« Sex Matters -I- [Toward a Post-Patriarchal Turkey] | Main | Cem Uzan's Case for Nuts—and Neo-Nationalism »
June 16, 2007
Sex Matters -II- [The Tragedy of Kemalist Feminism]
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
Last weekend I was sitting at one the busiest Starbucks Coffee shops in Istanbul and reading the recent report by the European Stability Initiative (ESI) titled, “Sex And Power In Turkey: Feminism, Islam and The Maturing of Turkish Democracy.” Suddenly someone said “Hi!” to me, and I realized that she was the perfect person to do so while reading a study on Turkish feminism. As a young, elegant and articulate Turkish woman, she runs a successful business and lives a perfectly Western life. But at the same time she believes that the U.S. and the EU are cooking up a conspiracy against Turkey, and the country is heading fast toward “shariah rule” because of those evil powers and their internal ally, the incumbent AKP. She is one of those types who would rather see tanks in the streets than a first lady with a headscarf.
When I told her that I was reading a report which shows that Turkey is making great progress in women's rights and the AKP government is helping that, she was first surprised, then defiant, and finally counter-attacking. “Who is financing that report,” she asked, “it must be the EU who spreads these lies.”
By saying so, she was just confirming to me a crucial point made in the ESI report – that, “Kemalist women… are the out of touch with the reality of contemporary Turkey.”
Ottoman Feminism and Beyond
To understand why, one needs to look at a bit of history. A standard story in Turkey is that our women were in total darkness before Atatürk, and his reforms gave them all that they needed. But that is a half-truth. Atatürk of course made many important reforms, but there are other facts which one needs to realize in order to get the sex matters right.
One of those facts is the feminist movement in the pre-Atatürk, i.e., Ottoman, era. As the ESI report also notes, Ottoman feminists – such as Ms. Fatma Nesibe, who used to quote from John Stuart Mill and argue for a “feminine revolution” – addressed the gender gap much before the Turkish Republic. In the last decade of the Ottoman Empire, societies emerged with names like Taal-i Nisvan or Müdafaa-i Hukuk-u Nisvan, or “The Advancement of Women” and “The Defense of the Rights of Women.”
When Atatürk came to power, he gave many important rights to women, but he did something that would be very harmful in the long term: He closed down these feminist clubs. Why? Well, it was due to the widespread belief at the time that the state should be the master of society and orchestrate it authoritatively. (For the same reason, Mustafa Kemal also banned Sufi orders and freemason lodges; civil society was considered dangerous or, at best, useless.)
The ESI report nicely catches this fundamental problem in Kemalist feminism. It notes:
“The young Turkish Republic took great pride in promoting a select group of pioneer women through the education system and into public life. The first female doctor (1926), lawyer (1927), judge (1930) and pilot (1932) were held up as symbols of progressive secularism. Kemalism came to serve as feminism for these proud ‘daughters of the Republic,' even if its benefits never extended beyond a narrow, urban elite.”
What is sad is that these “daughters of the Republic” became an obstacle to feminism. As Şirin Tekeli, one of Turkey's leading feminists, argues, “[they] organized to defend the vested interests based on those rights acquired under the single-party era, rather than to extend them and make them more widespread'.”
The Kemalist Way or The Highway
That was the genesis of the tragedy of Kemalist feminism. Unlike Mustafa Kemal, who did a lot to improve women's status, his dedicated followers stopped asking for progress and became “secular conservatives.” All they needed to do was to stay the course, not to think of new ways and alternatives. “The seemingly bright picture, – Turkey as the most modern, democratic, secular Muslim state that also secures women's rights – is more harmful than outright oppression,” argues feminist scholar Meltem Müftüler Baç. “Because it shakes the ground for women's rights movements by suggesting that they are unnecessary."
Right after that came the “Islamic feminists” to the scene, which their Kemalist counterparts found not only unnecessary but also treacherous. Islamic feminists defended women's rights not at the expense of Islam, but thanks to Islam. It was the tradition of men that oppressed the women of Islam, they argued, not the commandments of God. That was a major blow to the secularists, who claimed that Islam was the problem, and women could be liberated only by suppressing it. (Some ex-Muslim ladies such as Ayan Hirsi Ali make the most blunt version of that argument nowadays in the West. They, too, don't get the fact that you can't force believers to choose between their faith and modernity and expect a pleasant outcome.)
The ESI report explains all these issues in a very clear, persuasive and accessible way. It concludes by noting, “There is a vocal minority, including some 'authoritarian feminists', who see Turkey's secular traditions as under threat and want the military to step in. Their intense fear of political Islam blinds them to the changes underway in Turkish society, as well as to the achievements of recent years.”
Exactly. That vocal minority — which steadily argues, “the Kemalist way or the highway,” in virtually any issue — blurs Turkey's vision with its unholy scholasticism. Who wouldn't appreciate Atatürk as a great leader who won the war and founded our republic? But he was a mortal and times have changed. Let's move on. We have many things to do in Turkey – and still many women to liberate.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at June 16, 2007 12:10 PM
As an American feminist who tries to put social justice above gender, I am struck by your discussion of the idea of opportunities given to a few women by Kemal even in the face of more limited social structures for equality.
I would suggest that self-determination is a crucial ingredient of freedom and one long over due for many of the world's women. Kemalist women may have been given a few gender rights, but those rights were GIVEN...and as you point out, given while other rights to organize were taken away, given as a sort of firewall to insure no more freedoms could be obtained.
That is opposed to a system where rights are achieved by people through activism; in the latter case, freedom is gained by actions of the very people themselves. So many of the achievements of women have come like bread crumbs from men seeking to quiet feminist voices. How much better to succeed by counting on each other than because we were pitied. Further, I would argue that anytime basic rights are offered as a "gift" to a few (as in the case of Kemal), the recipients should be suspect. Women don't need to be GIFTED personal freedoms which are already ours to have!
On a personal level, as women in Turkey or America or anywhere, this means we must balace the chance for advancement of a few with continuing restrictions on the masses. It is hard to say No to opportunity however it comes, but for true gender equality, we must value comprehensive social justice for all before tainted offers for our own personal fulfillment. As strong women, can we do that?
Posted by: Anne McCrady at June 16, 2007 12:57 PM
Interesting to see the Turks finally find an own distinct own identy and grow on their own pace. I read an interesting analysis about this on http:www.cnn.com and also on http://www.gulfeconomist.com
Posted by: Mohammed at June 16, 2007 8:11 PM
This article fits perfectly well into Mustafa Akyol`s pattern of picking up the most absurd claims made by his opponents and then bravely dismantling them, so that to prove his point, which invariably happens to be that all opponents of the Islamists, and particularly of the "oppressed democrats" from the AKP are crazy, paranoidal, evil, militaristic secularists.
Now, I know Turkey quite well to suggest that this is a blatant disinformation. I know people living perfectly secular, Western lifestyle, who are totally pro-EU and anti-nationalistic. People, who attended Hrant Dink`s funeral, for example. Now, what these people do not accept is the creeping Islamization that AKP is promoting, especially in municipalities. Isn`t that a reasonable position? What do alcohol bans and pressures to veil have to do with European values and liberalism? Is voicing such concerns loud and clear equivalent to being "militaristic" and "anti-democratic"?
My question to Mr.Mustafa Akyol is this: why do you keep distorting the reality, which is far from being black and white? How is it possible to claim being a liberal, yet to completely dismiss the very fair concerns expressed by a substantial part of the nation?
...................
MUSTAFA AKYOL'S NOTE:
I indeed mention that there are many secular liberals in Turkey. But not all seculars are liberals and a great deal of them are nationalist autocrats. That's my point.
Posted by: Eli at June 18, 2007 3:14 PM
I could not disagree more with Andy McCrady, "an American feminist". History suggests that whatever progress is achieved in the field of gender equality it is always thanks to the alliance of progressive men and progressive women. This was the case with Kemalist reforms. These reforms can be critisised for being unsufficient and not extending far enough to the wider society. But to call this "a tainted offer", and to suggest that Turkish women should have refused new rights in the name of "social justice" is just perverse. Whatever the shortcomings of the top-down approach of the Kemalist reforms, happily they were assimilated by a substantial portion of Turkish women, who pursue successful professional carreers, dress, consume and live like they choose to. To downplay this fact is a major unjustice to the secular Republic and its founder, Kemal Ataturk.
Posted by: Eli at June 18, 2007 3:26 PM
To Mr.Mustafa Akyol:
Thanks for your note.
Posted by: Eli at June 18, 2007 3:35 PM
The Republican elite is trying to hold on to its last vestiges of power at the moment, and its showing. Pathetic. How can you be a feminist by telling people how they should dress and act not only in public but private? This is the opposite of feminism. These women might be secular, but they sure as hell aren't progressive.
Good article.
Posted by: Kerim at June 20, 2007 5:44 AM
What Anne wrote here is worth criticizing.
She unconscionably underestimated what the founder of Turkish Republic did for Turkish nation and women.
Who is Kemal by the way? Her boy friend?
Posted by: Kubilay Ant at June 21, 2007 10:52 AM
I am sick and tired of this endless complaining about "the Republican elite" and victimization of "poor, oppressed democrats". Manifestations in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir showed abundantly clear that it is not only the "Republican elite" who cares about secularism. Secularism has been assimilated as a way of life by large portions of Turkish society. Like it or not.
I would like the pro-Islamic sympathizers to explain, how it is possible to be "progressive" without being secular? No matter what kind of "modern" headscarves you wear, it is still a sign of submission, and therefore under NO circunstances can it be considered anything "progressive". The only truly progressive women, therefore, are those who do not wear the headscarf. And obviously, there is no place for a headscarf in the presidential palace. Period.
Posted by: Eli at June 21, 2007 12:51 PM
Mr. Akyol, I agree with you that some seculars are nationalist autocrats. But then aren´t Islamists religious autocrats? No matter how they try to disguise themselves, they still view the world through Islamic lens, and that implies that they would like to see the country reformed along Islamic lines. They may not make veiling obligatory, but they can encourage pressures for girls to cover up, which is already happening in Anatolia. Didn´t you about that?
They adhere to the EU process only as long as it suits their interests. How else could you explain that so much noise is being made about headscarves and imam-hatips, while the demands of Alevis are blissfully ignored and Orhan Pamuk has to leave the country? The AKP is extremely selective in its promoting of democracy. It serves no purpose to demonize the "Republican elite", while ignoring the real danger - creeping islamization.
Posted by: Eli at June 21, 2007 1:00 PM
I couldn't agree more. Biased female individual example @ Starbucks is not a myth, indeed a spread wide disease in today's Turkey. Low self esteem Western Wanabe Turks appear in this very profile and shows rejecting behavior against his/her own kind. Sad but True...
Posted by: Guven at June 21, 2007 1:28 PM
Of course, Guven would have preferred someone completely wrapped up in a chador, instead of an elegant, independent and secular Turkish lady. Of course, only women in headscarves are true Turkish women, and the lady in Starbucks is just "low self-esteem Western wanabe Turk".
NO! You get it wrong again. She is also Turkish, and she has every right to defend her lifestyle against the likes who prefer to go back to Middle ages. Recently I spoke with one articulate, educated Turkish lady, who said "I am going to defend my lifestyle even with arms, if the need arises". I commend her and millions like her for their courage to defend their values against creeping fundamentalist encroachments.
Mr.Akyol, what you are doing is indeed encouraging intolerance towards secular people.This is very sad. I would have appreciated your writings much more if you ever mentioned the intolerant, backward attitudes of Islamists, which make so many reasonable, educated people in Turkey feel so uneasy. Of course, you can always hid behind your favourite mantra of "fact-free paranoia", but that hardly makes your position intelectually and civically honest.
Posted by: Eli at June 22, 2007 12:51 PM
Some self-delusional people would like to believe wearing a headscarf is submission rather than choice, while obeying the State and its self-serving autocrats is progress. They don't actually have a problem with submission, as long as it's to the State's cult philosophies. I believe they call them the Six Arrows of Kemalism.
The only people who are acting like they live in the Middle Ages are the ones who believe the State has the right to tell people how to live and what to do. I was born/raised in the US and am going to a university where there are plenty of women wearing headscarves. So apparently, as the latest scientific evidence suggests, wearing a headscarf does not actually inhibit knowledge from penetrating the skull and reaching the brain.
The same people who want to force women to dress a certain way are the same people who refuse to even recognize the existence of minorities. They need to realize that society is better off without them telling everyone what to do.
Posted by: Kerim at June 22, 2007 10:37 PM
Kerim, the fact that you were born/raised in the US and that there are "plenty of women in headscarves" in your university does not entitle you to give any lessons to anyone. The US is also a country where a religious fanatic can become a president, where scientific theories of world creation are being increasingly sidelined in favout of "an intelligent design" nonsense, and religious zealots routinely attack abortion and gay rights. So much for the US. Therefore, I would suggest you stop portraying the US as a symbol of supreme wisdom.
Also, could you please show, who and where spoke here about the 6 sparrows and "cult of the state"? Why is this urge to simplify any debate? This is a pathetic attempt to portray your opponents as narrow-minded statist fanatic - perhaps, you learnt this from Mr.Akyol. What you fail to realise is that we are adamantly opposed to the use of religion as political tool, aimed at islamisising of the Turkish society. And what is wrong with that? Since when religious fundamentalism is the synonym of freedom? Are not the religious zealots exactly the ones who tell people how they should live, dress, etc.? Although, for one being raised in the US, perhaps there is nothing objectionable in this at all...
Posted by: Eli at June 23, 2007 4:02 PM
Thanks again to Mr Akyol for a brilliant article. I find it tragic that people like Eli consider wearing the headscarf a sign of submission. İf anything Eli is submitting to the state. So how does this tie in with modernity and progresiveness. Eli has consistently failed to explain why wearing the headscarf is a sign of submission, but not wearing the headscarf is freedom. Can Eli and co. also explain why is it that in the most progressive and secular countries like Australia, US and Britain Muslim women who choose to wear the headscarf have no problem in obtaining an education but in so called secular modern Turkey it is somehow against the secular republic.
To all these try-hard wannabe secularists. Secularism is a separation of state and religion, where there are two bodies that act independently. However, this isn't the case with Turkey. But rather the state interferes with religion and religious affairs. So can Eli and co. explain what on earth they are defending? İf they are contending that secularism is under threat in Turkey well İ'm sorry to say but they are defending a cause that doesn't exist.
The real battle in Turkey is between Secularists (AK party) and Secular 'wannabes' (CHP) it is as simple as that. Force has never worked and will never work. Period. Time for these 'wannabes' to grow up and live in the real world. Every fight has a cause, such as freedom, communism, capatalism, poverty etc. To suggest that people are willing to fight for their lifestyle choices in the same level as fighting for a cause like poverty just goes to show how these secular wannabe tragics out of touch and far from reality they have become.
İf anything it is good if these people want to drink. The more they drink the more taxes they pay and therefore more revenue for the state. So therefore the AKP government has no problems with these people drinking and also other lifestyle choices.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at June 24, 2007 12:54 AM
I would kindly ask Mr.Akyol to make sure the likes of Goksel Doganay stop using this blog for disgusting personal attacks as the previous piece clearly shows. Thank you in advance.
It is so much easier attacking and insulting those who think otherwise, instead of elaborating an articulate argument. Thanks to the likes of Doganay we know what the supporters of the AKP are really about.
Posted by: Eli at June 24, 2007 10:13 PM
eli,
What I can't understand is why you have so hysterical fury on a "possibility" that AKP would force on your lifestyle, whereas it is a pure "fact" that secularist state have been oppressing the people on their lifestyles already.
It is good to have a determination on defending your lifestyle with your arms, but what about others' rights?
I'm not sure the rallies were messaging "we don't want oppresion on our lifestyles" or winking an eye to army for "political" reasons. Because it seems CHP could never be elected in "normal" ways.
For those who interested in Turkey debate: It is nothing to do with lifestyles, whatsoever. It's a never-ending story of two parties, rooted back to the early days of new Republic.
Read this article:
http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2007/06/a_day_of_infamy_june_5_1925.php
Posted by: blue at June 26, 2007 10:48 AM
Blue, how exactly does the secular state "oppress people"? Does anybody get killed for wearing headscarf and fasting during Ramadan? The real problem you have is that you want to impose religion in the public realm. This is the problem, not alleged wrongdoings of the secular state. And the lady I talked to is admirable in her decision to fight for her lifestyle, if necessary.
Posted by: Eli at June 26, 2007 7:44 PM
Eli,
This is a forum for intellectual debate. İf you read my opinions closely any sane person can see that my opinions have never been 'disgusting personal attacks' but rather constructive criticism againts people who contend that the AKP is limiting lifestyle choices. I might have used colourful analogies to make my point. But this hardly qualifies as a personal attack on anyone.
You consistantly failed to understand what I have offered as valid points but rather have taken a realy backward and real emotional approach to a fear that at best does not exist. İf anything İ feel sorry for you and people who think like you. İf your going to let fear run your life then good luck to you. You have not responded to my arguments which if you read closely are not at all vicious. You have made yourself look tragic and laughable and your views cannot be taken seriously. You have failed to grasp the concept of secularism. The secularism you believe is applicable to countries like North Korea that includes the mythical worshiping of a leader. İ'm sure you know what I mean. But this isn't secularism.
İf anything İ would ask Mr Akyol to not even post your opinions on this blog because you have not presented any opinions that are of intellectual merit. But what your potray is a person who is just miserable and unsure of their future for no reason.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at June 26, 2007 9:18 PM
"They, too, don't get the fact that you can't force believers to choose between their faith and modernity and expect a pleasant outcome."
But, apparently, you can force non-belivers to choose between modernity and others' faith and expect a pleasant outcome. Brilliant.
Posted by: Anona at June 27, 2007 6:07 AM
Dear Anona,
How you get this point from the other sentence? It's not so "apparant". Who is forcing non-believers what?Dear Eli,
Is this the level of your conception? If anybody is not being killed, that means everything is perfect ! What a high standard of democracy !
Posted by: blue at June 27, 2007 1:50 PM
Actually, the "secular" state does oppress and kill people. Someone would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to realize that. Look at the Kurds. Look at the socialists. Look at the Alevis. Look at conscience objectors of the military. Look at every single group that doesn't agree 100% with the establishment.
The establishment continues to deny Turkey its own human resources by discriminating against its minorities and conservative populations. Is it fitting for a country with so much potential to deny students who earned spots in universities the right to an education, simply because of a headscarf or even their family background? How can anyone justify such a backwards mentality? The fact that this debate even exists should be humiliating. It's true, petty states squabble over petty issues.
Posted by: Kerim at June 28, 2007 8:44 AM
Goksel Doganay, so you are going to ask Mr.Akyol not to put my posts in this blog? Brilliant! What a great concept of democracy! What a tolerance! Is this what they taught you in Australia? Looks like you are the one who spent most of his life in North Korea or Cuba. I already asked you to stop reacting to my messages. In any case, you are ignored henceforth. So do not even waste your time in replying.
Kerim, what you refer to is due to poor democratic standards, not to secularism. Hence, the solution must be to combine democracy with secularism, not democracy with Islam, as AKP and its apologists call for. Greater role for religion will in the long run do away not just with secularism, but democracy likewise, and install religious tyranny instead. The root problem is that religiously conservative people dont offer any reassurance that they would respect other lifestyle choices, once they gather more power and control of the institutions. They wont impose the shariah law, Ok. But they can encourage conservative trends in the society, fight "culture wars" and promote general shift towards more aggresive piety. There is such a thing as "street pressure". It is frighteningly effective. Therefore, it is fully legitimate for secularists to defend their freedoms with all the means available.
Posted by: Eli at June 28, 2007 10:44 PM
Again Eli shows no understanding or knowledge of secularism and democracy. Eli has allowed fear to take over her life. İt is not the role of governments to get involved in personal lives. The AKP government has not shown any evidence of getting involved. The role of religion in society is again not up to governments but rather the people themselves. What İ and many other people call for is a clear seperation of religion and state which İ'm sorry to say does not exist in Turkey. What actually is happening in Turkey is people with a religious lifestyle 'are' denied basic freedoms such as University education. This is actual and presently going on. What many 'wannabe secularists' complain of is nothing more than a possible fear rather than something that is actually going on.
İ asked Mr Akyol not to post your opinions due to a lack of intellectual merit not because İ'm against freedom or democracy on the contrary İ love freedom. You have offered nothing new but recycled opinions from 50 years ago and have allowed fear to grip your life. Governing a country on fear is not freedom or enlightenment but backwardness and darkness.
İn future İ ask of you to be more open minded and open your eyes.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at June 29, 2007 11:12 AM
"Asked once what qualities he admired most in a woman, he replied,`Availability`"
Lord Kinross, Ataturk The Rebirth of a Nation, p. 260
Posted by: Onur Atalay at July 1, 2007 9:06 PM
Many people here seem unable to understand what secularism is and isnt. secularism is seperation of church from state, that means everyone is free to choose their religion and practice it freely. religion is not imposed on anyone and no religions is favored over any other and laws are not made based on religion. by this definition Turkey is NOT a secular state by any means
in a secularist country the government does not run or fund religious insitutions or prohibit religious insitutions. Thus Turkey is not secular when it comes to this as it runs all mosques, hires religious leaders, tells them what to say and what not to say in sermons (also goes against freedom of speech). a truely secular country does not fund or run any type of religious insitution. The people are the ones who do this, thus muslims, christians, jews, atheists, hindus all build their own houses of worship, pay for their own insitutions and run them. no religion is favored over another.
A truely secular society allows people to express their beliefs, be they beliefs in god or not. thus if i am muslim and choose to wear a beard or scarf i should be able to without anyone interfering. if i do not believe in god and feel i should wear whatever i want be it a miniskirt, bikin or whatever i should be able to also. If i am chrisitan i should be able to wear a cross wherever i want and as a Jew i should be able to wear a star of david or a yarlmuka wherever i want. AS LONG AS I DO NOT FORCE OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.
In a secular society a particular religion or philosopical belief should not be forced down anyones throats in school. Thus the government cant fund religous schools as Turkey does with the hatip schools. If Muslims want schools or colleges build and fund them yourselves. Jews, Christians and whoever else wants to should be able to do the same.
Everyone no matter what religious belief they hold should be free to participate in politics and civil soceity be they relgious muslims, jews, christians, male, female, gay, lesbian athiest. A muslim or a jew has as much right to be president or PM or a judge or whatever as an athiest. That is what it means to truly be democratic and secular. Right now Turkey is simply pretending to be secular and democratic.
Posted by: Ahmet at July 6, 2007 3:25 AM