From “Exclusion’’ and “Ostracism’’ to the Scopes of “Freedom’’:
Headscarf and Public Space
Alev Erkilet*
* Assistant Professor of sociology
(Chapter 3, The Non-coverable Problem of Headscarf (edited book), 2008, AKDER Publications)
Translated by Hasan Kaplan
I.
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.
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.) as 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.