Journals / Praksis / 2009 / Sayı: 21

Middle class percept ion of kurds in İzmir: Space, class and urban life

İzmirli orta sınıfta kürt algısı: Mekân, sınıf ve kentsel yaşam

Journal
Praksis
Pages
17–46
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

While establishing such linkages between macro and micro level of analysis, the article examines, one by one, how middle class interviewees justify identifying the Kurds with “ignorance”, “living by ill-gotten gain”, “separatism”, “invasion” and “disruption of urban life”.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article aims to investigate the social origins of recently increasing anti-Kurdish sentiments among middle class citizens living in Izmir.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Based on a field study and 90 in-depth interviews conducted in this city in 2007, this article argues that the middle-class perception of Kurds can be conceptualized as “exclusive recognition” (tanıyarak dışlama).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:While establishing such linkages between macro and micro level of analysis, the article examines, one by one, how middle class interviewees justify identifying the Kurds with “ignorance”, “living by ill-gotten gain”, “separatism”, “invasion” and “disruption of urban life”.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İzmir · Izmir

Abstract

This article aims to investigate the social origins of recently increasing anti-Kurdish sentiments among middle class citizens living in Izmir. Based on a field study and 90 in-depth interviews conducted in this city in 2007, this article argues that the middle-class perception of Kurds can be conceptualized as “exclusive recognition” (tanıyarak dışlama). Exclusive recognition implies that in middle class discourse Kurds are recognized as a separate and homogenous ethnic group; however this recognition necessarily includes a discursive exclusion, as middle class citizens construct what it means to be a Kurd through pejorative stereotypes such as “ignorant”, “separatist”, “invaders”, “living by ill-gotten gain” and “disrupters of urban life”. These stereotypes have been long used in Turkish society for different purposes and in different contexts; but what is distinctive in exclusive recognition is the ethnicization of these stereotypes, that is, the deployment of these stereotypes to identify and construct what it means to be a Kurd. As the logic of exclusive recognition is at odds with the mainstream assimilationist discourses of the state and nationalist political parties, it cannot be seen as a typical extension of Turkish nationalism in society. Nor is it a sporadic reaction to the recent political developments in Turkey. A close examination of the narratives collected through the in-depth interviews indicate that such perception carries the traces of the social and spatial relationships between the Kurdish migrants that flooded into Izmir since the mid 1980s and middle-class citizens that live in this city for a longer period. This does not mean that urban social life in Izmir is the cause of exclusive recognition; it is rather the locus of these anti-Kurdish sentiments, that is, the context on which they take their particular form. Therefore, a comprehensive investigation of these sentiments should include an endeavour to unravel the processes and mechanisms through which such a context has been historically formed. In view of this, this article turns its attention to forced migration of Kurds and neo-liberal transformation of urban economy as the structural factors that help us to explain the formation of the urban context of exclusive recognition. The article claims that the specific middle class experience of this transformed urban context is embedded in their prejudices against Kurdish migrants. While establishing such linkages between macro and micro level of analysis, the article examines, one by one, how middle class interviewees justify identifying the Kurds with “ignorance”, “living by ill-gotten gain”, “separatism”, “invasion” and “disruption of urban life”.

Keywords
🔖

Cite This Article

SARAÇOĞLU, C. (2009). Middle class percept ion of kurds in İzmir: Space, class and urban life. Praksis, Sayı: 21, 17–46. https://ajindex.com/articles/303070

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Bali, R. (2002) Tarz-ı Hayattan Life Style’a, İstanbul:
  2. İletişim. Bhaskar, R. (1997)
  3. A Realist Theory of Science, London: Verso. Bora, T. ve Kemal Can (2004) Devlet ve Kuzgun: 1990’lardan 2000’lere MHP, İstanbul:
  4. İletişim. Brubaker, R. (2004)
  5. Ethnicity Without Groups, Harvard: Harvard University Press.
  6. Buğra, A. (1998) “The Immoral Economy of Housing in Turkey”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22 (2): 303-317.
  7. Candan, A.B ve Biray Kolluoglu (2008) “Emerging Spaces of Neoliberalism: A Gated Town and a Public Housing Project in Istanbul”, New Perspectives on Turkey, 39: 5-46.
  8. Demirtaş, N. ve Seher Şen (2007) “Varoş identity: The Redefi nition of Low Income Settlements in Turkey”, Middle Eastern Studies, 43: 87-106.
  9. Doğan, A. (2001)
  10. Birikimin Hamalları, İstanbul:
  11. Donkişot. Eagleton, T. (1991) Ideology: An Introduction, London: Verso. Ersoy, M. (2001) “Sanayisizleşme Süreci ve Kentler”, Praksis, 2: 32-52.
  12. Gough, J., Aram E., ve Andrew McCulloch. (2006)
  13. Space of Social Exclusion, London: Routledge. Hancı, H., Akçiçek, E., Aktaş, E., Batuk, G. Coşkunol, H. ve Atilla Erol (1996) “Çocuk Suçluluğunda Ekolojik bir Yaklaşım: Çocukların Oturdukları Şehir Bölgeleri”, Eğitim Dergisi: Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayını, 1: 185-90. HÜNEE (Hacettepe Üniversity Nüfus Etüdleri Enstitüsü) (2006)
  14. Turkey, Migration and Internally Displaced Population Survey, Ankara:
  15. İsmat. Işık, O. ve Melih Pınarcıoğlu (2001)
  16. Nöbetleşe Yoksulluk, İstanbul:
  17. İletişim. İçduygu, A., Sirkeci, İ. ve İsmail Aydıngün (2001) “Türkiye’de İç Göç ve İç Göçün İşçi Hareketine Etkisi (1965- 1997)”,
  18. İçduygu, A., Sirkeci İ. ve İ.Aydıngün (der.), Türkiye’de İç Göç içinde, 207-244.
  19. İzmir Büyük Şehir Belediyesi. (1998) İzmir Yerel Gündem, 21 3.Cilt, İzmir: İzmir Büyük Şehir Belediyesi. Karayiğit, A. (2005) Kadifekale‘nin Sosyo-ekonomik Profi li ve Sorunları, İzmir:
  20. İzmir Ticaret Odası. Kaygalak, S. (2001) “Yeni Kentsel Yoksulluk: Göç ve Yoksulluğun Mekânsal Yoğunlaşması”, Praksis, 2: 124-72.
  21. Kentel, F., Ahiska, M. ve Fırat Genç (2007) Milletin Bölünmez Bütünlüğü: Demokratikleşme Sürecinde Parçalayan Milliyetçilik(ler), İstanbul:
  22. TESEV. Kurban, D, Çelik, A.B. ve Deniz Yükseker (2006) Overcoming a Legacy of Mistrust: Towards Recoincilation between the State and the Displaced, İstanbul:
  23. TESEV. Miles, R. (1989)
  24. Racism, London: Routledge. Miles, R. (1982)
  25. Racism and Migrant Labour, London: Routledge. Mutlu, S. (1996) “Ethnic Kurds in Turkey: A Demographic Study”, International Journal of