(For the first part of the text, click)
Coercive 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. "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.
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