is a bureaucracy that can manage both talk with the Western rhetoric and use them for different purposes than what they meant. A bureaucracy that limits women to their private spaces by defining public space as "state service" or "public service"; or producing artificial Classification as the "services provider" and "service receiver" and supporting them with systematic exclusion mechanisms.Nevertheless,this bureaucracy does not leave the Westernization to anyone.

Therefore, in Turkey, the compensation of the cost ( In terms of education, work, self-improvement and active participation in politics) of the exclusion practice which has been exercised over the discourse of public space depends on women’s opposition and questioning the discourse of public space through their social activism.  However, this is a debate about how to handle this matter on national ground. This discussion does not mean that international organizations, which stand against the bans can ignore their roles and duties. When referring to the UN 1999 Development Program, Munck (2004: 35) counts ethics (respect for human rights), development (reduction of poverty), equality (reduction of inequality between nations), human security (vulnerability to reduction) and inclusion (reduction of the marginalization of people and countries) among the requirements of the human development.

For inclusion, respect for human rights,reduction of poverty and ensuring equality between people are needed. In this sense, inclusion is the final product of the realization of others.  Considering headscarf ban as a degrading treatment against basic human rights that makes women unemployed, poor, dependent on others, deprived of social protection, and thus marginalized, this ( headscarf)ban is not acceptable not only EU but  in terms of the UN principles too. In this regard, in addition to women’s own social struggles, national and international institutions can contribute to the solution of the problem by fulfilling the requirements of the principles that they openly signed and accepted.

Bibliography

Benli F. (2004). Başörtüsü ile İlgili Hukuka Aykırılıkta Sınır Yok. İstanbul: AKDER.
Biesanz M.H, Biesanz J. (1973). Introduction to Sociology, 2.ed. Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc.
Cleaver F. (2002). Kurumlar, Aracılar ve Kalkınmaya Katılımcı Yaklaşımların Sınırları, Katılım: Yeni Bir Zorbalık.
mı? Der: Cooke B, Kothari U. Çev: Ahmet Çiğdem. İstanbul: Demokrasi Kitaplığı Yayınevi, p. 61–87.
Çarkoğlu A, Toprak B. (2006). Değişen Türkiye’de Din, Toplum ve Siyaset. İstanbul: TESEV.
Erkilet A. (2007). Toplumsal Dışla(n)ma Bağlamında Kadın ve Kamusal Alan Tartışmaları. ESAM-Ekonomik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi; 2(5), p. 56–61.
Habermas J. (2005 [1964]). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article. New German Critique; 3, p. 49-55.
Translated by Sara & Frank Lennox: http://www.jstor.org/Sun Aug 7 17:23:14 2005.
Habermas J. (2007). Bölünmüş Batı. Çev: Dilman Muradoğlu. İstanbul: YKY.
Jessen F, Moellendorff UW. (2006). Başörtüsü: Bir Simgenin Örtüsünü Kaldırmak. Geleceğin Politikası Forumu,Berlin: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung e.V.
Lister R. (2005). Poverty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Marshall G. (1999). Thomas H. Marshall Maddesi, Sosyoloji Sözlüğü. Çev: Akınhay O, Kömürcü D. Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları.
Mazlum-Der. Tarihe Düşülen Not: Başörtüsü Yasağı kampanyası çerçevesinde derlenen yaşamöyküleri.
Munck R. (2004). Globalization and Social Exclusion: A Transformationalist Perspective. Blue Hills Avenue, Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.
Nash K. (2000). Introduction of Part IV Citizenship, Exclusion & Difference. Readings İn Contemporary Political Sociology. Der: Nash K. Massachusetts: Blackwell Pub.
Offe C. (1999). Yeni Sosyal Hareketler: Kurumsal Politikanın Sınırlarının Zorlanması. Yeni Sosyal Hareketler: Teorik Açılımlar. Yayına haz. Çayır K. İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayıncılık s. 53–81.
Önder H, Şenses F. (2006). Türkiye’de Yoksulluk ve Yoksulluk Düşüncesi. İktisat, Siyaset, Devlet Üzerine Yazılar. Yay. Haz. Ulman B, Akça İ. İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları.
Roche M. (2000). Rethinking Citizenship and Social Movements: Themes in Contemporary Sociology and Neoconservative Ideology. Readings İn Contemporary Political Sociology. Der: Nash K. Massachusetts: Blackwell, s. 209-236.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Hannah Arendt,” Maddesi
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/arendt.htm, 09.11.2007.
Touraine A. (1999). Toplumdan Toplumsal Harekete. Yeni Sosyal Hareketler: Teorik Açılımlar. Yayına haz. Çayır K. İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayıncılık, s. 35–53.
Weber M. (1987). Sosyoloji Yazıları. İng. baskısını hazırlayanlar Gerth H.H, Mills W. Çev. Parla T. İstanbul: Hürriyet Vakfı Yayınları.
Wikipedia “Public Sphere,” Maddesi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public¬_sphere.