A Reading of Sexual Morality in Turkey

Dressing Up Ahlak: A Reading of Sexual Morality in Turkey

by Hilal Ozcetin M.A., Central European University, 2006 B.A., Baskent University, 2005

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Approval

Name: Hilal Ozcetin Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Title: Dressing Up Ahlak: A Reading of Sexual Morality in Turkey Examining Committee: Chair: Wendy Chan Professor

Dany Lacombe Senior Supervisor Professor

Parin Dossa Supervisor Professor

Simten Cosar Supervisor Professor Faculty of Communication, Hacettepe University

Cindy Patton Internal Examiner Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Sedef Arat-Koc External Examiner Associate Professor Department of Politics and Public Administration Ryerson University

Date Defended/Approved: December 3, 2015

ii Ethics Statement

iii Abstract

This dissertation analyzes sexual morality discourse through a reading of dressed female bodies in Turkey. It explores how sexual morality (ahlak) is shaped by Islamist and secularist discourses in Turkey and the ways in which ahlak (morality) imposes control mechanisms over women’s bodies in Turkey. The thesis argues that even though secularist and Islamist discourses are seen in a dualistic framework, the patriarchal sexual moralities they impose on the bodies of women are not binary oppositions. Both utilize dress as a technology of the body to conceal female sexual bodies and regulate the visibility of women in public space. However, as a result of the different ways in which sexual moral norms are inhabited, these two discourses are perceived as oppositional.

Thirty-one interviews were conducted with women involved in women’s movements in Istanbul and Ankara (Turkey) in 2010. The data analysis suggests that the sexual morality that aims at hiding the female sexual body through dress constrains the mobility and freedom of women in public spaces in Turkey. The study also shows that sexual morality has been maintained through state surveillance (such as laws and regulations on public morality and on dress) and through the public gaze (such as the judging gaze, sexual harassment and violence). Yet, the analysis of the sexual violence cases in regards to sexual morality and dress point out that sexual morality has become more conservative as a result of the increased conservatism in politics in the last decade. While this analysis shows sexual morality to be a disciplinary discourse and a practice producing ‘docile bodies’, it also reveals that women are not passively subjected to this morality. Women fashion different modalities of agencies that reveal various ways of living, embodying, as well as subverting and challenging the norms of sexual morality in Turkey.

Keywords: Dress; Sexuality; Women; Ahlak; Agency; Turkey

Dedication

To my mother and sister

v Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Dany Lacombe for her guidance and support without which I would not have been able to finalize this dissertation. I am also thankful to my committee members Dr. Parin Dossa and Dr. Simten Cosar, for generously committing time and energy to provide valuable comments and encouragement. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Sedef Arat-Koc and Dr. Cindy Patton for their part in the examination of this dissertation and moreover suggesting interesting directions for the future of this research topic.

I had the great fortune of having dear friends who have helped me along this journey. Thank you dear Efe Peker, Sule Yaylaci, Didem Turkoglu, Nil Mutluer, Esin Gozukara, Onur Bakiner, Pinar Gurleyen and Serbulent Turan Sibel Eranil, Efe Can Gurcan, Ataman Avdan, Aazadeh Madani, and Carla Winston for tolerating me during harder times as well as your friendship and support over the years. Thank you little Daphne Yagmur Turan for cheering me up without fail.

Special thanks also to Hulya Arik, Alp Biricik, Soudeh Jamshidian, Gulay Ayyildiz and Kemal Yigitcan, who were integral to this journey. Thank you for your enthusiastic support and fantastic company.

A very special thanks to Mike Chiang who came into my life during the writing period and helped me in every way possible through stressful times. His unconditional love, encouragement and friendship made it possible to finish this dissertation.

I thank my beloved mother Yuksel Sevim Baysin, and sister Bihter Ozcetin Yazlik who have supported me in various ways when I am in need. I am grateful for their encouragement and faith in me. Thank you my dear niece Esin for bringing joy and laughter to my life.

I will be forever grateful to my late grandmother Ayse Ozcetin and late aunt Sengul Ayyildiz for instilling in me the desire to pursue my own goals; I will always miss them. Last but not least, much appreciation to my brother-in-law Serkan Yazlik and extended family for their unwavering confidence in me.

I owe my deepest gratitude to the women who shared their time and stories with me. I would like to thank for their time and cordiality.

vii

Table of Contents

Approval ...... ii Ethics Statement ...... iii Abstract ...... iv Dedication ...... v Acknowledgements ...... vi Table of Contents ...... viii List of Acronyms ...... x Glossary ...... xi

Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Field Research and Method ...... 7 1.2. Organization of the Dissertation ...... 12

Chapter 2. Theoretical Background ...... 18 2.1. Introduction ...... 18 2.2. Key Themes and Concepts ...... 19 2.3. Sexuality and Morality ...... 24 2.4. Sexuality and morality through dress in Muslim Societies ...... 27 2.5. Brief Review of Fashion Studies ...... 33 2.6. Morality, Sexuality and Gendered Body through Dress ...... 39 2.7. Feminist Approaches on the Body and Fashion ...... 42 2.8. Regulation of Dress in Gendered Spatial Context ...... 46 2.9. The Study of Ahlak and Dressed Bodies: Brief Notes on Methodology ..... 51

Chapter 3. Gendered Moral Bodies: The Analysis of the Female Body in Secularist and Islamist Political Discourses ...... 54 3.1. Introduction ...... 54 3.2. Women in the Republic of Turkey ...... 57 3.3. Dress Reform: Modern ‘Asexual’ Bodies ...... 61 3.4. The Quiet Years: Women in Turkey from 1945 to 1980 ...... 72 3.5. The Invisible Becomes Visible: The Rise of Islamist Movements and the Headscarf ‘Question’ ...... 77 3.6. State Surveillance: The Secular Gaze of State over Women’s Bodies ...... 82 3.7. Conclusion ...... 90

Chapter 4. The Socio-Political Discourses of Sexual Morality: Disciplined Bodies ...... 94 4.1. Introduction ...... 94 4.2. Choosing the Dress: The Emerging Themes ...... 96 4.2.1. Casual Dress versus Hanım Hanımcık Dress ...... 96 4.2.2. Sexualized and Desexualized Bodies ...... 102 4.3. The Politics of Dress ...... 107 4.3.1. Dressed Bodies in the 1960s and 1970s ...... 107

viii

4.3.2. Moral Muslim Bodies ...... 112 4.4. Violence against Women: “Provocative” Dress ...... 119 4.5. Conclusion ...... 123

Chapter 5. Space, Dress and Sexual Morality ...... 125 5.1. Introduction ...... 125 5.2. Women’s Mobility in Public Spaces ...... 127 5.3. Rural Spaces and Mahalle (Neighbourhood) ...... 130 5.4. The Veiled Bodies on Campuses ...... 135 5.5. Workplace: Dress Like a Lady, Act Like a Man ...... 141 5.6. Streets at Night: ‘Immoral’ Woman ...... 147 5.7. Conclusion ...... 150

Chapter 6. The Modes of Agencies: Women’s Movements and Sexual Morality ...... 152 6.1. Introduction ...... 152 6.2. Challenging State Surveillance ...... 153 6.3. Taking Back the Streets!: Contesting the Public Gaze ...... 157 6.4. The Veiled Agencies: The Question of Bodily Rights ...... 160 6.5. “Does Moral Woman Mean Headscarved Woman?”: The Debate on the Headscarf and Islamic Sexual Morality ...... 163 6.6. Conclusion ...... 174

Chapter 7. Conclusion ...... 177 7.1. The Significance and Contribution of the Study ...... 183 7.2. Limitations and Future Directions ...... 185

References ...... 187 Books and Journal Articles ...... 187 Newspaper Articles ...... 197 Websites ...... 199 Appendix A. Research Participants ...... 200

List of Acronyms

AP Adalet Partisi (Justice Party) AKP Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (Justice and Development Party) CHP Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (Republican Peoples Party) DP Demokratik Parti (Democratic Party) RP Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) NGOs Non-governmental organizations YÖK Yükseköğretim Kurulu (Higher Education Council)

x Glossary

Ahlak Morality Ahlaklı Moral Ahlaksız Immoral Başörtüsü Headscarf Hanım hanımcık Lady/Ladylike İffet Chastity İffetli Chaste İffetsiz Unchaste Mahrem Privacy/Private sphere/Women’s space. It literally “refers to intimacy, domesticity, secrecy, women’s space, what is forbidden to a foreigner’s gaze, it also means a man’s family” (Gole, 1996, p.7). Neighbourhood Mahalle Non-mahrem/Public/Public sphere. It refers to a stranger who is Namahrem not related to the woman. Tesettür (Tesettür It refers to the ‘new’ Islamic dressing code. Tesettür is defined Fashion) as the türban (a veil), which tightly covers the head and the neck accompanied by a loose long overcoat called pardesü. Türban Headscarf/Veil. It is argued that türban symbolize the Islamist ideological orientations and it was described in a way that could be differentiated from the traditional headscarf, which did not cover all of the hair in the front and in the back, and the ear lobes.

Chapter 1.

Introduction

On February 11th 2015, Özgecan Aslan, a twenty-year-old university student from

Mersin in the southern province of Turkey, was killed following an attempted rape. On that day, she had taken a minibus in the afternoon from school to her home, and the driver of the minibus attempted to rape her. She resisted by using pepper spray and fought back.

The driver, who failed to rape Özgecan, stabbed her and beat her to death with an iron bar and then with the help of his friend and his father, he disposed of her body by burning it (Rape and murder, 2015; Turkish women, 2015; Özgecan'ın annesi, 2015; Universiteli kiz, 2015). This murder was widely reported in the Turkish and international media.

The brutality of Özgecan’s murder sparked furious protests all over the country and on social media. Women took to the street to protest her murder and sexual violence against all women in Turkey. This murder also sparked media attention to the increasing violence against women in Turkey. During the protests newspapers reported that, according to the Ministry of Family and Social Policies, four in every ten women in Turkey are subjected to physical and sexual violence by their fathers, husbands or boyfriends

(Protests against, 2015), and according to data from the Turkish Ministry of Justice, between the years 2002 and 2009, the number of women murdered in Turkey increased by 1,400 percent (Koc, 2015; Murder, 2015). Meanwhile, women and celebrities wore black across the country and shared their photos on social media to condemn the murder.

The hashtag #sendeanlat (tell your story) trended globally on Twitter with women sharing their sexual harassment and/or violence stories (Rape and murder 2015; Protests against,

2015).

During all these discussions and protests against the murder of Özgecan and sexual violence against women, on February 14th, Nihat Doğan, a famous singer in Turkey, tweeted a message in which he argued that “women wearing miniskirts and getting naked do not have a right to make a fuss when they are harassed by perverts deprived of morals due to the secular system” (Nihat Doğan’in, 2015). A large number of complaints were filed against him and even though he apologized for his tweet on TV, he was fired from the Turkish version of Survivor. As a response to his tweet, some men launched an online protest to condemn the murder of Özgecan, and they wore skirts and shared their photos on social media. They invited men to wear skirts to another protest, which was held in

Taksim (Istanbul) on February 21st to say that the miniskirt is neither an invitation nor an excuse for rape (Turkish men, 2015; Özgecan Aslan, 2015). For the first time in Turkey, many men wearing skirts attended the protest in Taksim to challenge sexual violence and the sexual morality discourse, which dictates to women what to wear and how to behave in public spaces.

While the claim that a dress style can be ‘provocative’ and ‘revealing’ has been utilized to label women as ‘immoral’ and ‘available/loose’, particularly in cases of sexual violence in Turkey, the protests following the attempted rape and murder of Özgecan brought the issue of sexual morality into question for the first time for a large amount of people. The intense discussions about this murder in the mainstream media not only created awareness about the link between sexual violence and morality, but also shone light on the issue of dress in regards to morality for the people of Turkey. For instance, on

February 18th, following the news of Özgecan and Nihat Doğan’s controversial statement, it was reported that a vice-principal of a high school had demanded that her students form a team to harass female students wearing short skirts at the school. At a meeting with the class council on February 9th, the vice-principal had reportedly told the students “male students could follow girls who wear short skirts to make them feel uncomfortable, after which the students would eventually have to dress ‘properly’.” (Turkish teacher, 2015).

The interesting point about this news is that even though she made the statement on

February 9th, it only appeared in the mainstream media after the murder of Özgecan, which augmented the discussion on sexual morality in regards to dress.

While the connection between dress and sexual morality has played a significant role in The Republic of Turkey, dress norms are a widely neglected area of study in the social and political history of Turkey. Discussions on dress norms in Turkey have predominantly focused on Muslim women wearing headscarves. Studies on the headscarf/veil have explored the construction of femininity during the modernization process and revealed the significance of the headscarf in state policies and the lives of headscarved citizens. These studies have focused on the political discourses of dress norms and official regulations on dress. Scholars have approached the issue of the headscarf from various perspectives and enabled a discussion on how the dress code on the headscarf regulates and shapes women’s bodily experiences. Yet, academic interest on the headscarf has not fully captured the significance of dress norms more generally and their relation to female sexuality and morality. This limited focus on the headscarf has left out numerous discourses on women’s dress and appearances that have produced control mechanisms over women’s bodies. Hence, through a reading of dressed bodies in

Turkey, my dissertation aims to explore sexual morality discourse and how it constrains

and shapes women’s experience of their bodies, and to what extent women resist or conform to control and regulation.

The image of a moral woman is defined by various discourses on sexuality, which involves the differentiation of parts of the female body, some parts that are open to the public gaze and others that are to remain hidden. Considering the cultural relativity of the concept of morality, the construction of the moral female sexualized citizen varies along different discourses on sexuality in various cultures and sub-cultures. Even though Turkey is not unique in regards to its patriarchal sexual morality discourse which regulates and control women’s bodies through dress norms, Turkey presents us with a particular cultural setting where women’s bodies have become the site of conflict, shaped by battling morality forces acting upon the bodies through the norms of dress. In Turkey, there have been two competing socio-political discourses – secularist and Islamist – which define a certain type of body as moral and create control mechanisms to impose the image of ‘moral woman’ – constructed in any given discourse – upon its members.

One of the vital questions that also needs to be answered is why it is that female bodies are at the mercy of power in the first place? To answer this question, I will explore the dualistic thinking that identifies women with their bodies, and how this Cartesian thinking centers female bodies in the center of the discourses on dress. After this theoretical discussion, I will look at the history of the Republic of Turkey and its political discourses to examine how female bodies have become the target of the political discourses of Islamism and secularism and to demonstrate how and why these discourses come to target women and their visibility in public spaces.

Building on data I have collected in field research and literature, one of the main questions I examine in this dissertation is how the dominant discourses of secularism and

Islamism have shaped sexual morality in Turkey, and how female bodies are controlled through dress norms in regards to it. In this dissertation, I make use of the Turkish term ahlak (morality), a term that refers to moral standards as a broad term in relation to sexuality, which is constructed around values such as namus (honor), saygı

(respectability), ayıp (shame), tevazu (modesty), müstehcenlik (obscenity) and iffet

(virtue/chastity). Bu using dress norms as a frame of reference for analyzing the relationship between gender, sexuality and ahlak, I endeavour to reveal the sexual morality discourse in Turkey.

Most importantly in this dissertation, I argue that even though the secularist and

Islamist discourses have been perceived as contradictory, both discourses embody sexual morality and identify female sexuality as a threat to public order. Indeed, by definition, an ahlaklı woman is one who conceals her sexual body through dress in the public space.

This is the reason why when norms around ahlak are being discussed in the context of

Turkey, one should not fall into the mistake of labeling sexual morality as Islamic or secularist. I also argue that the sexuality morality discourse is maintained by these political discourses and imposed on women’s bodies by state surveillance (through laws and regulations of dress) and by the public gaze (through sexual harassment and violence).

The discourse of morality and sexuality, which was imposed on the female body during the Ottoman Empire, was primarily shaped by Islamic discourse, which construes women’s body as mahrem, a body that needs to be invisible to the public gaze

(namahrem). Mahrem literally “refers to intimacy, domesticity, secrecy, women’s space, what is forbidden to a foreigner’s gaze, it also means a man’s family” (Gole, 1996, p.7).

As Gole (1996) points out, the Western conceptualization of the ‘private sphere’ is not the exact translation of mahrem due to the distinctiveness of domestic space in the Muslim world. In the Islamic moral order, the female body establishes the boundary between the realm of mahrem (privacy) and namahrem (non-mahrem/public) Namely, the boundary between mahrem and namahrem is based on the visibility and invisibility of the female body. The Ottoman Empire maintained the moral order through segregation and veiling which ensured the invisibility of the mahrem in public space. With the foundation of the

Republic of Turkey, the secular modernist discourse aimed at deconstructing and reconstructing the boundary between mahrem and namahrem by opening the public space to women and freeing them from the constraints of Islam (Gole 1996). However, in this dissertation, I endeavour to question the secular Kemalist1 discourse and its aim to deconstruct the concept of the female body as mahrem and to liberate women from the patriarchal constraints.

While the Republican discourse drew on the European secularist discourse, it preserved some components of the Islamic ahlak in the name of protecting tradition

(gelenek görenek) and constructed a “new” ahlak, which amalgamated the norms of

European modernity and Islamic norms (Arat, 1997). The Republican discourse continued to define the Turkish female body as mahrem, but it expected this body to conceal its sexuality with modern clothes. The Republican discourse has thus imposed power on women’s bodies through modern dress. Even though the new Islamist discourse, which emerged in the 1990s, claims to be a modern discourse valuing women’s participation in

1 Zurcher (2004) defines Kemalism as follows: “It [Kemalism] never became a coherent, all- embracing ideology, but can best be described as a set of attitudes and opinions that were never failed […] The basic principles of Kemalism were laid down in the party [The Republican People’s Party] program of 1931. They were republicanism, secularism, nationalism, populism, statism and revolutionizm (or reformism)” (p. 181).

public space, it has also continued along the same sexual morality line and has not permitted women to exist in the public space as sexual beings. In other words, I claim that even though secularist and Islamist discourses are seen in a dualistic framework, the patriarchal sexual morality norms they impose on the bodies of women are not binary oppositions. One of the goals of this study is to investigate how both Islamist and secularist discourses utilize dress as a technology of the body to maintain the mahrem of the female sexual body, and regulate the visibility and mobility of women in public space through sexual morality.

Dress norms are regulatory conventions that enable the repetitious production of sexual morality. They produce disciplinary effects that can easily entrap women and, as a consequence, it is difficult to comprehend their agency. Women’s capacity for agency is a debated issue. Drawing on Saba Mahmood’s (2001; 2006) theory on agency, I argue that to comprehend the experience of women, we need to go beyond the humanist

‘liberatory model of agency’, which equates agency with resistance and explore different modalities of agencies. In this study, I will not only explore how women resist and challenge the discourse of sexual morality but I will also endeavour to show how sexual morality norms are “… lived and inhabited, aspired to, reached for, and consummated”

(Mahmood, 2006, 192) by women in Turkey.

Field Research and Method

At the beginning of August 2010, I started conducting in-depth interviews in

Istanbul to investigate how Islamist and secularist discourses on the headscarf were reflected in women’s everyday practices and their narratives of their bodily experiences.

Initially, the motivation behind this study was to expand the discussion on headscarf in

order to include the secular/secularist feminists’ point of view and explore how the discussion on headscarf was affecting not only headscarved women but also secular women’s experience of their bodies and how they identify themselves with their bodies.

By conducting in-depth interviews, I had the opportunity to generate questions based upon the answers I received. I asked the participants to describe their daily lives and activities.

In order to connect the interviewees to their bodily experiences, I introduced a few supporting questions (such as whether they have ever encountered a problem due to their attire and, whether they have been identified as secularist or religious because of the dress they wear) to explore how they fashion their subjectivities in the context of headscarf debates. Even though I was expecting them to describe their everyday life experiences, which would reveal whether they confirm or resist the contradicting definitions of an 'ideal' woman and femininity in secularist and Islamist discourses, they expressed their discontent about how they have been regulated and limited in the public sphere by sexual morality, forged around norms of dress in general. They stated that in Turkey, the discussions around dress and body focus on the issue of the headscarf, but exclude other dressed bodies and regulations/control that are imposed on female bodies in various kinds of public spaces.

After five interviews in Istanbul, I realized that the discursive practices of dress not only act upon the bodies of headscarved women but they also regulate and shape the bodily experiences as well as everyday lives of all women living in Turkey. The common component that emerged from the interviewees’ narratives was the discomfort and sexual harassment they experienced as a result of their “immodest”, “improper”, “inappropriate” and “sexually alluring” dress style. Their accounts pointed to a sexual moral discourse, which was constraining their freedom and mobility in public spaces. Hence, after going

through the data that I had collected from my five interviews I decided that focusing only on the headscarf was limiting my understanding of the way the dress code affects women.

Thus, I decided to address the norms of dress in relation to sexual morality and how the discourses on women's appearances and dress norms produce control mechanisms over their bodies and how these discourses affect their bodily experiences.

As a result, between August and December 2010, I conducted 31 unstructured in- depth interviews with women from different backgrounds who are involved in women's movements around Turkey. After getting involved with the activities of feminist/women's non-profit organizations (NGOs), I realized that activities, events and campaigns on the female body, including the issue of the headscarf were being organized jointly by feminist/women NGOs both in Istanbul and Ankara. I conducted 15 interviews in Ankara and 16 interviews in Istanbul. I chose to interview women’s rights activists in order to investigate the extent of organized resistance against sexual moral discourses in Turkey.

The interviewees were urbanized middle-class women with at least a bachelor degree.

Only one of the participants, who was managing a canteen/tea house in Ankara, had a high school diploma. Only one of the participants was a housewife and the rest were either students in graduate school or had a career. I conducted all of the interviews in Turkish, and I translated the data myself. I used a snowball-sampling technique to recruit the rest of the participants for this study. At the beginning of the research, I drew from numerous contacts I had established during my Master’s research and my involvement in Turkish women’s movements to recruit my first participants, and then I conducted interviews with their colleagues and/or friends involved in the women’s movement in Turkey. To protect the privacy of the interviewees, their real names are replaced with pseudonyms.

9 The women I interviewed in this research were involved in women's movements either as members of feminist and/or women's non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or as independent participants in campaigns, discussion groups, meetings, and workshops on women's issues/gender equality. While the participants were active in women’s organizations, not all of them identified themselves as feminists. Therefore, instead of labeling them as feminists, I identify the subjects as religious and secular women’s rights activists. I need to note that I do not use ’secular’ and ‘religious’ as binary oppositional terms. I identify the participants as religious who pursue a religious life.

Included in this category are the participants wearing headscarves. These participants also stated the importance of religion in their lives and how it also shapes their choice of clothes. The secular women are composed of non-religious (deist or atheist) or Muslim women or secularist/Kemalist, who do not necessarily pursue religious lives. These women do not wear the headscarf and shape their lives around Islamic norms. In Turkey, over %90 of the population is being registered and identified as Muslim but they do not necessarily pursue religious lives in which religion is in the center of their lives and identities. I prefer to use “religious” and “secular” to identify the subjects of this study.

The accounts of the research subjects provided rich data to scrutinize how sexual moral discourses shape women’s relations to their bodies, and to what extent women conform with, subvert or resist the gendered norms of space. Having interviews with women involved in women’s movements provided a unique opportunity to investigate the extent of resistance against and conformity to sexual moral discourses.

All interviewees were members of e-mail groups on women's issues. The online groups are Birbirimize Sahip Çıkıyoruz (We Look Out for Each Other), Henüz Özgür

Olmadık (We Are Not Yet Free), Kadın Kurultayı (Women's Convention), Feministbiz (We are Feminists), and Feministler Uyumuyor (Feminists are not Sleeping). These email groups were not only important cyber platforms to generate discussions on gender and sexual issues, but also crucial cyber platforms to organize and announce protests nation- wide. The interviewees were involved in various NGOs: Kadın Dayanışma Vakfıi

(Women's Solidarity Foundation, Ankara), Sosyalist Feminist Kolektif (Socialist Feminist

Collective, Ankara and Istanbul), Amargi Kadın Akademisi (Amargi Women's

Cooperative), Kadın Adayları Destekleme ve Eğitme Derneği - KADER (Association for

Education and Supporting Women Candidates, Ankara Branch), Ankara Kadın Platformu

(Ankara Women's Platform, Ankara), Uçan Süpürge (Flying Broom, Ankara), Başkent

Kadın Platformu (Capital Women's Platform, Ankara), Ayrımcılığa Karşı Kadın Hakları

Derneği – AKDER (Women's Rights Organization Against Discrimination, Istanbul), Türk

Kadınlar Birliği (Turkish Women's Union, Ankara) and Kadının İnsan Hakları – Yeni

Çözümler Derneği (Women for Women's Human Rights – New Ways, Istanbul). Some of the participants were also the founders of, and/or writers in, the following national feminist publications; Pazartesi (Istanbul), Kazate (Istanbul), and Amargi (Istanbul).

Both my role as a researcher in the field and my subjectivity became crucial in relating the participants of the research and their experiences. I was raised by a secular middle class family, and while I spent my childhood in a small conservative town on the west coast of Turkey, I also lived in Ankara – the capital city of Turkey – during my late teen and young adult years. Hence, my background helped me connect with the participants’ sexual and bodily experiences in both rural and urban spaces in Turkey.

Since I was perceived as an insider who also had similar experiences as my subjects, I had an easier time to create subject-subject (inter-subjectivity) relations with the participants.

My position as a graduate student at a university outside of Turkey brought both advantages and disadvantages. Since I was not a student in Turkey, it created a different dynamic with the academics I interviewed. Rather than being perceived as a student of theirs, they interacted with me as their peer and/or as a researcher, which changed the hierarchical power dynamic. On the other hand, they gave me the impression that because

I was an academic working on gender issues in a culture I was familiar with, they did not need to explain their statements.

Organization of the Dissertation

This dissertation includes seven chapters, including this introduction. Chapter I

Introduction presents an overview of the research scope, including the arguments, research question, field research experience, method and outline of the thesis. Chapter II

Theoretical Background introduces the main concepts and theories, which inform my analysis in this study. First, I introduce the main concepts of this study through Michel

Foucault’s theories on power, discourse and sexuality. I also discuss feminist theories, such as Judith Butler’s theorization of gender and gender performance which is influenced by Foucault’s works. Second, I briefly explore the relation between sexuality and morality and how these concepts have been defined and discussed in different cultural contexts. I subsequently examine sexual morality and dress norms in Islamic societies through the scholarly works on Muslim women, such as the works of Fatima Mernissi (187, 1995),

Haleh Afshar (1998), Lila Abu-Lughod (1990) and Saba Mahmood (2001; 2006). It is

important to explore Islamic sexual morality, not only because Turkey is a Muslim majority society, but also because religion still plays a significant role in Turkish traditions, particularly in defining morality, sexuality and femininity. In this section, I will also focus on

Mahmood’s (2001; 2006) theory on agency that challenges the definition ‘liberatory model of agency’ Mahmood’s (2001; 2006) detaches agency from resistance and enables us to consider different modalities of agencies. Later, I explore the relation between dress, sexual morality and the gendered body through the discussion of fashion studies. I will be mostly drawing on the works of Joanne Entwistle (2000a; 2000b; 2007), whose works utilize the Foucauldian concepts of power, discourse and body to explore the production of ‘disciplined’ bodies through the norms of dress. I will subsequently investigate the interplay of space and sexual morality, and how spatial discourses of sexual morality shape dressed bodies. At the end of this chapter, I will explain why and how I use the theories discussed in the chapter to analyze the data.

Chapter III Gendered Moral Bodies: The Analysis of the Female Body in Secularist and Islamist Political Discourses analyzes the two dominant political discourses (Kemalist and Islamist) and how they have shaped sexual morality since the foundation of the

Republic of Turkey in 1923. Through secondary works on the socio-political history of

Turkey and gender and women’s issues in Turkey, I examine how sexual morality, shaped by Kemalist modernist and Islamist discourses, defines an ahlaklı (moral) woman based on her dressing style. In the first part, I focus on the early Republican era and the gender reforms to investigate how the ahlaklı woman was defined in the modernity project. I discuss the dress reforms and early Republicans’ and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s (the founder of Republic of Turkey) speeches to reveal how the social construction of the new female citizens was defined as “asexual” but modern through the sexual morality

discourse of Kemalism. In the second part, through limited studies on women between the years of 1945 and 1980, I explore how gender reforms and sexual morality shaped women’s experiences of their bodies. I also briefly examine the discourse of leftist movements in the 1960s and 1970s to examine their challenges against the discourse of sexuality and morality and how they used their dress styles as the symbols of their resistance. After this brief discussion, I continue my exploration with the new Islamist movement that emerged in the 1990s. The goal of this section is to reveal the similarities between the Islamist and Kemalist discourses on sexual morality, and to investigate the new ‘modern’ headscarved women and their challenge to the Kemalist discourse. I will also examine how law has been utilized as a mechanism of surveillance in the secular modern discourse to regulate women’s bodies against the threat of Islamist discourse and practices.

Chapters IV, V and VI are the analysis of the data I collected during my field research. Since the subject of this dissertation mainly emerged from the interviews, I organized the next three chapters based on the emerging themes of the participants’ narratives. Thus, after demonstrating how secularist and Islamist discourses shape sexual morality in Turkey, Chapter IV The Socio-Political Discourses of Sexual Morality:

Disciplined Bodies explores how sexual morality shaped women’s experiences of their bodies. In the first part, I explore the choices women make about their appearance and dress style. Through a discussion on casual dress and hanım hanımcık (“lady” or

“ladylike”) dress, I aim to explore the role sexual morality plays in producing ‘docile bodies’.

The term hanım hanımcık – “ladylike” – is a significant term to examine the sexual morality discourse as it is used to define women who conform and follow sexual moral norms. My analysis also shows how the sexual morality discourse desexualizes the bodies of aging

women and mothers. In the second part, I investigate how sexual morality defined by

Islamist and secularist discourses shape women’s bodily experiences. At the end of this chapter, I discuss sexual violence as a disciplinary tool of the sexual morality discourse.

Based on the participants’ narratives, I explore whether the shift in the dominant discourse from a secularist to an Islamist one has increased the conservatism of the definition of an ahlaklı woman and could be related to an increase in the cases of violence against women.

Chapter V Space, Dress and Sexual Morality analyzes participants’ experiences in different public spaces, in which their presences are disputed, even though they are free to participate in these spaces. The goal of this chapter is to demonstrate how the sexual moral discourse of the space imposes control over women’s bodies and constrains the mobility of women in public spaces. In the first section, I focus on public transportation

(such as buses, minibuses and ferries), which is an important means for women to move in between spaces in the urban cities of Turkey. In the second section, I compare participants’ experiences in rural and urban spaces and in mahalle (neighbourhood) and city centers to unveil the differing definitions of the ahlaklı woman in these spaces. While women’s experiences in these spaces suggest the existence of a public gaze over their bodies, their experiences at workplaces and university campuses point to the presence of state surveillance of sexual morality. Hence, in the third section, I investigate how the ban on the headscarf shaped women’s experiences and made women develop strategies to deal with the ban. Then, I explore how dress is utilized to impose sexual moral norms in the workplaces and how women utilize dress as a strategy to manage the gender regime imposed on them by the male gaze and the patriarchal structure governing space.

Chapter VI The Modes of Agencies: Women’s Movements and Sexual Morality engages with the discussion on sexual morality and dress in the women’s movements in

Turkey. In Chapter VI, I aim to give space to women’s voices to demonstrate different modalities of agencies in the struggle against sexual morality, a morality that reinforces sexual violence against women, and limits the freedom of women in the public spaces in

Turkey. First, I discuss women’s resistance of the state’s discourse on sexual morality and its surveillance mechanisms. In this context, I look at women’s challenges against laws, such as the Turkish Penal Code regulating “unjust provocations” and “impudent/indecent

(hayasız) manners,” as well as women’s challenges against state policies and practices, such as state-sponsored virginity tests. Second, through an exploration of the campaigns against sexual violence, I question women’s resistance by revealing how women have internalized patriarchal sexual morality, which labels women who deviate from dress norms as ‘immoral’. After this discussion, I investigate religious Muslim women’s different modalities of agency based on their arguments about sexual and bodily rights and the debate on the headscarf. Even though religious Muslim women have been criticized as being submissive to the patriarchal Islamist discourse – particularly because of their unwillingness to participate in campaigns to claim ownership of their bodies – I will demonstrate their different modalities of agency. At the end of the chapter, I will discuss the new agencies and voices of young feminists in the movements. I will show the seeds of a stronger challenge against sexual morality, which unfortunately has been becoming more conservative with the increasing dominance of the Islamist discourse.

In Chapter VII Conclusion, I provide a summary of the overall discussion of this study and tie the arguments of each chapter together to paint a picture of the sexual morality discourse, a discourse that attempts through the dress code to make women’s sexual bodies invisible in public. After providing the findings of the study, I point out the contributions of this dissertation and make some suggestions for future studies.

16 This page left blank in original.

Chapter 2. Theoretical Background

Introduction

In this chapter, I will explore the theories, which inform my research and introduce the central concepts of this study, mainly; sexuality, body, gender, power, discourse and morality. These concepts are discussed in postmodern and post-structuralist studies, largely influenced by the works of Michel Foucault. I will examine Foucault’s discussion on the discursive body, which makes a crucial epistemological contribution to the exploration of the never-ending interplay between power and its technologies on and through the body and sexuality. Foucault’s analysis claims that the body and sexuality are constructed through discourses and the body is inscribed with relations of power. After providing an account of Foucault’s theory on body, power, discourse and sexuality, I devolve on Judith Butler’s theory of gender performance. Then, I briefly discuss how the studies have explored the intersectionality of sexuality and morality in the literature, and then I focus on Islamic sexual morality through the studies of Fatima Mernissi (187, 1995),

Haleh Afshar (1998), Lila Abu-Lughod (1990) and Saba Mahmood (2001). I pay particular attention to Mahmood’s (2001; 2006) conceptualization of agency as “capacity for action”, which enables the analysis to employ a more comprehensive perspective including multiple modalities of agencies.

Later, drawing on fashion studies, I focus on theoretical debates concerning the role dress plays in modern capitalist societies. Then, I examine how feminist theories explain the relation between dress, morality, sexuality and the gendered body. My goal is to reveal how dress draws gender boundaries, reproduces sexual differences, and ultimately regulates and controls female sexuality and the female body.

It must be noted that this literature looks at dress code mainly from a Western point of view and excludes the various dress styles and practices in Muslim-majority societies.

While secular ideology has assumed a monopoly at the state level of the Turkish republic, religion still plays a significant role in Turkish traditions, particularly in defining morality, sexuality and femininity. Therefore, to understand the norms of religious and modern attire

I must explore Islamic norms of sexuality and morality. Finally, I discuss studies on the female body with reference to public space and dress codes to show how spatial discourses shape the female body in and across certain spaces.

Key Themes and Concepts

I have built a theoretical framework for my thesis based upon debates in fashion studies, feminist studies and sexuality studies that investigate the concepts of sexuality, gender, body, dress and morality. Since the theoretical background of my study is mainly informed by Foucauldian feminist theories, in this section I focus on how sexuality, gender and body have been defined by Michel Foucault in relation to power and discourse. I then move to Judith Butler’s theory of gender performance, which has offered a frame for feminist theories on dress and body.

One of the most significant reasons that studies on body and dress/fashion have been unpopular until the development of cultural studies in the late 1960s was the idea of

Cartesian dualism, which has dramatically influenced the ways in which the human body has been conceptualized. From a Cartesian perspective, the self is detached from the body: “This dualism privileges an abstract, prediscursive subject at the center of thought and, accordingly, derogates the body as the site of all that is understood to be opposed to the spirit and rational thought, such as the emotions, passions, needs” (McNay 1991,

p.126). In a dualistic construction, the body is experienced as the alien, which is not the self; it is the enemy, as well as the prison from which the soul, or mind tries to escape

(Bordo, 1993a). Within this context, bodies were commonly regarded as natural and individual possessions that were outside the social concerns of sociology. When sociology began to question the acceptance of the nature/society and mind/body division, theorists began to conceptualize the body as central to the human actor and the sociological endeavour (Shilling, 1993). Even though contemporary sociology has been prone to question these dualisms, the tension between the body as living organism and as a cultural product continues to underpin the understanding of the body.

As a dualistic concept, the body has been closely associated with women whereas the mind has been equated with men (Grosz, 1994). The association of the body with women has been the central reason why discourses on dress have constituted woman as the object and the victim of fashion (as in the case of early studies on fashion which will be discussed in the following section). Dress was not considered a matter of male concern because men were identified with the mind rather than the body. It is a common cliché that women care about their appearance more than men and that appearance is superficial and trivial. However, since women are more closely associated with dress and the body, dress regimes that act upon female bodies are more visible and rigid and women are more likely to be condemned morally for their dress choices on the grounds of being immodest or sexually alluring (Tseëlon, 1996).

Michel Foucault is one of the most prominent scholars who provided a critique of this Cartesian thought through his analysis of modernity. In Discipline and Punish, (1977)

Foucault explores how Judeo-Christian forms of power upon the body have changed with the emergence of modernity, by focusing on the changes in regimes of punishment. He

contends that at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the target of power shifted from body as flesh to the social body, and from particular individuals to the population at large

(Foucault, 1977). In other words, he claims that with modernity, the body has become an object of concern for states.

Foucault’s account of modernity not only provides a strong critique of the dualistic understanding of mind and body, but also opens up a new ground to discuss the body and power/knowledge relation. While most social analysts tend to regard power in a negative and repressive manner, Foucault (1990 [1978]) conceptualizes power as an essentially decentralized, positive and productive set of networks and relations. Although Foucault does not deny the phenomenon of repression, he rejects its theoretical primacy and argues that power generates a multiplicity of effects. For Foucault (1990 [1978]), power produces its own resistance, and resistance comes from new discourses and/or “counter discourses” which produce new ‘truths’ opposing the dominant ‘truths’. He argues that discourse is irreducible to language, and power is constituted in discourses, and this power may be exercised through multiple social relations and practices. He claims that the body is inscribed by power relations and it is constructed through and within discourses. He views the body as a site of competing discourses, and as central to human subjectivity. Unlike the Enlightenment model of a unified subjectivity, his perception of the body is one that has multiple subjectivities. Thus, the body is inseparable from the self, acting as the locus of human subjectivity (McLaren, 2002).

Foucault’s theorizations on the body play a significant role in my inquiry on the subject of how bodies are managed and regulated as various forms of discipline. Foucault

(1977) argues that a new form of “disciplinary power” emerged with the growth of modern western capitalist societies. This new regime of power is centered on the production of

“docile body” which is defined as disciplined and self-controlled body. “A body is docile that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved” (Foucault, 1977, p.136), and the advent of a docile body engaging in self-discipline and self-control has increased in accordance with the increase in overarching state control and regulation. Discipline acts to limit, shape, and survey bodies through systems, institutions, and disciplinary techniques. It normalizes behaviour, acting as a powerful social regulator within all institutions of modern society. Foucault (1977) defines this disciplinary power as a surveillance mechanism, which offers an invisible constant, interrupted and powerful supervision.

While in Discipline and Punish, Foucault (1977) analyzes how power operates on the body through disciplinary techniques, in History of Sexuality Volume One, he conducts a genealogical analysis of the modern construction of sexuality. He contests the conception of sex as a natural phenomenon and develops an anti-essentialist account of the body and sexuality. For Foucault (1990 [1978]), sex is socially constructed and is produced through the exercise of power relations, which in turn functions as the means to regulate and control sexuality (Foucault, 1990 [1978], p. 155). In other words, sex is not a natural phenomenon, but is another way in which society exerts control over the individual body through multiple competing discourses (Foucault 1990 [1978]). Therefore,

Foucault’s perception of body and sexuality is one that has multiple subjectivities as a founding premise, unlike the Enlightenment model of a unified subjectivity that naturalizes sex into an ahistorical phenomenon. The body thereby becomes inseparable from the self, and assumes the position of the locus of human subjectivity. (McLaren, 2002).

Foucault’s insistence on the body as something both socially and historically constructed has made significant contributions to feminist thinking, particularly the

analysis of the body, gender and sexuality. Feminists critiqued Foucault’s gender- blindness and proceeded to reinterpret his work. In so doing, Foucauldian feminist researchers have explored the ways power operates on women’s bodies through the inscriptions of patriarchal socio-cultural norms. Even though Judith Butler has not focused on the relation of dress to gender construction particularly, her theory on the gendered body and sexuality, which has utilized Foucault’s theory, helps us to analyze the role of dress in the construction of gender and sexuality. According to Butler (1990), gender is a discursive construction, which constitutes bodies as “naturally sexed” and through gender performativity, sex is imposed on the body. In Gender Trouble, Butler (1990) argues that bodies become gendered bodies through “stylized repetition of acts” (1990, p. 191). In this context, dress norms are among the styles and techniques that gender the bodies (Puwar

2004). Butler (1990) denaturalizes the categories of sex, sexuality and gender, and claims that gender comes to be written on the body. Following this line of logic, sex categories are produced by and through social practices, such as dress styles. In other words, through repetition of dress styles, the sexual difference is materialized and normalized/naturalized. For instance, though baby’s sexuality is obscure at first glance; the sex of a baby is understood through the color and styles of dress. Distinctions of gender difference in dress, such as style and color are arbitrary rather than being natural.

Dress that draws attention to the body and accentuates the signs of bodily differences naturalizes the sexual difference, which is in fact socially produced (Entwistle, 2000a).

Even though Foucault’s conceptualization of power, discourse and sexuality as well as Butler’s gender performativity theory is instrumental in this study, these theories do not necessarily explore on dress or morality in depth. In the following sections, I discuss the concept of morality in the context of sexual discourses.

Sexuality and Morality

Morality in English refers to what is right and what is wrong and it is “… a set of principles and judgments based on cultural concepts and beliefs by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong” (Heintz, 2009, p. 3). Due to its cultural relativistic nature, morality can only be studied within its cultural context. Most of the literature on the concept of morality has focused on how cultural differences develop concepts of justice, rights, duties as well as right and wrong, which constitute the framework of morality in individualistic and collectivist societies. The literature reveals that the moral domain, which reflects the norms of Western individualistic cultures, are not valid for the members of non-Western collectivist societies (Acar, 2011). “In collectivist cultures morality comprises duty, community, and divinity orientations, whereas in individualistic cultures, the moral system revolves around personal freedom and rights

(Shweder, Much, Mahapatra, & Park, 2003).” (Acar, 2011, p.3).

By maintaining the duality between the ‘Western-as-individualistic’ and ‘non-

Western-as-collectivist’ cultures, however, this literature risks falling into the trap of reproducing the orientalist duality between ‘West’ and ‘East’ and homogenizing these societies as individualistic and collectivist. In so-called ‘individualistic societies’, moral values are not only shaped around personal rights and freedoms independently, just as it is a misconstrued assumption that there is no conceptualization of personal rights and freedoms in collectivist societies (Heintz, 2009). Furthermore, this dualistic view does not leave any room for individuals’ subjectivity in their own (sexual) moral choices, particularly in so-called ‘collectivist societies’. In these ‘collectivist societies’, individuals are not blunt supporters of community moral values who do not have any agency; rather there is a complex relationship between the discourses of morality and the subjectivity of individuals.

The exploration of how individuals fashion their moral selves with reference to moral frameworks/models informed by sexual discourses, as well as how individuals conform to or contradict moral discourses, reveals a dynamic relationship between subjects and the existing discourses on morality.

In this exploration of how people shape their moral selves through sexual morality discourses, examining who defines and enforces moral discourse and which discourses are the most effective in a given society requires a detailed analysis of power relations within and through the contradicting and/or conforming socio-political discourses of its historical context. In parallel to Foucault’s question of “how, why, and in what forms was sexuality constituted as a moral domain?” (Foucault, 1986, p. 10), discourse on morality needs to be explored in the analysis of sexuality from a socio-historical point of view. As

Howell (1997) argues, while not all moralities are particularly concerned with sexual behaviours or sexual discourses, the intersectionality of discourses on morality, body and sexuality should not be ignored. According to Foucault, one of the roles of morality is to identify what is different by signifying what is deviant. Thus, “morality supports a continuous process of confirmation and reiteration of what is commonly appreciated as culturally acceptable and thus ‘normal’ behaviour”; therefore, it can be perceived as a

“normalizing” power, which constitutes self-governing subjects (Rydstrom, 2009. p. 120).

Sexual discourses are not static, and they inform and shape culturally acceptable moral behaviour and dress styles based on the dominant political discourse, which defines how much of the female body needs to be covered/hidden from the public. For instance, in one of her studies, Wieringa (2009) discusses the sexual panics of Indonesia, and demonstrates how the discourse of morality, which is produced through female body and dress style, has changed throughout the colonial and postcolonial history of Indonesia.

Even as Muslim women are perceived as covering too much of their bodies in the contemporary West, colonialists were concerned with the almost nude female bodies in

Indonesia. In contrast to the pre-colonial discourse on morality, which also informs the traditional dress style (which leaves the large part of the belly exposed), the current Muslim movement in Indonesia perceives Western dress style as too decadent, and thus as a threat to Indonesian morality (Wieringa, 2009).

Like Wieringa, Rydstrom (2006) also explores the morality panics of Vietnam, which were created by the exposure to Western culture, defined as a ‘poisonous culture’ by the Vietnamese government, and examines the ways in which moral codes intersect with female sexuality. She argues that Vietnamese women experience various social controls in their everyday lives; thus, they “… have to carefully balance their verbal and bodily behavior in order not to provoke well-established assumptions about appropriate female ‘morality’” (2006, p. 284). According to the moral codes of Vietnamese society, women should avoid premarital sex, divorce, adultery as well as drawing attention to their bodies and sexualities through their clothing. In the case that these moral codes were to be violated, not only the women’s but also their families’ reputation and morality would be damaged (Rydstrom, 2006).

Although the translation of the Turkish word ahlak is morality, I argue that it does not carry precisely the same meaning. With the Europeanization of the Turkish culture since the foundation of the Republic as well as the introduction of sexual rights and freedoms discourses, particularly in the 1990s and 2000s, the definition of ahlak has been both structured around the individual’s sexual choices and the community’s traditional sexualized notions of morality. In Turkey, the discourse on morality has been changing as the socio-political discourses have changed; though, even in the ‘Western’ secularist

Republican discourse, the roots of Ottoman Islamic and traditional morality discourses can be traced back, particularly in the gendered citizenship construction. Thus, in the next section, I will be discussing the Islamic discourse on sexuality together with morality, which guide me to reveal the intersectionality between secularist and Islamist sexual moral discourses. Analyzing this discourse will not only help comprehend the rising Islamist movements’ discourses in contemporary Turkey, it will also help understand the shift from

Ottoman Islamic discourse to the secularist discourse of the early Republic on morality and sexuality.

Sexuality and morality through dress in Muslim Societies

The aforementioned literature concerning sexuality, the body and gender mainly focuses on secular ‘modern’ societies. Turkey is a secular ‘modern’ society in its socio- political structure, and the cultures of Turkey carry some Islamic norms mainly because of its Muslim majority population as well as the heritage of the Ottoman Empire whose socio- political life was structured according to Islamic rules (Shari’a). When women’s dress styles and the norms of dress are considered, it is safe to argue that the secular as well as Islamic norms of morality have been reflected in discourses on female body.

Since the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, the female body has become the locus of the conflict between secularist and Islamist discourses. Even though the early

Republican state aimed at secularizing society the sexual moral discourse imposed on the female body still carried the traditional notions of morality (Arat, 1997). Since the 1990s, with the rise of Islamist movements as significant players in the political economy realm, the question of “who is the ahlaklı woman” has become a more debated issue because of the diversified Islamist and secularist discourses. Dressing styles and the appearance of

women in the public sphere have become one of the defining features of ‘ahlaklı woman’ identified in various Islamist and secularist discourses, which are time and space specific.

Due to differences between the culture of Turkey and the culture of North America and

Europe, Western discussions would fail to explain the discourses on morality, gender and the body in Turkey. For this reason, I will introduce literature that analyzes sexuality, morality and the gendered body in Islamic sources and Muslim majority societies.

Fatima Mernissi’s (1995) observations on the construction of women’s sexuality in

Islam have addressed the significant role of veiling and sexual morality. Her analysis shows how veiling as an Islamic2 practice emerged from the Islamic discourse of sexuality, and she contends that the Islamic practices of secluding and veiling women result from the construction of female sexuality as powerful. She explores sexuality in Islam through the works of Abū Hāmid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazālī,3 and claims that Islam accepts women and their sexuality as destructive and unreliable and as a threat to the order of the ummet (religious community) (Mernissi, 1987). Moreover, this powerful sexuality has the potential to cause fitne (disorder), which can lead a man to wrongful deeds. Men, who are mentally, physically and morally superior to women, must take responsibility to control them (Berktay, 2000). Mernissi (1995) claims that to suppress women’s potentialities and power, Muslim male authorities have developed the practices of seclusion and veiling. (Mernissi, 1995). For Islamic morality and order, as well as the salvation of men from powerful female sexuality, women must be invisible in the public,

2 I differentiate between the adjectives ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamist’. In this dissertation, Islamic I used to identify customs and practices that emerged from sources of Islam (Quran, hadith, the life of the prophet); whereas, I use the concept ‘Islamist’ to identify particular political discourses of Islam. 3 Abū Hāmid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazālī (1058-1111) is one of the acclaimed scholars in Sunni Islamic thought.

and this is achieved through seclusion (Mernissi 1995; Afshar 1998). If a woman participates in public life, her sexual, alluring body must not be hidden from the public gaze; her body needs to be concealed trough the practice of veiling.

There is also an extensive debate over how the Quran defines the way women must cover their bodies4. Haleh Afshar (1998) provides a Quranic verse to illustrate the demand for veiling women which advises women to be modest:

And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments, zinat. (XXIV: 31 quoted in Ashar, 1998)

For both Afshar (1998) and Hajjaji-Jarrah (2003) however, the meaning of zinat is highly debatable. Islamic scholars define it in different ways, although zinat is commonly interpreted as everything used to enhance or beautify one’s appearance, including make- up, and decoration of the body with clothes. In this context, women must wear modest attire and a headscarf to protect her and ummet’s (the community’s) morality (Afshar,

1998). The understanding of the female body and sexuality in both Islam and Judeo-

Christianity is considerably similar. As it is explained in Tseëlon’s study, in Judeo-

Christianity woman needs to hide her body with dress not to be sexually desired by men, and “never to [be] desired means never to be seen” (Tseëlon, 1997, p. 13). “Never to be seen” is achieved through limiting a woman’s access to the public and when she is in public concealing her body with dress, as it is also defined in Islam.

4 Even though Islam also defines how men should dress, men’s dress code has never been a widely debated issue in the public.

The role of the veil in Muslim societies differs across Muslim majority/Islamic societies according to the prevailing socio-political discourse. For instance, Afshar (1998) contends that Iranian state perceives the veil as ‘protection not limitation’ and a sign of respect for women to protect them from becoming a sex object, as is the case for women in the West. Here it is possible to arrive at a symmetry in terms of the religious and secularist readings of morality over women’s bodies: On the one hand, in the counter- secularist discourse which seeks to maintain an Islamist gender regime, the European woman has become a symbol of corruption and immorality (Najmabadi, 2005). On the other hand, the mainstream orientalist discourse in Europe and North America defines

Muslim culture as inferior due to the gender regime of Muslim societies, which is equated with the domination of women. Hence, in Foucauldian terms, the female is the site of the conflict of the competing discourses of Orientalism and Islam.

Even though Orientalist readings of Islamic discourse argue that the dominant

Islamic morality and sexuality locates women as “passive” agents, postcolonial studies on

Muslim societies have revealed that Muslim women are not only passive subjects. In this respect, resistance is a significant issue that needs to be explored in feminist research, particularly to deconstruct the stereotype of passive Muslim women. For instance, Leila

Ahmed’s studies (1992; 2011) on Muslim women and the veil in Egypt and the United

States not only reveal the counter-discourses against the colonial and contemporary orientalist North American discourses after 9/11 but also deconstruct the stereotype of the passive Muslim woman. By focusing on Egyptian and American Muslim women activists in the 1990s, she demonstrates how the veil has become the significant marker of women’s subjectivity. Here I should immediately note that I agree with Lila Abu-Lughod

(1990) who warns us not “to romanticize resistance” and “to read all forms of resistance

as signs of ineffectiveness of systems of power” (42). As she suggests, some forms of resistance can also be understood as the reinscription of relations of power or a shift in power relations, rather than an opposition to the dominant power group. To illustrate her point, Abu-Lughod gives the example of young Bedouin women who wear lingerie and cosmetics to oppose their parents and gender norms. Abu-Lughod (1990) argues that this type of act can also be understood as reinscribing alternative forms of power that are produced by global capitalist consumer discourse, rather than oppositional discourses.

Saba Mahmood (2001) claims that even though Abu-Lughod’s conceptualization of resistance allows us to move one step beyond the binary of resistance/subordination, due to her failure to problematize the universality of desire to be free from relations of subordination, she does not successfully deconstruct the equation of agency with resistance. Drawing on Butler’s critique of the humanist concept of agency, Mahmood

(2001; 2005; 2006) provides a more compelling account. Mahmood points to Butler’s questioning of “humanist liberatory politics”, which presupposes that all humans are endowed with an innate desire for freedom from subversions, but they are “thwarted by relations of power that are considered external to the subject” (Mahmood, 2005: 20). Thus,

Butler locates agency within modes of power rather than outside them, and “more important, suggests that the reiterative structure of norms serves not only to consolidate a particular regime of discourse/power but also provides the means for its destabilization”

(Mahmood, 2006: 190). Butler detaches the notion of agency from resistance, which constrains agency to “liberatory politics”, and expands it to entail not only the acts that result in “progressive politics” change but also “...those that aim toward continuity, stasis, and stability” (Mahmood, 2006: 212).

Mahmood further argues that even though Butler’s critique of the liberatory

conceptualization of agency is useful to abolish various strains that undergird the non- liberal Western movement, Butler’s theory has certain tensions. Mahmood (2006) claims that even though Butler acknowledges that the conceptualization of agency does not only include resistance to subordination, Butler’s discussion of agency focuses more on

“operations of power that resignify and subvert norms” (191) and, therefore, her analysis of agency often privileges counter-hegemonic modalities. The other significant tension

Mahmood notices is that Butler’s model of performativity and agency is conceptualized in a dualistic framework: consolidation versus subversion of norms. Instead of dualistic conceptions of norms, Mahmood (2006) defines agency as “a capacity for action that historically specific relations of subordination enable and create” (Mahmood 2001, p. 203) and argues that “the variety of ways in which norms are lived and inhabited, aspired to, reached for, and consummated” needs to be explored in order to reveal multiple forms of agencies (192). To illustrate her argument, Mahmood (2006) offers the example of Islamic female modesty. In spite of a consensus about its importance in Egypt, the majority of the mosque movement in Egypt argues that the veil is one of the main expressions of “true modesty”, and “they [majority of the mosque movement] draw, therefore, an ineluctable relationship between the norm (modesty) and the bodily form it takes (the veil) such that the veiled body becomes the necessary means through which the virtue of modesty is both created and expressed” (Mahmood, 2005, p. 23). Egyptian secularist authors likewise regard modesty as an appropriate feminine conduct; however, they consider the veil an unnecessary element of modesty’s enactment. Mahmood (2005) points out that “this debate lies not so much in whether the norm of modesty is subverted or enacted, but in the radically different ways in which the norm is supposed to be lived and inhabited” (23-

24). In this context, I believe that Mahmood’s perspective is compelling in the deconstruction of the dualism between Islamist and secularist discourses, in that it reveals

how not all of the norms of modesty and morality imposed by secularist and Islamist discourses are binary; rather, the way in which norms are to be lived by women vary according to the discourse.

It must be pointed out that this definition by no means undermines the importance of resistance and attaches a broad meaning to it, which makes it a futile concept. But instead, as Ibrahimhakkioglu (2012) states, the reformulation of agency suggests a more inclusive perspective that “… shifts the focus from ‘resistance’ to ‘capacities for action’ or

‘inhabitation’”. (p.8). I also believe that Mahmood’s conceptualization of agency is not only detrimental to deconstructing the Eurocentric view on women, which reduces them to docile oppressed individuals with no agency, but also enables us to understand headscarved women’s experiences in a different way. Mahmood (2001) states that even though the “false consciousness thesis” was rejected after the 1960s as an explanation for women’s participation in such movements that seem adverse to their interest, liberal secularist feminists continue to ask ‘why would women participate in a movement which is patriarchal and supposedly subordinate them?’ The question of the ‘docility’ of women is explained in Mahmood’s work through deconstructing the dichotomy between subordination and resistance and the universalized normative presumption that Muslim women should inherently desire to be free from Islamist patriarchy (2001; 2005; 2006). I argue that her conceptualization of agency enables us to see the whole range of agencies, which have been excluded by liberal feminist analysis.

Brief Review of Fashion Studies

The question of why people dress the way they do has acted as a central theme in the research of fashion in the recent decades. Examination of this question requires an

understanding of the different relations between the body and sexuality since the simple answers of “protection from weather conditions” and simplistic explanation of ‘modesty’ could only provide reductionist accounts. As Entwistle (2000a) argues, “human bodies are dressed bodies” and “in almost all social situations we are required to appear dressed, although what constitutes ‘dress’ varies from culture to culture and also within a culture, since what is considered appropriate dress will depend on the situation or occasion” (p.

6). Even though the interest in the body has provided the incentive to analyze how we dress it more closely, the focus of most fashion studies has rarely been on the relationship between the body, the dress code and morality. While the sociology of the body has failed in acknowledging the significance of dress, other disciplines such as art, linguistic, psychology and history have explored dress by separating it from the body. For example, art history has examined the dress as material object and analyzed its historical development. These studies, however, detached the dress from the body, and omitted the social and critical dimension of dress in relation to body (Entwistle, 2000a).

Since the nineteenth century, the literature about fashion has been treated as an irrational phenomenon, a topic that carried no intellectual weight. This explains why this area of study has not been perceived as a legitimate research topic in academia

(Kawamura, 2006). In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, theorists (Simmel

1904, Veblen 1899, Sumner 1906, Toennis 1887) conceptualized fashion as imitation and/or class differentiation, and this analysis of fashion “…is typically a view from above since it assumes that social inferiors envy superiors and engage in imitative activities to emulate their ‘betters’ in order to gain recognition and even entry into the privileged group”, as Kawamura argues (2006, p. 20). These studies have examined the concept of fashion and dress as the sign of socio-economic position in the class system in ‘modern’ societies.

One of the earliest and most influential studies on dress5, Theory of the Leisure Class written by Thorstein Veblen in 1899, examined the socio-economic dimension of dress and defined it as a form of ‘conspicuous consumption’ (Entwistle and Wilson, 2001, p.2).

According to Veblen, fashion is a tool of social battle and women’s dress displays only the role of “the bourgeois lady of the house [which] is to demonstrate her master’s ability to pay …” (Entwistle, 2000a, p.59). Veblen’s account of fashion perceives women as passive beings, in his words “men’s chattel”, and their clothes are the signifiers of their status

(Entwistle, 2000a).

Elsewhere, Jean Baudrillard (1981) has followed Veblen’s logic to attack consumerism (Wilson 2003). Like Veblen, Baudrillard examined the economic dimension of dress in consumer society and condemned fashion as unnecessary and wasteful. He further argued that fashion was irrational due to its nature of rapid change. Due to the dominance of this perspective, research on fashion, as well as dress norms, was condemned as futile throughout the twentieth century. According to Wilson (2003), this

“over simplified and over-deterministic” nihilistic account of fashion “…perceives our world as a seamless web of oppression; we [women] have no autonomy at all, but are the slaves of an iron system from which there is no escape” (p.53).

The dismissal of dress as a superficial research topic, as well as its position of marginality in fashion studies, reveal the weight of Veblen’s account of fashion, particularly women’s dress, in academic studies until recently. The development of cultural studies in

5 In various disciplines, different terms have been employed in the literature; ‘fashion’, ‘clothing’, ‘costume’, ‘dress’, ‘adorment’, ‘outfit’, ‘attire’. The aim of this dissertation is to address the lack of relation between ‘morality’, dress and body; thus, embarking on the debates on the distinction between the concepts would not provide any necessary theoretical extension. Instead, I will use these concepts interchangeably and/or I would use the specific wording within the context of specific disciplines.

the late 1960s challenged the conceptualization of dress as just “material” object and eventually caused a change in the way dress was studied (Entwistle and Wilson, 2001).

Following the discussions in cultural studies, gradually sociologists, historians and social psychologists have involved the social and cultural dynamics of dressing and fashion in their studies. However, as Entwistle (2000a) argues, when dress and fashion began to be examined in cultural studies, history, and other disciplines, rather than paying attention to the body these studies were “focusing instead on the communicative aspects of adornment (often adopting the rather abstract, and disembodied linguistic model from

Saussure) and examining the spectacular, creative and expressive aspects of dress, rather than the mundane and routine part it plays in reproducing social order” (p. 36).

These studies examined the link between the dressing style and cultural identity of the wearer, and treated dress as a form of material communication (Barnard 1996; Barthes

1985; Eco 1979; Lurie 1981). Indeed, these scholars have tended to see dress as a kind of language and a matter of representation of social and cultural identity.

Among critics, it is often said that dress cannot be thought as a form of language because of the ambiguity and uncertainty of its meanings. For instance, when Tseëlon conducted research to examine the communicative aspect of dress, she asked a group of women to come to the focus group dressed in a way that would express who they are.

Then, she compared how women identified themselves and the response to those women made by others based on their dress. She found out that there is a significant misunderstanding about the identities of those women. (Entwistle, 2000a). As many scholars argued (Entwistle, 2000a, Davis 1992), dress does not communicate a fixed meaning and they do not carry a precise message about the identity of the person.

Significant theories in the literature on fashion have also emerged which have focused on its role in modern societies. Scholars such as Bell (1976), McDowell (1992) and Tseëlon (1992) understand fashion as an integral element of modernity, which has provided the social conditions (namely social mobility) necessary for its emergence

(Entwistle, 2000a). In medieval and early modern Europe, there was minimal social mobility and “…sumptuary laws prohibited people in the subordinate ranks from living or dressing like those above them” (Kawamura, 2006, p. 24). Thus, fashion did not exist because people were required to dress according to their ranks and status and they were not allowed to change the style of their dress. However, with industrial capitalism as well as a modern democratic social system where social mobility is more flexible, fashion phenomena occurred and developed as a tool in the battle for social status (Kawamura,

2006; Entwistle, 2000a). The link between fashion and democratization in society is very striking in the theories that explore fashion within the context of the development of modernity. According to Tarde, Spencer, Simmel and Toennis “fashion functions as an equalizing mechanism because imitation is one of the means to reducing inequality, suppressing caste, class and national barriers.” (Kawamura, 2006, p. 25). As Baudrillard argues, fashion only appears in open-class societies where social mobility is possible and it challenges the old hierarchies, but he also adds that fashion is modernity’s emblem, which pretends to abolish socio-economic inequalities (Kawamura, 2006).

Another attempt to understand the significance of fashion and dress in modern life came from late twentieth century research (Bauman, 1991; Davis, 1992; Finkestein, 1991;

Giddens, 1991). In a postmodern world which has lost its certainty, the modern self faces an identity crisis and anxiety. According to these scholars, fashion provides symbols for the fashioning of self; however, as Davis (1992) argues, it only opens up temporary

possibilities rather than fixing the identity. In a postmodern world, ‘modern identity’ has become a ‘reflexive project’ because the modern self is increasingly becoming aware of its appearance (Entwistle, 2000a). As Featherson (1991) argues, the self is defined by the kinds of appearances that people can create through the consumption of the goods and services that enable the shaping of a person’s body, by way of establishing a degree of control over their lives and bodies in the modern life. Schilling (1993) makes a similar point and argues that “the body projects” in which the body is seen “… as an entity which is in the process of becoming; a project which should be worked at and accomplished as a part of an individual’s self-identity.” (p. 5). Schilling (1993) states “the body projects” that emerged in the late twentieth century reveal how the body and appearance have become subjected to several social and political discourses, which are encouraging people to discipline their bodies and gain control over their appearances. Even though these theories question the mind-body duality by illuminating the unquestionable relationship between the self, appearance and the body in modern life, one problem with these theories that they fail to approach the matter in its totality—at the crosscut between class, race and gender—while at the same time they lack empirical work on the construction of the self and its relation to sexuality (Entwistle, 2000a).

The body of literature, which examines dress in everyday life empirically and considers the factors of race, gender and culture, has mostly originated from anthropology.

Anthropologists have illustrated that all human cultures dress the body in some way, through clothing, tattooing or other forms of body painting (Andrewes, 2005). Even though it would be difficult to make generalizations about anthropological studies on dress and fashion since they focus on particular forms of dress styles in various cultures, Entwistle argues, “one thing they do share is an interest in the local practices surrounding dress”

(Entwistle, 2000a, p.75). Entwistle and Wilson (2001) mention that most of the anthropological studies on dress are focusing on “traditional” and/or non-Western societies. Some of the examples are Joanne Eichler’s studies on African clothing,

Hansen’s study on the Zambian economy of taste and style in terms of clothing

(Kawamura, 2011), Huma Hoodfar’s (1991) and Leila Ahmed’s (1992) studies on the meaning of veiling in Egypt. Even though these accounts explain dress in a given culture and the meanings attached to it in specific cultures, they focus mainly on the ‘traditional’ dress styles and costumes without paying sufficient attention to the body and sexuality in the discourses on dress and how people’s everyday choices of dress are shaped by age, sex, gender, class, tradition, culture and morality, and how different sexes experience the social control mechanism over their bodies through the discourses on dress. In brief, most of the theories discussed above do not particularly focus on the relationship between dress, body and sexuality in tandem with morality. In this dissertation, I aim to portray the close-knit relationship between bodies and dress in sexual moral discourses.

Morality, Sexuality and Gendered Body through Dress

Dress matters, and plays a key role in our everyday social and cultural encounters.

Exploring the role of dress and its cultural inscriptions over the body (Entwistle 2000;

Entwistle and Wilson, 2001) orients us toward a conflicted zone: morality and modesty.

When we dress up improperly, we simultaneously face social and moral condemnation. In other words, as Entwistle (2000a) rightly observes “clothes are often spoken of in moral terms, using words like ‘faultless’, ‘good’, ‘correct’” (p.8). Even when bodies go naked in certain spaces, such as in the private sphere or when bodies are allowed to be seen naked as in the case of art, they are controlled and regulated by social mechanisms.

When contemporary life is considered, it is safe to argue that where the body is subjected to the public gaze, it needs to be dressed according to the norms and conventions of the cultural discourse. As Andrewes (2005) stated in her book Dress as

Cultural Tool, dress must be studied in its relation to the body, which forms and shapes the body. In other words, dress not only forms and shapes the body but it also prompts it to act and move in an appropriate manner. Bodies, which do not conform to moral norms and regulatory discourse, are to be ridiculed, marginalized and defined as deviant. “The ubiquitous nature of dress would seem to point to the fact that dress or adornment is one of the means by which bodies are made social and given meaning and identity” (Entwistle,

2000a, p. 7).

Particularly, dress draws attention to sexual difference and sexes the body; thus it plays a significant role in the construction of gender identity. As Gaines (1990) argues, dress conveys sexual difference and gender “‘as self-evident or natural’ when in fact gender is a cultural construction that dress helps to reproduce” (quoted in Entwistle,

2000a, p. 21). In other words, as Butler (1990) claims, bodies are “naturally sexed” through dress techniques in the discourses of gender. Considering the role dress plays in reproducing sexual difference and gender, it might be surprising to see the lack of interest in academia in analyzing the relation between gender, dress and the body. This is mainly because of the influence of early studies (such as Veblen’s perspective) in discouraging the research on dress, and the Cartesian legacy (mind/body dualism), which associates women with the body and labels the body as inferior compared to the mind.

The body/mind dualism also becomes important when the gendered feature of morality is in question. In her studies, Efrat Tseëlon (1995) gives a number of examples to illustrate the association of femininity and dress, and to explicate how women’s

association with the body and appearance has been placing them into a morally inferior position. She examines the ancient myths about femininity, such as the myth of Eve,

Pandora and the Virgin Mary. She argues that the adorned female body is inherently problematic in Judeo-Christian morality because by using her beauty, a woman can tempt men from their godly way. The unadorned body is threatening because nakedness is defined as shameful after the Fall (the creation myth), which is also blamed on a woman in Judeo-Christian morality. To respond to this fear of women’s sinful and alluring sexual bodies, female sexuality had to be controlled; thus, modesty in dress as a moral duty emerged out of Eve’s sin. This duty was not only to herself but also to the eyes gazing at her sexual body. To prevent the desire of her body by men, her body needed to be concealed (Tseëlon, 1995). “Thus, a discourse of modesty and chastity in dress came to encode female sexuality […] From early Christianity to Medieval Christianity the importance of female apparel formed part of the theological discourse” (Tseëlon, 1995, pp. 12-13). The representation of female sexuality and morality in these myths not only informed the early and medieval Christian era, but also Western moral attitudes on women’s appearance (Tseëlon, 1996). Even though Tseëlon’s study sheds light on morality and sexuality, it fails to provide a comprehensive account of how discourses on morality shape dress norms and create an illusion of freedom from religious constraints.

In contemporary Western democratic societies, it is common to think that dress styles in the “modern and secular” societies are more “liberated”, and they are more relaxed and casual due to individualism and the increased freedom of women (Huisman and Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2005). However, along the line with the studies discussed above,

I claim that through a Foucauldian lens, it is possible to see how the discourses on dress, through morality, operate to discipline the body. The discourse on the moral social order

imposes particular rules and norms upon the bodies, and in this morally regulated social situation, individuals recognize that there are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways of being and dressing. In modern society where the female body is the focus of the attention and the vehicle of the self, dress as a ‘disciplining technique’ becomes important.

Feminist Approaches on the Body and Fashion

From a Foucauldian point of view, dressed bodies are the products of particular discourses, which are gendered since they naturalize sexual difference. The ways in which discourses on morality and dress act upon female bodies demonstrate how dress has been regulated along the lines of gender and sexuality. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, dress serves as a signifier of sexual difference. Dress plays a significant role in drawing gender boundaries and reproducing sexual difference. It enables bodies to be seen as ‘man’ and ‘woman’ on heteronormative grounds. Even though the different styles and colors of dress are arbitrary in the distinctions of gender, dress, by drawing attention to the body and accentuating the signs of bodily differences, naturalizes sexual difference.

What appears like a natural body is in fact socially produced.

By drawing on Foucault’s theory, feminist scholars invoked Foucauldian concepts of power and discourse in their analysis of gender and body. Barkty’s study (1988) does not particularly focus on dress, but her analysis of ‘beauty regimes’ demonstrates how power operates differently on female and male bodies, and how women’s relationship to their bodies is socially constructed through discourses on the ‘ideal’ female body and appearance. Bartky (1988) argues that although women and men are subject to the same disciplinary practices, they produce distinct modes of embodiment that are feminine, and function “to overlook the forms of subjection that engender the feminine body to

perpetuate the silence and powerlessness of those upon whom these disciplines have been imposed” (1988, p. 64). She examines the beauty image as one of the “disciplinary regimes of femininity”, and contends that dieting and exercise as well as the selection of clothing and the application of cosmetics are the disciplines imposed on female bodies used to attain the current fashionable slender body in Westernized hegemonic culture.

Barkty (1988) insists that the pressure on women to conform to 'proper' style of motility is only not imposed externally; women also internalize those norms and become self-policing subjects who conform to these patriarchal norms. Through surveillance processes, the female body becomes the object of the male gaze, and woman begins to focus her attention on preparing herself to be viewed and gazed. In this context, diet, exercise, and dress are tools employed to discipline and transform female bodies into feminine bodies subject to the male gaze.

From a feminist Foucauldian perspective, dress is considered as a tool for regulating and controlling the gendered moral bodies through the discourses on sexuality.

Thus, sexuality discourse forms the criteria for determining which bodies are morally acceptable and which are not morally acceptable. Even though the definition of

‘acceptable’/’proper’ or ‘unacceptable’/’improper’ bodies varies historically and culturally,

“dress is part of what Haraway (1991) terms “border wars” or attempts to fix the continually shifting boundaries between a proper and improper femininity, or a right and a wrong kind of girl” (Pomerantz, 2007, p. 375).

Dress and codes of dressing may also involve violence against women as a disciplinary technique. In cases of sexual assault and/or rape, the link between discourses of morality and the way women dress and display their body becomes explicit. In most cases, it is women who are morally condemned for dressing up immodestly and/or

seductively; moreover, they are not only accused for their action but also for men’s behaviour for following their sexual temptation too (Entwistle, 1996; 1997). This discourse on female sexuality can also be found within institutions such as the justice system.

According to Wolf’s studies (1991), in rape cases all over the United States (except

Florida), lawyers can cite what the woman was wearing at the time of attack as a way to discredit her victimization. Lees (1999) who also conducted a similar study, argues that judges in the UK base their judgments in sexual assault cases on what the woman was wearing at the time of the attack (Entwistle, 1996). In this context, as Moor (2010) argues, so-called “provocative, body revealing dress style is perceived to be delivering consent for sexual advances” (p. 115).

What constitutes ‘sexually alluring’, ‘provocative’ or ‘erotic’ dressing style is another debated issue since none of the regulations at either the institutional or judiciary level provides a clear identification of what should be considered as ‘erotic’. A growing number of recent studies have examined links between dress and sexuality in their analysis of eroticism. As Wilson (2003) states “It seems so obvious that dress must bear some relationship to sexuality that the assumption goes virtually unquestioned” (91), and dress may enhance the sexual attraction because it conceals and reveals the body at the same time. Wilson (2003, p. 91) claims that even though the link between dress and eroticism should not be ignored, attempts to explain dress and fashion in predominantly sexual terms would fail mainly because what kind of appearance gets defined as sexually arousing varies from one culture to another as well as throughout time. It is also very difficult to make a claim on what kinds of clothes would be sexually appealing. Likewise, against common assumption, women do not always dress up for men to attract them

sexually. Moreover, as Polhemus and Proctor (1978) argue, this account on dress and eroticism fail to explain many dress styles that are not erotic yet ‘provocative’.

The concept of ‘provocative dress’ is essential in understanding the role of dress in the construction of the female body and sexuality within the discourses of morality. The definition of ‘provocative dress’ within various discussions is basically defined as sexually alluring and revealing dress, which deviates from the norms of dress in a given situation

(Lynch, 2007). Thus, since it is difficult to make generalizations about what the provocative dress is, female dress styles are more likely to be defined as ‘provocative’ rather than male dress styles. In this context, Foucault’s notion of power and the construction of the body through and within discourses can be applied in understanding how the regimes of dress, particularly “provocative dress”, subject the female body to greater control mechanisms rather than the male body.

The motivation for women’s sexually alluring appearance is viewed as the women’s ‘naturally’ ‘narcissistic’ inclinations to seduce men and compete for sexual attention (Entwistle 1996; Lynch 2007). Barkty examines the presumption of the relationship between femininity and narcissism and contends that this patriarchal presumption pushes women to focus on their appearance and to prepare themselves to be the sexual objects of male desire. When a woman begins to view her body as a separate object, which is subjected to the male gaze, she learns to survey everything she does, and to self-discipline herself (Lynch 2007). In this system of domination based on the male gaze, women are trapped in between two different discourses: the discourse of modesty, which regulates sexuality by concealing it, and the discourse of objectification, which defines sexuality by revealing it (Lynch, 2007). In this context, “both modest and provocative versions of female appearance, according to Sterling, are locked into a male-

constructed gendered gaze, with women socialized to confine enacted appearances to fit male-shaped reality” (Moor, 2010, p. 118). The question of whether women have space for agency within these disciplinary discourses of sexual objectification and modesty is a significant one to explore to understand the everyday life experiences of women. Bordo

(1993) suggests that women, by embracing the ‘ideal’ appearance, can gain access to power within male-dominated professional spheres. Like Bordo, Weitz (2002) also claims,

“women may manipulate their appearances […] in concert or contrast with social norms for the purpose of gaining power, however limited that power may be” (Tyner and Ogle,

2007, p.78). The problem of agency arising from Foucault as well as feminist Foucauldian theories, which claims that society exerts control over the individual body through competing multiple discourses, is still in place. Even though Foucault views the body as a site of struggle and as central to subjectivity and agency, feminists have criticized him because his social constructionist view reduces bodies to ‘docile’ passive objects, allowing little room for resistance and agency by ignoring the daily strategies to gain power and subjectivity.

Regulation of Dress in Gendered Spatial Context

In the last two decades, feminist scholars have explored gendered bodies in and through space and have demonstrated the spatializing of bodily discourses and practices

(Niranja, 2001; Grosz 1994; Longhurst 1995, 2008; Puwar 2004). Studies of the female body with reference to public space and dress codes have made significant contributions in understanding how socio-political discourses shape the ways in which the female body can exist in certain spaces (Secor 2002, 2004, Gokariksel 2009, Cınar 2008, Puwar 2004).

These studies reveal not only the differences in the ways women and men experience

space, but also demonstrate how sexual difference plays a productive role in the construction of space. Don Mitchell states,

Social space is experienced bodily. It follows, then, that the production of space… at the same time serves to produce certain kinds of bodies… Such an abstract idea makes sense, however, only if we understand ‘bodies’ to be both the physical embodiment of particular people, and a culturally constructed set of ideas and ideals about what is bodily proper for men and women. (quoted in Booth, p. 78).

Similar to Mitchell, Entwistle underlines that “dress is always located spatially and temporally” (Entwistle, 2001, p. 45) and dress is the means by which male and female bodies are made appropriate, acceptable, ‘respectable’ or ‘decent’ within particular spaces. The moral boundary between respectable and unrespectable women is defined through the gendered norms of space. Different occasions, situations, and places operate with different dress and moral norms, and when we dress we do so in accordance with the norms of a particular space, such as a formal dinner, wedding, job interview, or work place. “Most situations, even the most informal, have a code of dress and these impose particular ways of being on bodies in such a way as to have a social and moral imperative to them” (Entwistle, 2001, p. 48). Thus, as Bell (1976) also argues, even people who are not paying much attention to their appearance will dress well enough to avoid social condemnation and/or being labeled ‘immoral’ (Entwistle, 2001, p. 35).

It needs to be noted that social spaces are gendered due to the production of these spaces in a dualistic manner. The formulation of public and private spaces in a modernist binary fashion has been subjects of many feminist debates since it is closely related to the dualistic identification of woman and man. In this public/private dichotomy, while public space refers to the state and social spaces open to all, private space refers to the realm of the home and/or familial space. Even though private space – home – associated with

privacy that is free of public and state regulation, indeed it is produced and reproduced within the web of power. Private space is not free of state surveillance and regulations, such as laws, and as Nancy Fraser (1993) argues, the public spaces are not open to all.

Under the patriarchal discourse of enlightenment, femininity has been associated with private space while public spaces are defined as masculine; thus, female bodies have not been welcomed in the public spaces. Women have been excluded from public spaces.

The entrance of the feminine body into public spaces has disrupted the boundaries between the private and the public. The construction of public spaces has been contested over time; however, there are still certain bodies that are seen as “space invaders”:

While all can, in theory, enter, it is certain types of bodies that are tacitly designated as being the ‘natural’ occupants of specific positions. Some bodies are deemed as having the right to belong, while others are marked out as trespassers, who are, in accordance with how both spaces and bodies are imagined (politically, historically and conceptually), circumscribed as ‘being out of place’ (Puwar, 2004, p.8).

Even though public spaces (traditionally occupied by specific types of bodies –namely, white heterosexual male bodies) have been subjected to change, and there is an increased presence of women in the public realm, women have still been the “insiders as outsiders” (Puwar, 2004).

Even though public and private cannot be seen as opposite sides of a dichotomy, the categorization of the public and private spaces has been a means of restraining women’s actions and mobility out of home. Although the public spaces (traditionally occupied by specific types of bodies – namely, white heterosexual male bodies) have been subjected to change and the separation has become more malleable, and there is an increased presence of women in the public realm, women have still been the “insiders as outsider” (Puwar, 2004).

As “insiders as outsiders” in public spaces, women have had to think more carefully about how they appear and dress. The way they experience spaces – such as the workplace, streets at night, etc. – is different from how men experience these public spaces. “The space imposes its own structures onto the individual who, in her turn, may come up with strategies of dress aimed at managing this space” (Entwistle, 2000a, pp. 34-

35). For instance, while wearing a short skirt and/or a revealing shirt might be appropriate at a nightclub, one might feel vulnerable on the street on a quiet night; thus, she might wear a coat to cover up the outfit (Entwistle, 2000b). The other space where women participate as “insiders as outsider” and develop strategies to manage the gaze and gender regime imposed by the patriarchal structure of the space is the workplace.

When gendered bodies participate in the places where they are not the ‘figurative authority’, according to Puwar (2004), they become highly visible as the deviations from the norm in places where their capabilities will be questioned. In the male-dominated workplace, women are viewed suspiciously as being ‘ill-fitting’, not being measured up to the job; thus, they have to prove that they are capable of doing the job and they belong to the workspace (Puwar 2004). Women have to be ‘perfect’ in their job performances to convince people because they are aware that any small mistake would be picked up since they are being monitored strictly. Utilizing Butler’s theory in the context of dress at the workplace, I perceive dress as one of the technologies of the body that has “the power to produce – demarcate, circulate, differentiate – the bodies [they] control” (Butler, 1993, p.1). Therefore, dress norms form the norms of which gendered moral bodies are

‘acceptable’ and ‘appropriate’ at the workplace.

By taking a similar perspective, Entwistle (2007) focuses on the concept of ‘power dressing’ and refers to the dress style of career women. She claims that because of the

masculine norms and values (such as self-control) that shape the gendered geography of a workplace, women have to monitor their bodies and appearance more closely than men and negotiate between the binaries of unacceptable and acceptable codes. Through the analysis of John T. Molloy’s dress manual “Women Dress for Success” published in 1975, she looks at the gendered dress norms at the workplace. Entwistle (2007) contends that the discourse of ‘power dressing’ can be explored as feminine ‘technology of self’ within the male-dominated work space. She claims that the ‘dress for success’ model rapidly gained popularity among women in the late 1970s and 1980s in their attempts to break the glass ceiling to enter the workplace as career women. The ‘power dressing’ discourse constituted a new visible kind of feminine subject through the use of ‘technologies of self’ to “…transform themselves in order to attain a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection or immortality.” (Foucault cited in Entwistle 2007, p. 211). This discourse provided women with the means to fashion themselves as career women through internal self-management. This ‘managed-self’ is produced in the regimes of work, which have a high degree of external management control, discipline and surveillance, and “dress can be seen as an important aspect in the management and discipline of bodies within the workplace” (Entwistle 2007, p. 213). Even when a strict dress code is not imposed, management enforces a great deal of influence over the dress of employees through surveillance mechanisms, such as panopticon-shaped office spaces. Rather than enforcing the dress code, companies will expect career women to internalize the dress norms and manage their dress accordingly. Entwistle (2007) contends that when a woman internalizes “the concept of career as a project of self,” fewer external constraints are necessary. The ‘power suit’ becomes the signal of self-controlled, responsible and autonomous individuality, which was previously attributed to professional men in the workplace.

Even though I agree with Puwar’s and Entwistle’s examinations of femininity and feminine body at work, I claim that gendered morality has been omitted in their analysis.

Along the line of Puwar’s argument, I argue that dress enables the repetitious production of moral gendered bodies in particular spaces through socio-political regulatory conventions. Following Butler’s premise on gender performance, I also argue that not only are gendered bodies constituted through performance but also that gendered bodies are

‘cultural fictions’ of moral women and men, which are produced in and through the discourses of dress together with space.

The Study of Ahlak and Dressed Bodies: Brief Notes on Methodology

In this chapter, I introduced the central concepts of fashion and feminist studies on sexuality, gender, body, morality and dress within a poststructuralist framework. Through utilizing the theories discussed here, this study uses feminist discourse analysis as a tool to examine the socio-political history of the Turkish Republic and the accounts of the research subjects to demonstrate sexual moral discourses in Turkey and how they regulate and reinforce the patriarchal societal control via imposing dress norms.

Poststructural theories, particularly Foucauldian feminist theories, provide a framework to explore the construction of gender and sexuality through language and discourse, which produce traditional notions of gender and sexuality that are inscribed on the body. In this scope, discourse analysis allows the research to unveil patriarchal power dynamics, which are culturally and historically situated. Hence, drawing on Foucauldian feminist theories, I examine how dress has been utilized in the materialization as well as the normalization of sexual difference based on the definition of ‘ideal femininity’ in the discourses on morality. The explorations in the following chapters unveil the normalization

process of a certain type of moral gendered body as well as how these images of “moral women” have been reproduced through dress forms as “stylized repetition of acts”.

To comprehend the sexual morality, and the actors involved in the construction of these discourses, socio-political history and state regulations around dress norms need to be explored. As Turner (1982) states, one of the effects of modernity was state’s and its institutions’ increasing control over the bodies of its citizens. Foucault’s (1977) discussion on the discursive body also reveals how the body has become the target of overarching state control and regulation and the ways in which the disciplinary techniques are employed by state institutions to produce docile bodies. In the context of Turkey, dress has been used as a disciplinary technique to produce disciplined modern moral bodies.

Thus, the data for this project also draws on political history, and especially on state regulations on morality in tandem with dress, to provide an examination of the role sexual morality has played in the regulation of women’s bodies through disciplinary state surveillance mechanisms in Turkey. So far, studies focusing on sexualized citizenship as well as gendered state and legal discourses have not captured the role morality plays in the regulation of women’s bodies in Turkey. Therefore, in the next chapter, I analyze the political history and state regulations of the late Ottoman and Turkish Republic by utilizing

Foucauldian discourse analysis on “disciplinary power”.

Foucauldian discourse analysis of the body, employed particularly in feminist theories, enables the analysis to examine the embodied experiences of women through utilizing the concepts of the technologies of self and disciplinary mechanisms. In other words, Foucauldian (1977) discourse analysis allows the researcher to examine which discursive fields shape and constitute subjects and their bodily experiences through dominant discourses. Thus, I also use the feminist discourse analysis to analyze the data

I collected during my field research to explore how the sexual morality shaped by Islamist and secularist discourses is lived and embodied in Turkey. I analyze participants’ narratives on their choices of dress and their experiences to explore how the discourses on women's appearances and dress norms impose control mechanisms and produce

“docile bodies”. Through an analysis of women’s experiences in various public spaces in

Turkey, I also investigate the ways in which the state surveillance as well as the public gaze acts upon women’s bodies, and how sexual violence is utilized as a form of disciplinary tool by sexual morality discourse to produce “disciplined bodies’. This analysis does not only enable to unveil the control mechanism over women’s bodies, but also women’s responses to the disciplinary sexual morality discourse. Hence, this feminist discourse analysis will also allow me to reveal different modalities of agencies of women in Turkey.

Chapter 3. Gendered Moral Bodies: The Analysis of the Female Body in Secularist and Islamist Political Discourses

Introduction

Since the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, the female body has been the locus of conflict between secularist and Islamist discourses. Even though the early

Republic aimed at secularizing society, the sexual morality it imposed on the female body carried the traditional notions of morality. The state’s secularist discourse continued its dominance in Turkish society without any salient challenge until the 1990s. Since the rise of Islamist movements as significant players in the politics and economy of the 1990s, the question of “who is the ahlaklı (moral) woman” has become a more debated issue because of the diversified Islamist and secularist discourses.

It needs to be women are not ‘free’ of sexual morality discourses in patriarchal societies; hence, they are being labeled as moral based on their conformity with dress norms when they appear in the public sphere. The definition of moral women has been a disputed issue in recent years both in western and non-western societies. For instance, as a transnational movement, ‘Slutwalk’ has shone a light on the relation between dress and morality both in western and non-western societies. ‘Slutwalk’ emerged as a response to the statement “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”

(O’Reilly, 2012) made by a Canadian police officer at York University in Toronto in 2011.

Thousands of outraged women organized a protest against victim-blaming patriarchal culture which perceives women’s dress as an invitation to rape (Miriam 2012; O’Keefe

2014; O’Reilly, 2012). Since the first protest in Toronto, the movement has spread through

the major cities not only in Canada, but also in USA, Australia, Argentina, India, Singapore,

Sweden, the UK, and Switzerland (Ringrose and Renold 2012; O’Keefe 2014). The transformation of this local protest into a global transnational movement in a short period of time shows that dress is being utilized in sexual morality discourses to discipline women in patriarchal societies.

Even though the current discussions may point that dress is a new tool being used to impose control over women bodies, it has a long historical roots. For instance, during the Ottoman Empire socio-political life was structured according to Islamic rules (Shari’a) and women were obliged to dress in accordance with Islamic norms regardless of their wealth and status. Women’s clothes were regulated more around the grounds of Islamic morality, and the dress norms principally aimed at veiling women’s bodies and sexualities from the male gaze in the public space.

When the Republic of Turkey was founded, women and their bodies were taken as a site that symbolized the break with Islam and the ‘backwardness’ of Ottoman society.

The early-Republican modernization project sought to make women publicly visible, and to form a gender-mixed social and public sphere (Gole 2004). While the Republican sexual discourse might have seemed oppositional to the Ottoman one in terms of its attempt to make women visible subjects in the public space (as opposed to the Islamic practice of seclusion), the Republican discourse was not devoid of patriarchal sexual morality. In fact, not unlike the Ottoman discourse, the Republican discourse defined sexual morality through the female body by hiding the female sexual body from the public space

(Durakbasa 1998; Kadioglu 1996). Instead of veiling women’s bodies, the Republican discourse encouraged women to wear ‘modern’ dress styles. However, it did so in a way

that asexualized female bodies, thus indicating that it too assumed the existence of a powerful female sexuality capable of creating social disorder.

Even though studies analyze women in the early Republican discourse, none explore the issue of dress and sexual morality. These researches analyze gender reforms and the identification of the ‘new’ modern Republican woman through examination of the early Republican literature and journals/newspapers as well as Atatürk’s and early

Republicans’ speeches. Based on these previously conducted studies, I will analyze the early Republican discourse on women and the construction of the female body in relation to sexual morality in the early Republican Kemalist6 discourse in order to reveal how the modern Republican discourse concealed the female sexual body through the dress codes they implemented. Again based on secondary sources, this exploration will be followed by an overview of the history from the early-Republican era to today. I will focus on the revival of Islam as strong contestation against foundational Kemalist discourse. I will also examine the implementation of legal regulations on dress against the threat of Islamist discourse to demonstrate how law has been utilized as a mechanism of surveillance in the secularist modern discourse to regulate women’s bodies. In this chapter, I will draw attention to the early Republican discourse and the Islamist discourse because both discourses target the female body as a site to inscribe and materialize their political projects. In this section, I will reveal how these discourses share similar ideas about sexual

6 Zurcher (2004) defines Kemalism as follows: “It [Kemalism] never became a coherent, all- embracing ideology, but can best be described as a set of attitudes and opinions that were never failed […] The basic principles of Kemalism were laid down in the party [The Republican People’s Party] program of 1931. They were republicanism, secularism, nationalism, populism, statism and revolutionism (or reformism)” (p. 181).

morality, even though Islamist and secularist discourses are portrayed as oppositional political discourses.

Women in the Republic of Turkey

With the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, the modernization effort accelerated through the reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881-1938) and the modernizing elites in the early period of the Republic (1920s and 1930s). The new state placed particular stress on a secular modern perspective (Mert, 1994). During the nation- building phase of the Turkish Republic, the modernizing elites of the Republic aimed to invent a ‘new’ nation that broke its bonds with the Ottoman Empire; to create, in Benedict

Anderson’s terms, an “imagined community” by transforming the empire from a “divine- ordered, hierarchical dynastic realm” (Anderson, 1991) into a nation-state detached from its Ottoman heritage. The transformation from empire to nation-state and the process of modernization were shaped according to the principles of Kemalism (Zurcher 2004).

The Kemalist modernization project aimed at ‘Westernizing’/‘Europeanizing’ the nation. The terms ‘Westernization’ and ‘Europeanization’ were widely and overtly used by nineteenth and twentieth century reformers to express “[…] the willing participation that underlines the borrowing of institutions, ideas, and manners from the West” (Gole 1997, p. 83). Therefore, the reforms that were realized during the time went beyond modernizing state institutions; the reforms aimed for a cultural shift, which would result in changing the manners, behaviours, lifestyles and outlook of the people. In the scope of this project, transforming the state and society from an Islamist one into a laic, secular, and ‘civilized’ one was the most essential goal of the modernity project that shaped the Kemalist discourse of the Republican modernizing elites – the carriers of the modernity project.

In the case of secularization of the Turkish nation, the Kemalist state determined the limits of the religion’s role in the society and state. In the Turkish Constitution, the

Republic is officially defined as laic (after the French term laique), which refers to separation between state and religion (Davison, 2003). Based on this institutional arrangement between the state and religion, the Turkish state implemented some reforms, such as abolishing the significance of religion in law and in the Constitution, and banning the use of Islam for political purposes. However, instead of detaching itself from religion,

Turkish state put in place control over religion. When the Republic abolished the Caliphate and Sharia in 1924, it also established the General Directorate of Religious Affairs whose office has been attached to the Prime Minister. The General Directorate is responsible for religious affairs, and it has been used to oversee, and regulate and religious doctrine and practices (Davison, 2003). Moreover, the secularization process in Turkey was not limited to the laicization of state and its institutions, but also the lives of individuals and society, and modernizing the lives of its citizens.

The new Constitution and institutions did not contain Islamic principles, and religion was defined as a private, individual matter that should not be displayed in the social and political sphere (Lombardi, 1997). In other words, state policies were directed toward the

“privatization of religion”; the state sought to prevent the inclusion of religion within the identity of its citizens (Keyman, 2003). In order to achieve this goal, religion was put under the control of the state at the constitutional, institutional and social level, and secularism as a discourse was embodied by the state to form and regulate its ‘modern’ subjects through state policies and institutions. In terms of wide-ranging policies and practice, the early Republican period aimed at transforming not only the public but also the private lives of its citizens and their identities.

The nation-building and modernization process was highly gendered. Since the beginning of the foundation of the Republic, the Kemalist modernity project used the female body and women’s public visibility strategically to display Turkey’s new secular character (Alemdaroglu 2005). Considering that the secluded and veiled female bodies in

Muslim societies had been conceived of as the signifier of the ‘inferiority’ of the East in the eyes of the West, the most direct way of displaying the modern face of the nation to the

West was to unveil the female body and increase the visibility of women in the public sphere. Thus, the Republican modernizing elite targeted the female bodies and sought to make women publicly visible, socially and politically active, and to form a mixed-gender social and public sphere (Gole, 2004; Cinar, 2008). Women were perceived as the carriers and symbols of secularism and modernity; hence, ‘women’s rights’, ‘women’s liberation’, and ‘women’s visibility’ became essential to the Kemalist discourse (Gole, 2004). The

Turkish state promoted a ‘state feminism’, (Tekeli, 1995) and “made women’s equality in the public sphere a national policy” (White, 2003, p.145).

Extensive reforms affecting women’s lives in Turkey began as soon as the

Republic was founded. Free elementary education was made obligatory for both male and female students in 1924 and in 1926 with the introduction of a new Turkish Civil Code.

The new Turkish code was “a nuanced translation of the Swiss Civil Code of 1907” (Ozsu,

2010, p.63) and it replaced the previous codes based on Sharia. Within the new Code, polygamy was outlawed, women gained legal rights in matters of marriage and divorce, including the right to choose their spouse, an equal right to divorce, and the right to demand child custody (Kandiyoti, 1987; Cinar 2008; Abadan-Unat 1990). In addition to the rights women gained through the new Civil Code, they also got the vote, first in municipal elections in 1930 and then in national elections in 1934 (Arat, 1997).

Even though the reforms claimed to ‘liberate’ women, Kandiyoti (1987) argues that the extension of rights to women did not in fact mean to replace patriarchal structures with egalitarian ones; rather, they were seen as necessary tools for women to serve in the modern nation-building project. Within the scope of this project, the sexual division of labour was maintained and women were reminded not to forget their primary duties and responsibilities as mothers. Arat (1997), who analyzed Atatürk’s speeches, argued that the motherhood discourse was very crucial to the construction of Turkish women’s citizenship. Moreover, women’s education was justified on the grounds of enlightened motherhood and childrearing (Kandiyoti 2000, Tekeli 1992). Children were to be raised

“scientifically” by educated mothers (White, 2003). As Arat (1997) notes, “He [Atatürk] defends the education of women, not as their right – as an end in itself – or as a means to liberate women, but as means of improving the quality of parental care so that the next generation of men will be better” (p. 60). For instance, during one of his visits to a teacher training school, Atatürk was asked a question by a student “What should the Turkish woman be like?” and Atatürk answered:

The Turkish woman should be the most enlightened, most virtuous, and most reserved woman of the world... The duty of the Turkish woman is raising generations that are capable of preserving and protecting the Turk with his mentality, strength and determination. The woman who is the source and social foundation of the nation can fulfil her duty if she is virtuous. (Quoted in Arat, 1998, p. 1)

Since women were perceived as the carriers of secularism and modernity as well as morality, they should be educated, secular and ‘modern’ to rear children with the necessary qualities. In Foucauldian terms, this discourse of motherhood is a bio-political technology of life administration aimed at regulating and normalizing the population through governmental policies. In the Turkish case, the education of women can be interpreted as bio-political in two ways. First, it can be argued that ‘normal’ society in the

discourse of the modernizing elite was a secular society, where the state exerted power through the institution of education to secularize its subjects and make them to be seen as ‘normal’ citizens. Secondly, secularized educated women would subsequently rear secularized children. In brief, the state did not aim to change the conventional sexual division of labour, or to challenge the patriarchal order; rather, the aim was to form a secularized population.

The construction of women’s citizenship not only evolved around the discourse on motherhood; they were also constructed as ‘virtuous’ (iffetli) and ‘moral’ (ahlaklı) women whose sexualities were hidden by the means of modern dress. In the modernity discourse of the Republican state, the sight of the female bodies of citizens had become an object of concern. Transforming the female body from its present ‘anti-modern’ condition into a

European ‘civilized’ and ‘moral’ appearance was one of the Kemalist missions, and one step towards this goal was changing the dress style.

Dress Reform: Modern ‘Asexual’ Bodies

In 1925, Atatürk was traveling around Turkey to introduce “civilized” and “modern” dress. On one of his stops, in Kastamonu (a city in the Black Sea region), Atatürk appeared in front of the crowd dressed in European style with a Panama Hat to convince the people of the importance of embracing the European style of dress. In his speech, he compared people to jewels and said,

‘In order to see the jewel shine, one must get rid of the mud.’ Getting rid of the mud, he insisted, meant wearing ‘shoes on the feet, trousers over the legs, shirts with neckties under the collar, jackets, and naturally, to complement all of this, a head covering to protect you from the sun’… ‘The name of this headgear is “hat”. The dress of civilized people is good enough for us.’ (Yumul, 2010 p. 352 quoted from Volkan and Itzkowitz)

After this visit, on November 25 1925, the Hat Law was introduced, which replaced the fez with a European style hat.

The fez was introduced during the reign of Sultan Mahmud II, as a signifier of modernization attempts in the nineteenth century Ottoman Empire. Even though the aim in introducing the fez was to eliminate the existing sartorial order based on differences in

Ottoman bureaucracy, later “it was turned into an emblem of conservatism and religious affiliation” (Yumul, 2010 p. 352). The Hat Law banned religious garb and the fez for men working as bureaucrats and civil servants and by endorsing the Western style hat, the law sought to erase the difference between Turkey and modern civilized nations (Cinar, 2008;

2005; Kandiyoti, 2000; Olson 1985). It needs to be noted that the Hat Law was the state’s only legal attempt to regulate the clothing style, and it did not target every male citizen but only the ones working as civil bureaucrats and statesmen. In other words, as Cinar (2008) claims, the “Hat Law was about the image of the state itself” (p. 69); therefore, it did not involve the visibility of men in the general public. Through certain male bodies, which represented the state, the Republic differentiated itself from the Ottoman Empire, which was pictured as uncivilized and barbaric.

Even though the state did not pass a similar regulation on women’s attire nor did it ban the Islamic clothing7, the debates around Western attire mostly evolved around

7 The headscarf was not banned by the central state government; however, there were attempts to regulate the dress code of women by the local agents of the state. Following the Hat Law of 1925, several municipals issued by-laws to ban çarşaf (a garment that covers the body from head to toe and is usually black), which was perceived as a ‘threat’ against Kemalist reforms (Atasoy, 2009; Arig 2007). Even though there had been discussions in the central government to ban the Islamic attire, the responsibility was left to the local governments and in the following decade, the municipalities continued to issue decrees to ban peçe (a garment that covers the face, expect the eyes) and çarşaf while also launching campaigns through the press to encourage women to dress up in European style (Yilmaz 2006).

women’s clothing nonetheless because women’s bodies had become ‘discursive instruments’ through which the new secular nation drew its boundary with its Other, Islam

(Cinar, 2008). Considering that the secluded and veiled female bodies in Muslim societies have been conceived of as the signifier of the ‘inferiority’ of the East in the eyes of the

West, the most direct way of displaying the modern face of the nation to the West was to unveil the female body and increase the visibility of women in the public sphere. Hence, the state targeted women in its modernity project and actively engaged in promoting the new ‘modern’ and secular images of women in the public sphere (Cinar, 2008; Ozdalga,

1993; Olson 1985). Thus, Cinar (2008) argues that Atatürk and the Republican modernizing elite were “...quite aware that European perception of the Turks [was] sharply conditioned by an orientalist view that saw the Islamic lifestyle as one that confines women behind harem walls and by images of veiled women as a symbol of oppression and barbarism” (p. 90).

Even though Turkey was never colonized nor the subject of colonial discourse, the modernizing elite’s perception of Islam and the veil was similar to the colonial modernist narrative. In her book, “ Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of A Modern

Debate”, Leila Ahmed (1992) examines the narrative on women in various Islamic discourses at different time period in the Middle Eastern history, and demonstrates how the veil was made into a visible sign of the oppression of Muslim women as well as the inferiority of Muslim societies compared to western ones, and how this colonial discourse affected the debate on women in Islam and modernity in the nineteenth and twentieth century. Particularly, Ahmed’s account of the attempts to unveil women in Egypt in the early twentieth century tells a similar story to the early Republican attempts to ‘liberate’ the public from Islam. The debates around veiling and the westernization of the Egyptian

culture began in the late nineteenth century in Egypt during British colonization, and in the twentieth century intellectuals began to discuss unveiling as an essential step in the advancement of the society. Ahmed’s account of the modernization history of Egypt and unveiling resembles the history of the Turkish Republic and how the veil began to be seen as the marker of anti-modernity.

Like in the European colonial discourse, Atatürk and his followers also regarded the headscarf as a signifier of ‘backwardness’ and the Ottoman sexual order, thereby drawing a clear distinction between a woman who wears a headscarf and one who does not by designating the former as ‘uncivilized’ and the latter as ‘civilized’. For instance, during the same visit in the Anatolian tour of 1925 mentioned above, when Atatürk encountered women who were covering their hair and faces, he remarked:

In some places I see women who hide their faces and eyes by throwing a piece of fabric, a scarf, or something like that over their heads, and when a man passes by, they turn their backs to him or close up by sitting on the ground. What is the meaning and explanation of this behaviour? Gentlemen, would the mothers and daughters of a civilized nation assume such an absurd and vulgar pose? This is a situation that ridicules our nation. It has to be corrected immediately. (Quoted in Gocek & Balaghi, 1994, p.61)

As his speech reveals, Atatürk regarded the headscarf as a signifier of

‘backwardness’, and the binary categorization, rooted in Kemalism, identified ‘modern’

Turkish women citizens as non-headscarf wearing, urban, secular, educated and visible in the public sphere, in contrast to the headscarf-wearing women, who were construed as uneducated, rural, ‘anti-secular’ and ‘anti-modern’ (Gokariksel and Mitchell, 2005; Cinar

2008; O'Neil 2008; Secor 2002; Gole, 1996; White, 2003).

Modern, ‘ideal’ Turkish women were identified as virtuous, nationalist, educated, powerful and emancipated, hence unveiled, and “since the new Republican woman

represented the modern, secular Westernized state, she was expected to behave and dress in what the state defined as modern, Western manner” (White, 2003, p. 145). It was not just about the attire of the women; women were encouraged to change their Islamic and/or rural lifestyles.

The display of the new ‘unveiled’ women with their European lifestyle was imperative to the Kemalist modernity project. “The state was actively promoting the appearance of women in public places, wearing modern clothes, engaged in modern activities” (Cinar 2005, p. 63). Women were expected to participate in these ‘modern activities’ and dress properly according to the occasion and space. Women were expected to wear evening gowns and attend ballroom dances and dress up elegantly for evening gatherings, and photographs of these women were increasingly published via the sponsorship of the government (Cinar 2005). Atatürk was also eager to become the face of this new world and he participated in the ballroom dance with his wife Latife Hanim as well as his adopted daughter Sabiha Gökçen, who later became the public figures representing the women of Turkey.

As Sibel Erol (1992) contends, the image of young girls in shorts and t-shirts in the Atatürk and Youth and Sports Commemorations became the emblematic representation of this ‘new’ woman. The most challenging image that proved the deconstruction of the Islamic sexual moral order was the image of women in bathing suits on the beach. The sexual moral order of the Ottoman society was ensured through hiding women’s bodies from the public gaze. Women in bathing suits challenged this sexual moral norm by revealing “the parts of the female body that were deemed private under

Islam and hence covered by the veil” (Cinar 2005, p. 63). In the new Republic, female

bodies became subjected to the public gaze and were expected to be dressed appropriately according to modern norms and conventions of the Kemalist discourse.

As Gole (1996) argues, the distinction between the ‘civilized’ and ‘uncivilized’ dress also affected beauty image and aesthetics. The understanding of ‘Eastern’ ‘oriental’ beauty –defined as long hair with a rounded curved body dressed in loose clothing- was replaced with European beauty image defined as short hair with slim body, dressed in tight clothing with corset. “You look European” (Gole 1996 p. 66) became the new way of complimenting women, and women who did not look European in their dress and body shape were singled out as “culturally ill-suited for modernity” (Atasoy, 2009, p. 156). For instance, the quotation Durakbasa uses from the article “Our Women and Sports” in a

Journal Aksam Spor (Night Sport) echoes the beauty image created within the modernity discourse:

Today’s regime requires healthy and active, agile bodies… This generation who have been able to overthrow the black veil from their faces and the çarşaf from their backs should also be careful about the beauty of their bodies. For the mothers who are going to bring up the healthy generations of tomorrow, sports is as important as for men… in the national holidays for the youth, we witnessed our young girls with dismay, who did not exercise their bodies except for one class hour of physical education per week: Our young girls usually displayed a fat and clumsy body with big breasts and fleshy legs. Those young girls who have the greatest beauty of the Turkish race by birth... (Quoted in A. Durakbasa, 1998, p. 144-145).

Following Barkty’s argument on the disciplinary regime constructed through beauty image,

I argue that together with the exposure of female bodies in the public sphere, this new modern European image created new “disciplinary regimes of femininity” (Barkty 1988), which began to discipline and transform female bodies into feminine bodies subject to the male gaze. This new discourse on female bodies employed exercise and dress as tools to discipline and regulate female bodies and it set the criteria for acceptable bodies.

Through surveillance processes produced by the national discourse in the public space, urbanized educated modern women in Turkey began to focus their attention on preparing themselves to be viewed and gazed in the public space to which they had just gained the right to participate.

Even though women were encouraged to participate in the public space, modern educated women had to think more carefully about how they appeared and dressed up

(Gole 1996). In the modern dualistic logic, Puwar (2004) argues, femininity is associated with the private space and masculinity with public; thus, female bodies are not welcomed in public spaces. Since the public space is structured around masculine norms in patriarchal societies, women are always the “insiders as outsider” (Puwar 2004) in public spaces. In the Republic of Turkey, public spaces were not only construed around the norms of modernity, but were also structured through the masculine norms. In other words, not only were Turkish women who did not look modern perceived as outsiders in the public space, but so were European-looking modern women who did not have an undisputed right to be present in the public spaces. For instance, Durakbasa (2001) who conducted interviews with women who were young adults in the early Republican era, states that women were not always encouraged to go into particular professions – such as engineering. They were encouraged to choose their career along the line of the mission – the modern mother of the nation – assigned to women within the nationalist state discourse. Through the analysis of a women’s journal in the 1940s and 1950s, Hock

(2013) also argues that women’s participation in the labour force was still disputed, a fact that potentially labeled women “insiders as outsiders” in workspaces.

In the nationalist discourse, dress was utilized as a ‘technology of the body’ to form

‘acceptable’ and ‘appropriate’ gendered moral bodies. ‘Acceptable’ bodies were not only

defined as modern and unveiled, but they also needed to be dressed according to the sexual moral norms of the modern secularist discourse. While on one hand the change in women’s appearance was meant to portray the nation as ‘civilized’, on the other hand, women were not allowed to act and dress freely according to the European lifestyle, which emphasized their sexuality. Through seclusion and veiling practices, the sexual moral order had been maintained in the Islamic Ottoman society. The elimination of the Islamic practices of seclusion and veiling and the opening up of the public sphere required restructuring of the gendered moral order. Therefore, as scholars like Durakbaşa (1998) and Atasoy (2009) argue, even though Kemalist discourse claimed to free women from religious norms, the traditional values of female modesty as well as religious moral norms

(such as sexual purity and virginity) were still carried out by the Kemalist modernity project.

Through examining Atatürk’s speech’s, Arat (1997) claims that due to the uneasiness with

European sexual culture, the nationalist discourse warned the ‘modern’ Turkish women not to “mimic the European conduct and behaviour” as well as its promiscuity, but to keep their traditional norms of modesty and “virtuous attitude” (Arat, 1997, p. 61). For instance, on March 21, 1923, during his meeting with women in Konya, Atatürk defined the way women should appear in public:

In cities, women’s dressing style and veiling manifest in two ways; either they cover excessively or insufficiently. In other words, either an attire that is hard to depict, too covered, and murky or a dressing that is so lewd that it cannot be worn even in the most permissive balls in Europe. Both of these styles fall outside the scope of the recommendations of Sharia, of the dictates of religion. Our religion frees women both from that insufficiency and this excess. (Arig, 2007, p. 36) [my translation]

Arat points out that in his speeches, Atatürk not only encouraged women to dress in a modern way, but also urged them to wear “attire that is recommended by the law of

God and commanded by religion” (quoted in Arat 1997, p. 62). As Atatürk’s speech

reveals, instead of excluding Islam completely from its discourse, Kemalism utilized it as a basis for its own secular morality. This Kemalist sexual morality, like Islam, has perceived female sexuality as a threat to public morality and thus in need of seclusion. To counter this threat, Islam requires women to hide their sexuality through veiling. While the veil served as a sign of modesty and female sexual morality in the Islamic worldview, the

Kemalist discourse had to construct new moral codes to convey its message of sexual purity. The moral order still depended on the regulation and control of female sexuality due to the “close connection between female sexual purity and family or lineage honour”

(Kandiyoti 1987, p. 326). Therefore, Republicans also carried the concern that women becoming educated and participating in the workforce and becoming more visible and active agents in public life might create a threat to moral order and to the family. The solution to this potential threat was stripping women of their sexuality; in other words, the solution was to veil their sexualities. In this context, women were constructed as “sexually neutral” as “comrade women” in their work life (Arat, 1997, p. 61). “The citizen woman dressed to downplay her femininity and sexuality, donning severe suits and a no-nonsense demeanor.” (White, 2003, p. 153). For instance, Acun (2007) who examined state produced visual images, such as photographs, pamphlets and lottery tickets from the early

Republican period (1923 to 1960), claims that women were portrayed as asexual beings in modest dress. Acun (2007) further states that to prevent women from wearing feminine dress styles, which were labeled as sexually seductive, one of the states persons in office during the single-party period uttered, “we did not give freedom to women so they would polish their nails and dance seductively” (p. 102). In other words, women were obliged to suppress their sexuality or to be ‘asexual’ while they were in the public sphere where they were seen as “space invaders” (Puwar 2004), who posed a threat to the moral order.

The image of Kemalist women in ‘severe suits’ might seem conflicting with the images of women in bathing suits and evening gowns. However, Entwistle (2001) reminds us that different occasions, situations, and places operate with different dress and moral norms and that “dress is always located spatially and temporally” (Entwistle, 2000b, p.

335). For instance, ballrooms during the early years of Republic had significant importance in the display of the new secular national female body to the European gaze. Cinar (2005) also argues that the image of women in bathing suits particularly in the first beauty pageants were strong evidence for the global gaze that women and their bodies had been liberated by the new secular state. While women in suits symbolized the new image of professional Republican women, it is also differentiating Republican women from

European women who were perceived as promiscuous (Kadioglu, 1996). For instance,

Acun’s (2007) analysis of visual materials demonstrates that while women were pictured in a European look, they were also portrayed in modest dress, which hid their femininity and sexual bodies, unlike their counterparts (European women).

According to the Kemalist discourse, women could be modern and modest without the veil, and the notion of morality, which was attached to female sexuality, set the norms in not only how women appeared in particular spaces but also how they held themselves when they encountered men (Aldikacti Marshall, 2013). This Kemalist notion of modesty and morality resembles Abu-Lughod’s (1986) examination of “modesty code” in the study of the Awlad‘Ali, a Bedouin community, which practices Sunni Islam. Abu-Lughod asserts that, for the Awlad ‘Ali, the “modesty code” reduces the threat posed by sexuality against morality, and this code identifies women who deny their sexuality as honourable women.

In other words, a modest woman is one who acts chastely and avoids men who are not related. “The modest woman admits no interest in men, makes no attempt to attract them

through behaviour or dress, and covers up any indication of a sexual or romantic attachment (even in her marriage). The woman who does not is called a ‘slut’ (qhaba) or a ‘whore’ (sharmuta)” (Abu-Lughod 1986, p. 152). The same “modesty code” defined by

Abu-Lughod is also quite visible in the narratives of early Republican women. For instance, through the analysis of the narratives of women who were the first targets of the

Republican reforms, Durakbasa (2001) reveals that even though women were allowed to dress in a European way and socialize with men, they also learned how to interact with men. “In these new occasions of social mixing, men and women learned and practiced the new rules of etiquette which mostly depended on management of social distance, where new women preserved basic codes of female virtue and were highly cautious of not being seductive.” (Durakbasa, 2001, p. 200). I agree with Kadioglu’s (1996) observation that women who cannot balance the two are either labeled as too modern as to “warrant promiscuity” (Kadioglu 1996, p. 178) or too traditional, meaning uneducated and uncivilized, by the new Kemalist discourse of the state. In other words, the expectation to balance the tension between modernity and tradition in public space in fact drew limits on women’s appearances and gave less room to women to participate in the public space with different modalities of agency. Rather, as the studies discussed above reveal, only one homogenous ‘ideal’ woman was accepted in the public space.

The tension between modernity and traditional sexual moral norms materializes the female body in a way, which must be dressed in a modern way without subjecting her sexual body to the public gaze. The internalization of this gender-specific issue can be understood by looking at Judith Butler’s research. Butler’s (1990) theory on gender performativity, which defines gender as “a doing”, provides an explanation of the construction of ‘modern’ gendered identity through dress norms. In her theory, gendered

identity and body needs to be considered a performative accomplishment, which is constituted through “a stylized repetition of acts” (Butler 1990, p. 191). In this context, dress is one of the techniques that genders the body and through the repetition of a dress style over time, certain gendered bodies become “cultural fictions’ of what is a ‘real’ woman. Along the line of this theory, I argue that through the Kemalist discourse, modern dress style was used to produce and reproduce the ‘cultural fiction’ of the modern Turkish woman. Through the reproduction of this ‘cultural fiction’, women who were unveiled but dressed to suppress their sexuality were ‘’normalized’ in the society as ‘modest’ and respectable women. This gendered, moralized body has been “renewed and consolidated through time” (Butler, 1990, p. 274) successfully in the discourse of state secularism until the ‘modern’ Islamist women emerged in 1990s to challenge this ‘cultural fiction’.

The Quiet Years: Women in Turkey from 1945 to 1980

The nationalist discourse, which constituted the new image of ‘asexual,’ educated, and unveiled women could not reach all women in the nation. Reforms mostly served and informed urban Turkish women’s lives. Rural women were affected by neither the reforms nor the new image of the secular women. As a result of education and development, the state believed that women would internalize the cultural fiction of woman produced through Kemalist discourse; thus, through the normalization and internalization of the new image of woman, the headscarf would disappear from public space eventually

(Saktanber&Corbacioglu 2008).

However, the modernization reforms implemented during the early years of the

Republic produced reactions from pro-Islamic groups. As Karpat (1959) argues, after the death of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi – CHP (Republican Peoples

Party) government became unpopular among the masses, particularly in rural regions.

The main reason for the decrease in the popularity of CHP was the power that a small group of bureaucrats held in the government and their policies, which was not inclusive of the masses living in the rural areas (Karpat 1959). People “…resented the state constantly imposing its will upon them without ever taking their sentiments into account” (Ahmad,

1993, p.105). The strict secularization project showed a slight decline during the period from transition to multi-party politics (1946-1950) (Zurcher 2004). After 1950, political parties such as the Demokratik Parti – DP (Democratic Party) brought religion as a cultural tradition back into the political discourse to gain the support of a traditional and pro-Islamic population (Lombardi 1997). This party was shut down as a result of the military coup in

1960 however its successor, the Adalet Partisi – AP (Justice Party), governed the country until the military coup in 1980 and continued to manipulate religion in its political discourse

(Aldikacti Marshall 2013; Lombordi 1997). From the 1960s to the military coup in 1980, the emphasis on religion was augmented in the discourses of center right political parties, and used as a powerful political weapon against communism (Sakallioglu 1996; Kongar

1998; Aldikacti Marshall 2013).

There are very few studies on the status of women and sexual norms between the years of 1945 and the 1980s. Serpil Sancar (2012), who conducted research on four newspapers articles/sections on women and family between the years of 1945 and 1965, defines these years as the silent years for women and she argues that the policies during this period can be defined as “conservative modernization”. It was “conservative” because women’s freedom was limited to family and traditional gender and sexual norms; and it was modern because the modernization principles that began in the early Republican years continued to exist. The goal of this process was to disperse the principles of a family

focused modernization of the early Republic to the everyday lives of urban middle class families. In this context, femininity and womanhood were defined as the duties and responsibilities of women in the family, and the discourse on women’s emancipation was forgotten (Sancar 2012). As a result of the lack of debate on women’s rights and gender inequality, these years can be defined as the quiet years for women. The puritan sexualized morality materialized through the discourse on women constructed them as modern mothers whose jobs were only to raise moral and education citizens.

On the other hand, recent studies in the field of women’s oral history demonstrate women’s responses to Kemalist reforms and the identification that was imposed on them.

As Durakbasa argues (2001), post-1980s feminist studies questioning “state feminism” are mostly examinations of official or public discourses through the analysis of Atatürk’s speeches, literature, newspapers, journals and articles of the time. Recent women’s oral history studies, she argues, try to reveal women’s voices and their self-identification based on the analysis of their own life story accounts (p. 195). In her article outlining her study for the “Women’s Oral History Pilot Project”, Durakbasa (2001) states that the interviews she conducted with women who were the first targets of the Republican reforms demonstrate the adaptation of this new ‘ideal’ femininity and the tension women lived with through tradition and modernity. The Republican balls and tea parties were used to convey this new look to modern women, and she states that the narratives of the participants reveal that women had been affected by this new ideal of femininity expressed through modern dress (Durakbasa 2001). The choice of dress and the presentation of the female body in public within a new modern look with short and smart suits became the markers of the new women. For instance, the narratives of the participants revealed that “long hair was a sign of virtue for young women and the new women [with short hair] had to develop

a new kind of morality, which would be more individualized, while they also adopted the new possibilities of a modern feminine outlook.” (Durakbasa, 2011, p. 199).

While Durabasa’s (2001) study demonstrates a modality of agency for women who benefitted from the reforms and enjoyed a modern identity and life in the cities, Hock’s

(2013) study reveals the discontent of women from the RRP’s reforms and policies. As

Hock’s (2013) research on women’s journals in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrates, even as women benefited from the Kemalist gender reforms, they did not stay quiet and began to criticize the CHP’s single party regime, as Sancar (2012) also argues. The articles written by women for the women’s journal (Kadin Gazetesi – Women’s Newspaper) at the time questioned the CHP’s reforms. For instance in one of the articles Iffet Halim Oruz, the owner and editor of Kadin Gazetesi, claimed that the reforms had indeed brought neither complete equality nor liberation and during the period under Ataturk’s rule,

“Woman’s duty toward’s [sic] the country at that time, was more of a social kind, i.e. she was called upon to use her rights merely by joining the election. This does not mean that any other party would not have recognized women’s rights.” (Quoted in Hock, p. 22).

Even though women gained socio-political rights, they were still very much absent in politics as a result of the “modern conservative discourse” (Sancar 2012). However, this began to change in the late 1960s and 1970s with the emergence of leftist movements, where women became more visible in the political realm. This period was marked by the

polarization of right and leftist groups.8 Student uprisings and the leftist movement created a space for women to challenge the patriarchal structure. Women who engaged in the leftist movement challenged class inequality and capitalism, which they argued was reinforced by the patriarchal structure (Gulendam 2001). However, to the leftist movement, feminist concerns still did not have a place within its discourse. Women in the leftist movement were expected to fight against capitalism without questioning women’s status in society. Therefore, feminist ideas did not have a chance to develop until the 1980s in

Turkey (Gulendam 2001, Tekeli 1992).

During the polarization between the left and the right, clothing styles were also highly politicized. Different hairstyles, beards and moustaches all had associations with different political and religious associations (Yumul 2010). For example, the droop of the moustache would indicate the Maoist or nationalist tendencies and while the parka was worn by leftists, the şalvar (baggy trousers) was preferred by militant Islamists (Yumul

2010). Like their western counterparts, Turkish leftist women in the 1970s began to challenge the capitalist discourse, which objectified and sexualized the female body; thus, they chose to wear shabby clothes, which hid their sexualities (Cinar 2005). On the one

8 As a consequence of the growing violent clashes of leftist and right movements, the military issued an ultimatum in 1971 resulting in the forcing of the Adalet Partisi (Justice Party), the successor of the AP government, to resign. (Lombardi 1997). After the ultimatum came from the army, the interim coalition cabinet governed the country with the consultation and support from the army. However, the political turmoil did not end, and the army overthrew the government in 1980. The Turkish military saw it as their duty to save democracy from the politicians (Zurchler, 2004), and claimed that the coup was a response to the unstable political situation and domestic political anarchy (Lombardi, 1997). The Turkish Army General Staff, Kenan Evren, took control of the state, and the political parties were dissolved and politicians who came before 1980 were banned from politics for 10 years (Zurcher). All power was in the hands of the military, particularly the National Security Council8. A new constitution written by the army was introduced in 1982 replacing the more libertarian 1961 constitution, and the military rule continued until 1983 (Lombardi). Although there was a civilian government after 1983, the military continued to exercise its power in politics through Kenan Evren who was appointed as President based on the new constitution.

hand, I agree with Cinar’s observation that “This style was not so different from the Islamic veiling in that they have both been products of the attempt to conceal the sexuality of the female body, so they have both served to reproduce and reaffirm the power and authority of the male gaze, which, it has been assumed, has the natural capacity to define and constitute female bodies as sexual and desirable” (Cinar, 2005, p.77). On the other hand, it also needs to be noted that these women involved in the leftist movements criticized the capitalist discourse that objectify the female body. Hence, shabby clothing could easily also be seen as a tool they used against the objectifying male gaze of the capitalist normative system.

While women in leftist movements questioned the capitalist discourse and objectification of female body in the consumerist society, neither the question of women’s rights nor Islamic veiling had been an issue in the leftist agenda in spite of the increasing number of women wearing headscarves due to the massive rural to urban migration, which began in the 1950s. While the headscarf was associated with rural peasant life during the early years of the Republic, this association started to change when the visibility of women wearing headscarves increased in the universities and civil services in the late 1970s and

1980s.

The Invisible Becomes Visible: The Rise of Islamist Movements and the Headscarf ‘Question’

From the 1960s to the military coup in 1980, Islam was manipulated by center- right political parties (Sakallioglu 1996; Kongar 1998). The first political pro-Islamist party of the period, Milli Selamet Partisi (National Salvation Party), was established in 1969 during the liberalization and democratization process within the scope of the 1961

Constitution. Even though pro-religious political parties had begun to emerge before the

1980s, the structure of the Islamic movement changed radically in the post-1980s years of the Republic. While previous political parties had been affiliating themselves to religion since the transition to a multi-party system, Islam was carried out as a cultural symbolic reference only for moral values and communal identity formation (Keyman 2003).

However, since the 1980s, it has become the most salient challenge against secularism as an emerging alternative socio-political discourse. On the reactions coming from the left and right wing political parties against the rise of Islamist movements in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Sakallioglu states,

The secular left and right are alarmed by the increasing manifestations of Islam as a radical religiopolitical movement claiming to be a political alternative to Kemalism, socialism, and capitalism, and the end of the historical tradition of Islam's identifying itself with the status quo… It [the new Islamic stance] also crystallizes new Islamic answers to issues of Westernization, independence, sovereignty, women's rights, and the distribution of power within the state. (Sakallioglu 1996, p. 243).

In the post-1980 period, the political sphere became more liberal politically for

Islamist movements because “the army had been conditioned to see socialism and communism as Turkey’s most deadly foes […] it saw indoctrination with a mixture of fierce nationalism and a version of Islam friendly to the state as an effective antidote” (Zurcher,

2004, p. 288). As a result, the public sphere became open to Islam in the 1980s and this created new opening for Islamist economics, politics and culture (Gokariksel and Mitchell,

2005; Navaro-Yashin, 2002; White 1999). In this political environment, pro-Islamic parties gained power in politics and it was only later that the politicization of Islam began to be perceived as a threat against the secular state (White, 2003).

The 1990s were a significant period for Islamist movements in two ways. One is that in 1994, for the first time an Islamist political party, the Refah Partisi – RP (Welfare

Party), which was an anti-American and anti-European party against Westernization

(Lombardi 1997), won its first significant electoral victory in local elections in several major cities, including Istanbul and Ankara (Cinar, 2005). The 1995 general elections proved

RP’s increased support from the voters, and it emerged as the top party in the elections

(Cinar 2005; Lombardi 1997). While the Islamic political discourse began to appear strongly in the political sphere, as Lombordi (1997) states, the polarization between pro-

Islamic and secularist political discourses became clear during these years. The success of RP in the elections was quite significant in the political history of Turkey as it represented the first challenge to secularism.

Secondly, Muslim businessmen began to participate in the global economy, giving rise to a new class: ‘Islamist capitalists’ (Atasoy, 2005, p.58). The Islamists started to contribute to economic production, political activism and civil society, giving rise to an

Islamist media (Islamist radios and television stations), and new patterns of consumption

(in particular the fashion of tesettür, the ‘new’ Islamic dressing code). Islamist people created their own middle class, which was composed of urbanized, educated professionals (Gole, 2000), and an increasing number of people with Islamic identities and values began to gain visibility in the socio-political life (Cinar, 2005).

As a result of increased participation in the global economy, education, politics and consumption culture – in brief, participation in the ‘modern’ public sphere – a ‘new’ Islamist social group emerged in Turkey that challenged the secularist Kemalist group that had dominated the public sphere for six decades. Due to the changes in Islamists’ positions in what Bourdieu called the ‘fields’ (i.e. economy and politics), the habitus of this Islamist

group also changed and turned out to be neither ‘modern’ nor ‘anti-modern’; rather, it constructed its own subject and bodies. The new Islamist women are educated and visible, active participants in the public sphere, suggesting that sex segregation and seclusion – the taboos of Islam – have been broken. Islamists have opened new Islamist television channels, newspapers, and alcohol-free restaurants, and formed new specialized businesses for ‘Islamic goods’, such as textile companies that produce ‘fashionable’

Islamist style attire (Navaro-Yashin, 2002).

Like the Kemalist secularist discourse, the Islamist discourse views the image of women and the female body in the public sphere as an important site of contestation.

Through re-veiling the female body, the Islamist discourse undermines the authority of secular norms of public space. The Islamist discourse attempts to regulate and monitor the visibility of female bodies in the public sphere, and they also use the female body to construct a ‘new’ Islamist subject. The Islamist discourse claims that “...the secularist state had used and abused the female body as a symbol of its Westernization and modernization efforts to such an extent that it had come to represent everything but the

Turkish woman, alienated from her own body and her own home, where she naturally belongs” (Cinar, 2005, p. 86). In the 1980s, the ‘woman question’ was introduced into the

Islamist movements’ discourse on the headscarf issue. As explained below, in the late

1980s and early 1990s, women wearing headscarves became visible in the public sphere.

Monitored by the secularist gaze, the headscarf came to be one of the main sites of struggle between secularist and Islamist discourses (Cinar, 2005).

Through the analysis of interviews with young Turkish women the early 1990s,

Gole (1997) claims that women who wear the headscarf have, in a certain sense, taken advantage of the opportunities that were afforded them by modernity, the result of which

is that they became urbanized and educated participants of modern society. As a result, a ‘new’ Muslim woman has come into the picture: she is urbanized, educated and wears a headscarf. The Islamist women’s lifestyle can be juxtaposed not only with those of

Kemalists, but also with the traditional image of the Muslim woman. Although, as Bordo

(1993) argues, the ‘ideal’ femininity that is constructed in the dominant discourse is always homogenizing, eliminating class, ethnic and other differences, the new Muslim women have resisted the femininity of the Kemalist discourse and the traditional Islamist discourse. Instead, they have asserted their differences from both the ‘ideal’ Turkish woman and the ‘traditional/anti-modern’ women through both their different life-style and attire. Hence, the new persona of the Muslim Turkish woman has almost nothing in common with the image of traditional women who were uneducated, rural and devoted to their family (Gole, 1997). On the contrary, young Muslim Turkish women are educated, urban, and politically and socially active. Moreover, the way they choose to wear their

Islamic attire is different from the way women dressed traditionally (Gole, 1997). These women have adopted a new form of headscarf called a tesettür, which positions them between ‘modern’ and traditional Muslim (Navaro-Yashin 2002; Arat, 1998). Tesettür style headscarves are beautifully patterned, usually made of silk and in varying colors that change according to the fashion (Navaro-Yashin, 2002, White, 1999; Secor, 2002). These women, especially those who have attended universities or have a professional career, wear stylish models of headscarves and coats, and even occasionally tight-fitting garments and make-up, in clear defiance of the Islamic code (Cinar, 2005).

Tesettür fashion not only reflects the changes in the traditional style of the headscarf, but also the challenge to the construction of sexuality in Islam, which forbids the beautification of the female body. Although some scholars have explored the tesettür

fashion, they have focused on the headscarf as a site of commodification of an Islamic symbol (Navaro-Yashin, 2002), while disregarding how wearing it changes the bodily experience of women. Since the body is the site for the construction of the self, wearing the tesettür may well engender a different subjectivity, one that is different from the traditional one and the 'modern' one. In the next chapter, I will explore the subjectivity of contemporary women wearing the headscarf.

State Surveillance: The Secular Gaze of State over Women’s Bodies

The literature exploring the relationship between law and women’s bodies has been growing in recent decades. Most of these studies examine how and why women’s bodies become a concern of the law and how law exercises power over female bodies.

As Smart (1989) argues the relationship between law and bodies are crucial since law has become a central mechanisms of surveillance to regulate women’s bodies and sexualities.

For example, even though the appearance of the ‘new’ Muslim Turkish woman is considerably ‘modern’, the secularist state implemented new surveillance mechanisms to stand against the so-called Islamist threat.

As has already been explored in the relevant literature, even though the headscarf was not banned during the early Republican period, women’s bodies became a “discursive instrument” of the modernity discourse (Cinar, 2005). During the early years of the

Republic, the female body became the subject of the secular public gaze rather than the state surveillance. Along the line of Foucault, Cinar (2005) argues that even though public gaze and state surveillance overlaps at times, their regulative and constitutive power is different on bodies. While the public gaze marks the bodies into hierarchical categories, the state surveillance constitutes the bodies as citizens. “The public gaze draws its power

from an ability to name and categorize, whereas surveillance mechanisms administered by the state always involve punishment and penalization” (Cinar, 2005, p. 50). In the case of Turkey, the public gaze functioned through its categorization of female bodies as

“modern” and “anti-modern” based on how they were dressed. As I noted above, the only bodies that were subjected to state surveillance were the bodies representing the state itself. Consequently, the Hat Law (1925) was implemented for men working as public and state officials.

Similar to the Hat Law, the dress of women working for the state was also regulated when laicism was included in the Constitution. In 1937, laicism9 was enshrined in the

Constitution, along with republicanism, nationalism, populism, statism, and reformism, which are considered as the “six arrows” of the CHP (Peres, 2012). Based on the principle of laicism, the Turkish State banned wearing the headscarf for women working in public and civil services. From then on, women who were working on state premises – such as teachers, lawyers, parliamentarians and state officials- were not allowed to veil at the workplace. Both the Hat law and the ban on the headscarf on state premises functioned as surveillance mechanisms to institutionalize the legality of the codes of modern dress within the body of state itself.

Until the 1980s, the Republican state did not require state surveillance to target women in public spaces because of the absence of a salient challenge to its secularist discourse. Due to the increasing power of Islamist political discourses however, the

9 “Article 2 of the constitution of the Republic of Turkey states the characteristics of the Republic as a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law; bearing in mind the concepts of public peace, national solidarity and justice; respecting human rights; loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the Preamble (quoted in Demirel, 2008)

Turkish state (in the hands of the military) enhanced its legal regulations over the female body. After the military coup in 1980, the military ruled the country for the following two years, and during these years, a new constitution was written by the army and introduced in 1982 (Zurcher 2004). Article 410 was added into the new Constitution to prevent any government to amend or remove the principle of laicism as the principle of the Republic.

Following the strengthening of the laicism principle in the Constitution, the military regime officially implemented a new dress code for public and civil servants of the state

(Barras, 2014). Kamu Kurum ve Kuruluşlarında Çalışan Personelin Kılık ve Kıyafetine Dair

Yönetmelik (by-law on the Garments of the Public Personnel)11, released in 1982, details the dress code for women working as public and civil servants. The dress code dictates what a woman can wear and cannot wear at work including a ban on the headscarf.

According to this official dress code, women are not allowed to wear headscarves, stretch- pants, jeans, sleeveless as well as revealing shirts, blouses and dresses. Dresses and skirts that are shorter than knee-length and skirts with vent and flip-flops are also forbidden. The official dress code mandated by the state for its employees reflects the

“ideal” Turkish woman who is ‘modern’, ‘asexual’ and ‘modest’. In other words, dress is utilized by the state as one of the technologies of the body to form ‘acceptable’ and

‘respectable’ moral bodies at the work place.

Along the line of Butler, Puwar (2004) argues that dress enables the repetitious

10 “ARTICLE 4- The provision of Article 1 regarding the form of the State being a Republic, the characteristics of the Republic in Article 2, and the provisions of Article 3 shall not be amended, nor shall their amendment be proposed.” http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf 11 “Madde 5 – 2 nci maddede sözü edilen personelin kılık ve kıyafette uyacakları hususlar: a. Kadınlar; Kolsuz ve çok açık yakalı gömlek, bluz veya elbise ile strech, kot ve benzeri pantolonlar giyilmez. Etek boyu dizden yukarı ve yırtmaçlı olamaz. Terlik tipi (sandalet) ayakkabı giyilmez” http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/3.5.85105.pdf

production of gendered bodies in particular spaces through socio-political regulatory discourse. Considering her analysis, I argue that the dress code enacted at the workplace by the state served not only to construct moral sexual bodies at the workplace, but also served as surveillance mechanism which enforces the internalization of modern norms.

As Cinar (2005) claims “…the surveillance of the state interpellates the “citizen” as defined by the Code…[and]…bodies that are subjected to the gaze of the state are legally constituted as citizens.” (50). In this context, I argue that this legal regulation of dress functioned as a state gaze to confirm and reproduce the modern sexual body in the face of the threat coming from the Islamist discourse which is construed as ‘backward’ and

‘anti-modern’.

The image of the secular woman was threatened not only at the workplace but also at the universities. As discussed above, women wearing headscarves had increased at university campuses in the post-1980s, and this had caused a heated debate around the headscarf in tandem with modernity. Education was seen as a means to modernize

Turkish women, and the Kemalist discourse believed that through education, women would internalize modern values and get rid of the headscarf. However, the Kemalist project failed in its assumption and as a result of the increasing number of women wearing headscarves on university campuses, the state implemented regulations against the threat of Islamic dress norms on university campuses.

The Yükseköğretim Kurulu – YÖK (Higher Education Council) was formed in 1983, based on the 1982 Constitution to regulate higher education in Turkey. YÖK’s regulations were structured around the principles of Kemalism. The increased visibility of Islam in the universities was not welcomed by YÖK. YÖK therefore began to function as a state institution. Through the implementation of decrees, YÖK exercised disciplinary power to

secularize the universities. Under the military regime of the 1980s, the legislation issued regarding the dress code forbade certain types of clothing, such as headscarves and beards on public university premises. Seeing that this regulation was causing major problems for students wearing headscarves, “whose numbers were not higher than 5 percent of the total student body at the time” (Cinar 2005, p. 78), YÖK came up with a new regulation. In 1985, when the headscarf became a matter of public debate, YÖK issued a decree in which the türban was stipulated as a modern clothing item, and students were allowed to wear it in universities. With this decree, YÖK thought that they could remove the political connotations of the Islamic headscarf by calling it a türban and defining it as a modern clothing item (Cinar, 2005, pp.77-78). The türban was described in a way that could be differentiated from the traditional headscarf, which did not cover all of the hair in the front and in the back, and the ear lobes. Cinar observes that, “By 1987, it was obvious that this rhetorical strategy had failed miserably. Even though the secularist media were now using the word türban to refer to the Islamic headscarf, the result was not the anticipated de-Islamization of the headscarf, but rather an Islamization of the word türban.”

(2005, p. 79).

Whether it was called a türban, başörtüsü (headscarf), çarşaf, or sıkmabaş, the headscarf had increasingly become visible in the public space by the end of the 1980s, generating belligerent, anti-Islamist responses from secularist groups. YÖK responded by passing another decree in which they stipulated that the türban had replaced the headscarf, and it became to symbolize the Islamist ideological orientations. “The new decree stated that students should wear ‘modern clothing’ at all times in universities and that the interpretation of what ‘modern clothing’ meant was for university administrations to decide” (Cinar, 2005, p. 81). Just after this decree, the head of YÖK explained that to

understand what ‘modern clothing meant’ one merely had to look at European clothes.

From that point forward, students were increasingly forbidden to enter universities with their headscarves (Cinar, 2005). However, female students refused to take off their headscarves, which became a form of resistance. In 1987, the number of demonstrations and protests grew (Cinar, 2005). Keyman (2003) argues that the resistance coming from the pro-Islamic female students was not against the object of secularization, which is the separation of state and religious affairs; rather, it was the resistance against the state control over Islamic identity and women’s bodies (Keyman 2003).

Foucault’s (1977) theory of technologies of power and governmentality informs my analysis of YÖK’s ban on the headscarf. Foucault discusses how power operates through

“governmentality” procedures to explore how bodies are regulated by state institutions and law. From this perspective, the regulations and bans on the headscarf become a technology that disciplines and administers the female body. In this regard, the pro-Islamic students’ contest was not against the principle of secularism; rather, it was against state

‘policing’ over their bodies. As my previous study with religious Muslim women wearing headscarves revealed, women were not protesting against secularism with the intention of bringing the Islamic regime to the country; rather they were protesting against the regulation as a violation of human rights and the regulation of their bodies by the state

(Ozcetin 2009). As my analysis in the following chapter will further demonstrate, they were also protesting against the power exercised over their bodies through state technology, which restricted their access to education and university campuses by labeling their bodies as ‘unfit’ and ‘inappropriate’.

With the emergence of the Islamist movement and its entrance into the political domain in the 1990s, the image of a woman wearing a türban was used as a symbol of

Islamist political parties, which was (and still is) perceived as an ‘Islamist threat’ to secularism and modernity (Cinar, 2005; Gole, 2000). The türban, which was invented by

YÖK to avoid political Islamic connotations, ironically turned into an Islamist symbol.

Moreover, in the mass media of the last two decades, there has appeared a differentiation between the headscarf and the türban: while the türban was defined as a political symbol by the proponents of the Sharia, the headscarf was defined as a traditional way of covering the head (but not all of one’s hair), which was mostly worn by rural women (Cinar, 2005;

Gole, 2000). As a result, in 1989 the Constitutional Court declared that YÖK’s decree, which had liberated the headscarf, was contradictory to the Articles 212, 2413, 17414 in the

Constitution, which defined the fundamental features of the Republic of Turkey and the secular nature of the “Form of State”.

The Constitutional Court repealed the decree, and, as a result of the increased visibility of Islamists in the political domain and in public life, the ban on the headscarf was

12 Article 2 in the Turkish Constitution reads : “The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law; bearing in mind the concepts of public peace, national solidarity and justice; respecting human rights; loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the Preamble.”, http://www.hri.org/docs/turkey/part_i.html#article_1 13 Article 24: “Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religious belief and conviction… No one shall be allowed to exploit or abuse religion or religious feelings, or things held sacred by religion, in any manner whatsoever, for the purpose of personal or political influence, or for even partially basing the fundamental, social, economic, political, and legal order of the state on religious tenets.” http://www.hri.org/docs/turkey/part_i.html#article_24 14 Article 174: “No provision of the Constitution shall be construed or interpreted as rendering unconstitutional the Reform Laws indicated below, which aim to raise Turkish society above the level of contemporary civilisation and to safeguard the secular character of the Republic, and which were in force on the date of the adoption by referendum of the Constitution of Turkey.” http://www.hri.org/docs/turkey/part_i.html#article_174

tightened in 1998. This ban was implemented after the 28 February military intervention15

- the so-called postmodern/soft coup that ended with the closure of the Welfare Party.

However, the intervention and the ban on the headscarf could not put an end either to the formation of new Islamist political parties nor the debate over the headscarf; on the contrary, it gave rise to an increase in the numbers of demonstrations and debates.

Overall, every decree and regulation on the headscarf reveals the secularist discourse of the state and its attempt to transform the female body into a socially/politically acceptable modern one. In cases of not meeting this dress code within a particular space

– namely university campuses –, the ‘unfit’ bodies were subject to disciplinary techniques by the university administration and faculty members (such, as being ridiculed in the class, asked to leave the class, being given official warnings) and could even be expelled from the university. That is to say, the gaze of the state on bodies at the university campuses functioned effectively in institutionalizing the norms of gendered modernity through administering punishment.

Since the foundation of the Republic, the state has been implementing legal regulations around dress as a form of surveillance. In the face of an Islamist threat to the secular order, the state enhanced its surveillance and issued decrees to ban the headscarf. Recently however, surveillance from the state has been changing as a result of a shift of power from secularist discourse to an Islamist one. The victory of the Islamist

15 The military intervened in politics on the 28th of February 1997. It was called a ‘Postmodern’ or ‘Soft’ Military Coup, when a column of tanks passed through Sincan in Ankara as a kind of a symbolic procession. [Mention that no one was killed so that one understands why it was soft / po-mo] (June, 6, 2006)

party Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi – AKP (Justice and Development Party) in the three national elections in 2002, 2007 and 201116 has proved that an Islamist discourse has moved beyond being a threat to the secularist state discourse to indeed becoming the new state discourse.

In 2008, the AKP and its government presented a proposal to amend the

Constitution in order to abolish the ban on the headscarf at the universities. However, after long discussions of the proposal in the assembly, the Supreme Court rejected the proposal on the basis of the secularist and laic features of the Turkish Republic of June 5, 2008.

The AKP managed to gain more power and control in and over YÖK, particularly with the support of the President of the Republic of Turkey, Abdullah Gül, who was one of the founders of AKP. In 2010, YÖK issued a memo lifting the ban at the universities. Three years later, the AKP government also lifted the over 70-year-old ban on the headscarf for public and civil servants. These changes not only reveal that conservative and religious norms that have been challenging secularist modern discourses have been inserted into the state policies administered by the AKP government; but also, that the surveillance mechanisms employed by the state have been altered.

Conclusion

The female body has been a significant site of contestation since the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923. In the Kemalist discourse of Turkey’s

16 In the national elections of 2002, AKP won around 34% percentage of the votes and stood alone in the government even though in the current national assembly at that time was composed of both AKP and CHP (People’s Republican Party). In 2007 elections, AKP won around the half of the votes (47%), and in 2011, it won 49% of the votes, and they have been standing in the government alone since 2007.

modernizing elites, the secluded and veiled female bodies of Muslim societies were conceived of as the signifier of the ‘inferiority’ of the East. In that context, the most direct way of displaying the modern face of the nation to the West was to unveil the female body and increase the visibility of women in the public sphere. In other words, Kemalist discourse adopted an orientalist view and targeted female bodies as a means to break with ‘backwardness’. In the context of such a dress code, adopting a European dress style was characterized as progressive. This attitude created an oppositional—uncivilized—

‘other’ (Gole 1997).

Kemalist discourse did not exclude Islam completely however, it maintained

Islam as a basis for its own moral codes; thus, it not only produced ‘modern gendered bodies’ through its secular institutions, but also through its moral codes. Kemalist discourse emphasized the modesty and virtue of women that resonated with the construction of sexuality in Islam. Therefore, this unveiled modern body was differentiated from that of European women, which had the potential for corruption and immorality.

Secularism as a disciplinary surveillance mechanism shaped and monitored female bodies in the public sphere. In Bartky’s terms (1988), even though women and men were subjected to secularism, in this specific context, secularism acted as a ‘disciplinary regime of femininity’, and it engendered a distinct form of the female ‘docile body,’ one that should be unveiled but moral. Although the Kemalist modernity project intended to abolish the control of Islam over women and women’s bodies, particularly by removing the headscarf, it also reasserted control over women’s bodies and sexuality by portraying the ‘ideal’

Turkish women. While early-Republican reforms were dramatic and important for women in terms of mobilizing them to become educated professionals and guaranteeing formal equality at the institutional level, Cinar (2008) agues that women did not have agency in

the construction of their identities. In fact, she argues their subjectivities and behaviours were defined by the national sexual discourse:

As women’s bodies became sites from which national identity was forged and displayed to the public, the secular state constructed itself as the political agent that is able to dress and undress women’s bodies, to regulate and control their presence and visibility in the public sphere, hereby establishing its own identity as secular, modern, and Westernized (Cinar, 2008, p.67).

Even though the new national modern image was imposed on women, Cinar’s

(2008) argument on their agency falls into the trap of a humanist enlightenment understanding of agency. Along the line of Mahmood’s argument, to comprehend the different modalities of agency, the concept of agency needs to go beyond the liberal model and expand itself to include not only operations of power that challenge and subvert the norms but also those that aim to reproduce and maintain the presence of the norms. In this context, I argue that the submission of women to the Kemalist discourse can be perceived as a model of agency. As Durakbasa’s (2001) study reveals, the early

Republican women enjoyed the Kemalist reforms and freedom given to them.

Consequently, they worked towards maintaining and preserving the Kemalist discourse that provided them with freedom and privileges as educated urban women.

The most prominent contest against Kemalist secularism eventually came in the

1990s with the re-emergence of Islam as a political force. In this contest, the female bodies became the site of conflict, where both the Islamist and secularist discourses compete to impose their sexual moral norms. In this respect, the issue of the headscarf became a particular point of conflict between the secularist Kemalist and Islamist circles. While the

Kemalist discourse had depicted the headscarf as a symbol of “backwardness”, the

Islamist discourse perceived Western dress style as decadent, and thus as a threat to

Muslim morality. One of the goals of my exploration in this chapter was to demonstrate the common ground that Islamist and secularist discourses share when it comes to the issue of sexual morality. Kemalism utilized it as a basis for the generation of its own moral codes, codes that labeled female sexuality as a threat to the social order. Instead of secluding and veiling women however, Kemalist discourse chose to constitute ‘asexual’ female bodies through dress. On the other hand, the Islamist discourse maintained the practice of veiling as a technique to impose its sexual norms on the female body. But it progressively included a gender equality discourse that encouraged women to become visible active participants in public spaces. In this chapter, I demonstrated how these political discourses constructed women and their bodies in relation to a sexual morality, one that imposed surveillance mechanisms on women. In the next chapter, I aim to reveal the ways in which these socio-political discourses on sexual morality produced ‘self- disciplined/docile bodies’ and how women fashioned their moral selves in that context.

Chapter 4. The Socio-Political Discourses of Sexual Morality: Disciplined Bodies

Introduction

In the previous chapter, I demonstrated the differences and similarities between

Kemalist and Islamist sexual morality discourses and how they impose control over female bodies through dress, based on secondary sources. I argued that even though these two discourses are portrayed as oppositional discourses, both interpret ahlaklı (moral) woman through a patriarchal sexual morality, which dictates that women hide their sexual bodies through modest dress. While in Islamist discourse, concealing the body through veiling is a symbol of an ahlaklı (moral) woman, in the Kemalist discourse wearing modern but modest clothing of the kind that transforms the female body into an “asexual” body is the sign of an ahlaklı woman. In the next chapter, based on the data I collected during my field research, I will explore how women experience their bodies in relation to the dress norms and the public gaze produced by Islamist and secularist discourses of sexual morality.

In the first part of this chapter, I will examine one of the emerging themes in this study, which is the concept of comfort together with a causal dress style. Rather than accepting at face value the idea that women prefer comfortable/casual clothes because they are physically at ease to move, I explain their choice in relation to the concept of sexual morality. The accounts of participants suggest that casual dress is not only preferred by women because they feel physically more comfortable; but also because dressing casually provides more space to move freely without deviating from sexual moral norms which require women to hide their sexual bodies. In addition to casual dress style,

I explore hanım hanımcık (“lady” or “ladylike”), which define women who conform and

follow sexual moral norms. The concept of hanım hanımcık dress style is significant in this analysis since it reveals how the proper ahlaklı woman is materialized though dress and how this construction of ahlaklı woman is shaping women’s experiences of their bodies.

Later, I explore another emerging concept, which is the hegemony of the beauty image captured by the participants’ narrative of their choices of dress. I will discuss the intersectionality of sexual morality with various normative systems, an intersectionality that tells women what to wear and what not to wear based on their age, body shape and their social role like being a mother. I particularly examine how the ‘appropriate’ feminine dress is defined through the overlapping discourses of beauty and sexual morality. In this context, I discuss how and why the discourse of beauty imposes different sexual disciplinary regimes through dress norms on different types of female bodies, such as young, mature, curved bodies, and the bodies of mothers. The narratives of participants on their experiences of their bodies reveal that while the hegemony of European beauty regime shapes their bodily experiences and choices of dress, it also suggests that the definition of beauty/aesthetic is not free of sexual moral norms.

In the second part of the chapter, I will discuss the politics of dress. While I will be showing that other powerful discourses, such as the leftist discourses of the 1960s and

1970s, were at play in disciplining women’s bodies and senses of self, I will mainly be focusing on two conflicting discourses; the secularist discourse and the Islamist discourse.

The participants’ narratives demonstrate that there has been an increase in cases of sexual harassment, which points to a rising conservatism of the sexual morality since the

AKP gained power in Turkish politics. Therefore, in the last section of this chapter, while analyzing the increasing dominance of the association of morality with the headscarf, I will explore the link between sexual assaults and sexual morality in relation to dress norms.

Choosing the Dress: The Emerging Themes

4.2.1. Casual Dress versus Hanım Hanımcık Dress

At the beginning of almost all the interviews, participants of this research mentioned that they dress comfortably at home and do not pay attention to what they are wearing. Just as bodies in public spaces are the subjects of the discourse of modernity, bodies in the private sphere are not the objects of the disciplinary public gaze.

Consequently, women feel free to choose their clothes at home without any social constraints, and they prefer comfortable and practical clothes in which they can move freely. Loose and sportive clothes are identified as comfortable clothes, which allow them to move without any bodily discomfort.

The only exceptional narrative came from women wearing headscarves. Even though they also mentioned that they prefer comfortable clothes at home, they also specified that they choose their attire according to their relation to people at home. If their bodies become subjected to the gaze of the men who do not belong to their immediate family, they conceal their bodies:

I do not wear the headscarf at home; I was not born with it [she smiles]. I choose to wear comfortable clothes at home, but of course, it depends on who is at home, I mean it depends on my relation to a man based on mahrem and namahrem. For example, if there is a man who is not mahrem to me, I would wear my headscarf and I will not be that comfortable around him.

Another participant who is also wearing the headscarf states:

I do not wear a headscarf at home with my family. Whenever I go out, I always wear a pardesü (long coat), but my clothes underneath the pardesü will differ according to the occasion. For example, my sister had henna night for her wedding, and there were only women at home, so I removed my headscarf and I even wore a mini skirt.

As I discussed in the theory chapter, mahrem literally means “privacy” and

“secrecy” (Gole, 1996, p.7) and as an Islamic term it determines the relationships between men and women based on the degree of consanguinity. Islamic discourse defines the female body as mahrem and where the female body is subjected to the gaze of male strangers, it needs to be concealed and made invisible to the namahrem (stranger who is not related to the woman). In this context, women wearing headscarves choose their attire according to their relation to men in private spaces.

In participants’ accounts about their dress choices when participating in urban public spaces, the concept of comfort is an emerging topic. Almost all of the participants emphasized the importance of comfort in their choices of clothes. They stated that they particularly prefer casual clothes (a combination of jeans and t-shirts or sweaters) in their everyday lives, mainly for reasons of comfort. This statement was sometimes followed by remarks such as “I do not care what people think or say” or “I wear whatever I want, no matter where” or “I always prioritize my comfort”. This discourse of comfort can be associated with a feminist counter-discourse, which challenges the sexual morality that imposes particular dress styles on female bodies on particular occasions. For instance, most of the young participants, except religious Muslim ones, claimed that they refused to dress formally for formal and/or official occasions, and chose to wear casual clothes to be comfortable despite social gender norms. In other words, they employed ‘comfortable clothes’ as a tool to challenge the ‘proper’ and ‘ideal’ feminine appearance and dress styles. While Deniz, a young feminist activist, talked about how she disregards the dress codes for formal occasions as a form of feminist resistance, Yagmur, who recently graduated from the university and is volunteering at a feminist organization, explained why she does not pay attention to what people say about her and prefers to dress comfortably:

There are some dress codes and expectations of me to follow these codes and being told how to dress is against my view, that’s why I do not follow these rules [...] I always dress comfortably in my daily life and I never change for people or the occasion because being comfortable is very important to me.

Yagmur also pointed out that she was warned a number of times at the meetings she attended due to her causal attire. Indeed, both secular and religious participants’ narratives suggested that they often avoid the casual style at particular occasions (such as formal and/or official occasions or at their workplaces) as causal dress style is not deemed appropriate or feminine. For instance, Meryem cited one occasion when she was warned by her boss for frequently wearing jeans and t-shirts, and was told to dress “like a woman.”

Even though casual dress is not often perceived appropriate, particularly at work, some participants who have more flexibility at work in terms of dress code stated that they chose to wear casual and comfortable clothes to focus on their responsibilities and/or jobs, instead of their clothes. Sibel, who works at a feminist NGO, states, “I prefer to dress casually because I do desk-work mostly. I want to be comfortable, I do not want to think about my dress, I want my mind at ease.” While wearing casual clothes is important because of feeling physically comfortable, for some it is important because of being able to move comfortably when they are working at their desks. When they wear short skirts or revealing clothes, they feel uncomfortable because their bodily movements are restricted.

They cannot spread their legs or sit comfortably without showing their legs (calves) or they have to be careful when they are wearing revealing shirts while they are working at their desks not to show their cleavage or when wearing low waist jeans, they have to be careful not to reveal their lower back. Sengul, a feminist academic, also articulates how the clothes she wears shapes her bodily movements:

Of course how you move is changing according to what you wear. I have to be more careful when I am wearing skirts. However, if I am wearing jeans, I am not paying attention... I prefer not to wear low-necked shirts because I do not feel comfortable. I can be sloppy when I am moving and the [low-necked] shirts can loosen up because their bottoms are lower down, so if I am wearing one, I am always careful.

Dress is a powerful tool which influences, guides, shapes the body of the wearer and affects its movements, its stance and its gestures. As Andrewes (2005) states, dress as a social practice shapes physical disposition of the body and moulds the body into the

‘appropriate’ shape and manner. Within sexual discourses, particular dress items carry different sexual moral values and norms, which require women to move their bodies in specific ways. For instance, this is what a young feminist activist answered when asked whether different dress styles change how she behaves:

When I attend a formal meeting – which rarely happens – I have a different formal relation and communication with those people in the meeting and of course my cothes also play a role in this. For instance, I always sit very comfortably on a chair, I mostly sit cross-legged [like a meditation cross- legged posture] on the chair, but if I wear a dress or a skirt, I cannot. These kinds of clothes make me feel like I have to sit and move ‘ladylike’ (hanım hanımcık).

The construction of the proper ‘ideal’ woman (“ladylike”) in the discourse of morality shapes women’s bodily disposition through dress norms. Even though the literal translation of the Turkish term hanım hanımcık is “lady” or “ladylike”, the Turkish term does not carry the Victorian meaning, which implies a class status. As the narratives of the subjects reflect, the term hanım hanımcık – “ladylike” – is used to define women who conform and follow sexual moral norms and appear feminine under the sexuality discourse. By this definition, the participants indeed differentiated the casual clothing from hanım hanımcık style. The hanım hanımcık woman must dress in a way that emphasizes her femininity while hiding her sexual body. In this context, not only is sexual difference

materialized through dress but it is also normalized through the construction of the proper

“ideal” woman (hanım hanımcık) by forming a physical disposition of the female body through dress. Dresses and skirts shape the female body in a way that will make the body embody certain female bodily gestures, postures and movements, such as sitting without spreading her legs (read: occupying less space). Thus, as I argued in the chapter on theory, dress becomes a tool of gender performativity, and bodies become gendered bodies through “stylized repetition of acts” (Butler 1990, p. 191), such as dress styles.

Dress contributes to the construction of a “cultural fiction” of the moral woman, and normalizes the particular manners and behaviours when she wears a particular type of dress.

Within this “cultural fiction” of the hanım hanımcık woman, particular styles of clothing mark the body to be recognized by the public gaze as ‘moral and respectable’ or

‘immoral and improper’. In other words, clothing gives a particular visibility to bodies and transforms them into ‘moral and respectable’ or ‘immoral’ female bodies. The participants defined “respectable” clothes as clean, non-sexy, loose clothes without décolleté, which veil the “sexuality”, but also inscribe the body as “feminine”. Dress norms are not detached from the operations of power and they play a significant role in policing the boundaries of sexual difference (feminine and masculine) and morality (moral and immoral) in Turkey.

A ‘ladylike’ image plays a central role in the struggle to be seen as an acceptable form of

‘woman’, which is feminine enough but unnoticeable/insignificant sexually.

Considering that the body is closely associated with women, dress is considered a matter of female concern for demonstrating her morality and femininity. Therefore, as

Tseëlon (1996) argues, dress regimes that act upon female bodies are more visible and rigid and women are more likely to be condemned morally for their dress choices on the

100

grounds of being immodest or sexually alluring (Tseëlon, 1996). As most of my participants also asserted, their bodily movements change according to the attire that they wear, particularly when they wear revealing shirts and short skirts which accentuate the sexual body:

Of course, when you are wearing a dress, skirt or décolleté, your bodily movements are changing. We actually begin to learn how to sit, stand and move at home when we are kids. You learn how to sit and not to show your arse and calf when you wear dresses, or skirts, and how to hide your breast when you are moving around.

A sexual moral discourse determines which parts of the bodies need to be concealed/hidden from the public gaze. Based on the narratives of the subjects of the study, I can easily argue that no matter which sexual discourse they refer to – either it is secularist or Islamist – legs, hips and breasts are the parts of female bodies that need to be concealed at all times. I argue that clothes give women a sense of comfort mainly because these bodily parts are disguised by the loose t-shirts and jeans/trousers which are not very tight around the hips and long skirts. This style allows them to challenge the sexual moral discourse, which constitutes them as hanım hanımcık. Even though this causal dress style disguises the female sexual body, and it does not challenge the sexual moral order completely, I claim that it reflects a ‘new’ woman’s agency. As I have discussed in the theory chapter, following the theories of Abu-Lughod (1990) and

Mahmood (2001), I do not equate agency with resistance. Drawing on Mahmood’s (2001) theory of agency, which deconstructs the binary of resistance/subordination, I also detach the notion of agency from the humanist “liberatory model of agency ”. In this context, even though casual dress does not resist the sexual moral discourse and continues to hide female sexual body, the way this norm is supposed to be lived and inhabited is subverted by this style. Instead of choosing “appropriate” feminine dress, which transforms their

101

bodies to less sexual bodies, the subjects preferred loose casual dress to appear asexual in public. Namely, while they did not subvert the norm of modesty and sexual morality, they subverted the way in which it is enacted.

4.2.2. Sexualized and Desexualized Bodies

The narratives of the participants suggested that the ‘appropriate’ feminine dress is defined through the intersectionality of two contradicting normative systems, sexual morality and beauty regime. Even though almost all of the participants emphasized that they do not judge a woman based on her appearance and they did not think much about how they appeared to others in public, their accounts nonetheless demonstrate the hegemony of the beauty image and how it defines what is an ‘appropriate’ dress for which female body.

The narrations of the subjects on how they choose to dress also reflect how they came to learn how to dress according to their body shape. I heard statements such as

“…since I gained a bit of weight recently…” or “When I was thinner…” “Since I am not a thin woman…” quite often when they were explaining how they decided what is a good fit for their bodies. The unhappiness with their bodies and how they tried to hide the “faulty” parts of their bodies through dress reflects the discomfort they have with their bodies based on the western female beauty ideal of slenderness. For instance, Ruya, who is working at a feminist NGO in Ankara, explained that she prefers not to wear dresses anymore for reasons of comfort but then she added:

You know what, it is in fact not just because of comfort, now that I have a belly, I always try to hide it under loose clothes. It has been for years that I have been wearing loose clothes, and now whenever I wear a tight shirt around my belly, I feel uncomfortable. After a while I think I internalized it, and now I think my body looks better under loose clothes.

102

Indeed, Ruya’s account on her discontent with her body echoes Barkty’s and

Bordo’s analysis on how women’s bodies are subjected to a Western ‘beauty regime’ that shapes the bodily experience of women. As discussed in the history chapter, the Kemalist discourse imposed by the European beauty ‘look’ of the slim body onto the ‘new’ and

‘modern’ Turkish women in the early years of the Republic. Participants’ attempts to cover the “faulty” parts of their bodies through loose clothes to look “better” suggest that

European beauty norms have been normalized and internalized by women in Turkey.

Moreover, the accounts of the participants also reveal that not only have modern urban secular women internalized the European norm of beauty but so have urban educated headscarved women. For instance, Neslihan, who is also an educated religious women’s activist, attended our meeting in a beautifully patterned long fashionable skirt with a nice fitted long-sleeved shirt, and she stated that she likes to dress up, and she puts effort into matching her dress with her headscarf. Another urban headscarved woman Ayse also explained how she also follows the European fashion and watches her weight and tries to wear clothes that would hide her belly.

When I asked them whether there is any dress style that they do not like or approve of, they mostly answered that they do not like women who wear tight clothes and short skirts and clothes that are not good fit for overweight bodies. They added, “of course it is my view and my aesthetic understanding”. Serpil, who is a professor in her late 50s in

Ankara, replied to the question by explaining why she does not like seeing tight clothes on women who are overweight:

For example, I do not like to see very fat friends in mini skirts but this is all about aesthetics and it is not like I am condemning them. But seeing them with tight décolleté shirts and in very short mini skirts disturbs me aesthetically. I think those bodies need to be hidden under loose clothes. You would see in the advice column in the newspapers saying if you are

103

fat, do not wear two pieces, do not wear very bright colors. If she does not follow these things then it would get my attention but of course you cannot go up to your friend and say you look fat in that dress.

One of the younger participants also pointed out that “people usually do not want to see a curved woman in short revealing dress because they would argue that it looks cheap (ucuz duruyor)”. When I asked her to explain what she means, she added that the presumption is that overweight women are not sexy and through wearing sexually alluring dress, overweight women would seek male attention, and she would more likely to be labeled as “immoral”. She adds that there is surely always a risk for a thin woman to be labelled as “available” if she reveals her sexual body “more than necessary (gereğinden fazla)”. Some other participants also made similar accounts about how some revealing short clothes seem unaesthetic to them or they do not like revealing clothes “screaming

‘look at me (bana bak diye bağıran)’”. For instance, Melike said, “The other day, I was sitting at a park, and I saw a young girl wearing a shirt with décolleté that shows most of her breast. I do not think that it looks good.” The accounts of the participants suggest that the definition of beauty/aesthetic is not free of sexual moral norms. Indeed, another participant, Sule’s explanations of feminine ‘proper’ beautiful dress style as neither very revealing nor very conservative highlights the relation between the normative system of beauty and sexual morality.

Ageing body was also one of the emerging topics related to the beauty regime, which played a role in shaping experiences of their bodies. For instance, Serpil also mentioned that she had been watching her weight as she aged and sometimes she goes on a diet. The narrative of the subjects of their discontent with their bodies as they grow older and their attempts to lose weight (going on a diet) indicate the disciplinary regime imposed on their bodies. Participants’ discontent with their aging bodies points to the

104

fashionable slender body of Westernized culture. Bartky examines “disciplinary regimes of femininity” that reproduce ‘feminine’ bodies in a certain size and shape (Bartky, 1988).

In this context, dieting and exercise as well as the selection of clothing and the application of cosmetics are the disciplines imposed on female bodies used to attain a fashionable slender body. Nehir, who is in her forties, mentioned that as she grew older, her body changed and now her body is not as thin as before. She stated that she sometimes goes on diet or exercise, and nowadays she prefers to wear loose clothes rather than the tight and short ones to “cover the faults of her body”. Her statement not only reflects the conceptualization of a self-disciplined body, but also demonstrates the alienation generated between women and their aging bodies.

Participants also noted that as they get older, their dressing styles have changed.

Sibel who is 35 years old pointed out that even though she still likes to wear bright color, it is very difficult to find the clothes for middle-aged women in various colors:

As you age, your body is changing and of course your dress style too. I am 35 years old and women my age and the women older than me mostly wear conservative and boring clothes. Clothes we wear are mostly dark blue, black or brown, boring styles. All the stores are selling the same clothes for middle-aged and older women.

Their narratives on “dressing according to age” and “dressing up like a mother” point to the de-sexualization of aging female bodies and the bodies of mothers. For instance, Nilufer, a mother of two children, told me that “I was dressing up more freely when I was younger, but as I aged and became a mother, my clothes became more conservative”. Considering that “society tends to connect notions of eroticism with sexual activity and reproduction” (Gonzolez 2007, p. 34) and the beauty discourse constitutes sexually appealing bodies as young slender bodies, it can be argued that aging bodies as

105

well as the bodies of mothers are not constituted as the objects of male desire. Therefore, instead of using dress as a way to enhance sexual attraction by revealing more skin, older women wear clothes that are more conservative to hide most of their bodies. It also needs to be noted that in the Kemalist modernity discourse, mothers are defined as the carriers of modernity and morality and the ones who would rear children with the necessary morality. In this context, virtuous modern Turkish mothers are expected to dress particularly modestly, as discussed in the previous chapter. For instance, Yasemin, feminist writer, pointed out that she was expected to dress up more conservatively when she became a mother, and because she did not follow this dress norm, she was judged by her husband’s family often. And she adds:

One day, my son came up to me after school and asked “mom, why do not you dress up like a mom?” [she smiles]. Well, he sees other mothers picking up their kids from school and he noticed the difference. They wear dull coloured more conservative clothes and that is what is expected from you. And there I was, wearing mini skirts, revealing shirts as a mom.

As discussed before mothers are seen as the carriers of the morality in the nation.

Therefore, their bodies become the site where the sexual morality norms are imposed more conservatively. Based on Butler’s argument, dress enables the repetitious production of gender in particular settings through regulatory conventions. By dressing up as mothers, sexually moral bodies are reproduced, renewed and consolidated through time. Through performance over time, women’s bodies become ‘cultural fictions’ of what is a ‘mother’. Within this ‘cultural fiction’ of the mother, particular styles of clothing

(conservative dull coloured clothing) mark the body to be recognized by the public.

106

The Politics of Dress

4.3.1. Dressed Bodies in the 1960s and 1970s

Foucault’s (1977) concepts of power and the body arise from his ideas of genealogical analysis. “Genealogy as an analysis of descent is thus situated within the articulation of the body and history. Its task is to expose a body totally imprinted by history and the process of histories’ destruction of the body” (Foucault, 1977, p.148). Bodies are thus sites of conflict, shaped by battling forces acting upon them, and history is articulated through the body. The body thereby becomes both the site of corporeal traces of historical conflicts, as well as serving to define its social context through its very articulation.

Along the line of Foucault’s theory of the body, participants’ narratives on their bodily experiences reveal how bodies are imprinted by the contesting discourses. Their accounts of their socialization and their choices of dress demonstrate how their bodies were formed and shaped by the discourses they were subjected to in their lives. Their stories about how their dress styles were shaped reveal the dominant discourses of their time, which shaped their bodily experiences. Even though the topic of dress and the female body has become the center of discussion in the conflict between secularist and

Islamist discourses in the last decades, clothing styles were also highly politicized before the rise of Islamist movements in the 1990s. As discussed in the previous chapter, a person’s political position in the left or in right political spectrum could be understood from how s/he dressed. While talking about these years, Nehir asserted that it was easy to categorize people politically based on their appearance, such as from the shape of their beard, moustache and the clothes they wore. For instance, a leftist person could be recognized with his/her “parka”. Meryem, who was actively involved in the leftist

107

movement in the 1970s, described her experience of being a young woman in the movement as:

My dress style was mainly shaped during my youth in the 1970s and those were good times to be young. Men and women were dressed the same with the same motivation. There was leftist fashion and we could wear trousers (pantolon) like men. Those were the years when girls began to wear trousers and boots… I spent my youth years thinking that girls should not be something boys like [sexualize]. In those times, we thought smart girls and women should not dress up and beautify themselves. That’s why I was not putting make-up on or dressing up chic.

As discussed in the history chapter, the leftist ideology was criticizing the sexualization of the female body along the line of capitalization, and women in the movement questioned the image of beauty. Moreover, in the leftist movement, as Rukiye mentioned, men and women were working together closely as comrades and their clothes were alike. As Muftuler-Bac (1999) and Cinar (2005) claims, the leftist ideology in Turkey, not unlike the Kemalist and Islamist discourses, stripped women of their sexuality. Baggy clothes and the parka disguised female sexuality like with Islamist dressing style, which also aims to hide the physical shape. Based on the interviews with women involved in the leftist movement in the 1970s, Berktay (1995) also asserts that women comrades were referred to as bacı (sister), which desexualized them. Berktay (1995) claims that due to the perception that female sexuality was a threat against the social moral order in both

Islamist and leftist discourses, both aimed at concealing the female sexual body through means of dressing in public.

The participants’ comparisons about dress styles in the 1960s and 1970s indicate the presence of conflicting sexual discourses at the time. Three of the participants who were young women in the 1970s noted that while during the time of leftist movements,

108

trousers, jeans and checkered shirts were the symbol of the leftist revolutionist identity, mini skirts and high heels were the signs of femininity:

[As a revolutionist] I was always wearing checkered shirts, jeans and a dark green coat – parka. I was wearing skirts - short skirts were very fashionable at the time – only when I was running away from the police, because short skirts were associated with being girly. Thus, when I did not want to be identified as a revolutionist, I wore skirts, and I am sure that every woman who was a member of a communist or revolutionist organization has a memory of this kind.

This participant’s experience implies a change in the construction of the femininity in the 1970s. Sancar (2012), who defines the years between late 1950s to 1970s as

“conservative modernism” due to women’s limited participation in politics and professional life, contends that women’s beauty and sexuality began to be unveiled and made public in social life, despite the asexualized ideal woman image in the early republican discourse.

In this “conservative modernist” discourse, the beauty and attractiveness of women was not to be hidden from the gaze of the public (particularly, male gaze); rather, it was to be displayed in the public, such as at beauty pageant contests (Sancar, 2012). The leftist discourse as a counter discourse questioned this objectification of female body and sexuality and consequently, women who were involved in the movement refused to wear make-up or tight and/or revealing clothes, which exposed their sexuality. For instance, while Meryem was actively involved in the leftist movement, she explains that as a revolutionist she thought that smart women did not wear makeup and adorn/beautify themselves. Serpil’s narrative also highlights the two conflicting discourses:

In the 60s and 70s, of course there was the leftist fashion, you know dark green parka, etc. But there was also the mini skirt fashion. In the 70s, I wore mini, midi and maxi skirts, they were quite fashionable.

109

Serpil’s experience not only demonstrates how female bodies became a site of conflict between the leftist and the modernist discourses, but it also evidently implies a change in the sexual morality. As mentioned above, Sancar (2012) claims that the women’s sexual bodies became to be more public than before. During this time period, even though women’s morality was not the point of judgment as Sancar (2012) argues, their sexuality was mainly constructed to be limited to the private sphere. That is, even though they were encouraged to display themselves as sexual beings in accord with

European beauty regimes in public, they were allowed to do so only to find ‘proper’ men to marry and to become ‘ideal’ wives and mothers (Sancar 2012). Sancar asserts that

“conservative modernist” discourse of the time left the women’s emancipation discourse and began to define women based on the duties and responsibilities of women in the family as wives and mothers. Despite the fact that women were still warned not to imitate the Western sexualized ‘immorality’, this “conservative modernist discourse” enabled women to reveal more skin in the public as long as it helped them to become mothers of the nation.

Until the 1980s, the leftist and the “conservative modernist discourse” were the visible conflicting two discourses in the socio-political sphere. Islamist discourse had not yet emerged as a strong alternative to the modernist discourse (as also discussed in the previous chapter), and Islamist women were not visible in urban public spaces as active political subjects. Therefore, my participants’ narratives on their bodily experiences revealed only two conflicting sexual moral discourses – conservative modern and leftist.

Their bodies were imprinted and shaped by those contesting norms of dress and morality in the 1960s and 1970s.

110

My participants’ accounts also point to the change in the political economy of the time and how it affected class structure. The participants, who were children, teenagers or young adults before the 1980s, stated that there were not many clothing stores around and their clothes were mainly tailored. The lack of a large textile industry meant clothing was expensive compared to today’s market. The apparel industry emerged in the 1970s as a result of the growth of the textile sector, and it became a crucial sector in Turkey as a result of the liberalization of the Turkish economy and export-oriented state policies in the 1980s (Gokariksel and Secor, 2010). Serpil, who was a teenager and a young woman during the 1960s and 1970s, mentioned that ready-made clothing was not readily available and tailoring was not very cheap; thus, lower class people were tailoring their own clothes rather than going to a tailor. In this context, clothes were also symbols of class status.

The development of the textile industry in 1980s and 1990s changed this class structure and the new expanded textile industry made fashion available and accessible to even lower-class families in the cities. My participants noted how this rapid change in the textile industry was followed with changes in sexual moral norms. Serpil, a young woman in the 1970s, explained the normalization of jeans culture in Turkey. She stated that even though jeans are now a part of our everyday lives, it was not the case in the 1970s:

It was around 1974 or 1975, my boyfriend was doing his Ph.D. in the U.S.A. and he brought me blue jeans from there. At that time, there was not any jean in the Turkish market; you could only get it from the black market. I was in graduate school at the university in Ankara, and one day I wore the jeans to school, and even a male professor verbally harassed me! It was the last time I wore jeans.

Prior to the heightened privatization and liberalization of the Turkish market in the

1980s, women wearing jeans, like Serpil, were considered ‘unrespectable’ and ‘immoral’.

As she also stated, jeans were new to Turkish culture in the 1970s. She told me that they

111

could only buy them abroad or in the bazaars selling smuggled goods. Her narrative, together with others, highlights the transformation of jeans from ‘indecent’ type of clothing to casual wear during the development of consumerist culture. The development of the textile industry not only gave rise to consumerist culture and increase in the dominance of

European fashion in Turkey, but it also changed the definition of ‘decent’ bodies in relation to dress and morality through normalizing the wearing of jeans.

Almost all participants who were young women in the 1960s and 1970s stated that they were “the lucky ones” compared to the later generation in terms of the freedom they had. The year 1980 is a milestone for socio-political structure of Turkey. As a consequence of the growing violent clashes of leftist and rightist movements, the Turkish military overthrew the government in 1980 and dissolved political parties, banning all politicians from politics for 10 years (Zurcher 2004). Military rule continued until 1983. The army replaced the more libertarian 1960 constitution with the 1982 Constitution, which assigned the military and institutions like the National Security Council and the Council of Higher

Education as the main guardians of secularism (Lombardi 1997). The post-1980 period was not only marked by the new Constitution, which restricts civil liberties and gives power to the military to be involved in civil affairs, but the era was also marked by the emergence of a counter-discourse –Islamism.

4.3.2. Moral Muslim Bodies

The Islamist discourse began to shape the lives of women in urban spaces during the 1980s when it gained visibility. The number of women wearing headscarves began to increase in the cities due to the religious liberalization of the state discourse, and during the early 1980s, the number of Imam Hatip Lisesi (Prayer Leader Schools) increased with

112

the change in the state’s discourse. Melek, who was raised in a religious conservative family in Ankara, describes how and when she began to wear the headscarf and reflects on the changes in the political arena, and the time when Islamist discourse was rising in the big urban cities:

My family was conservative; my father was retired from the directorate of religious affairs. I started wearing the headscarf when I was in my 4th grade, and in 80s, I started Imam Hatip Lisesi (Prayer Leaders and Preachers Schools)17 and I began to wear the pardösü [long loose coat] when I was 11 years old. I wear the headscarf because I believe in Islam and that’s why I prefer loose clothes, which veils my bodily contours. It was like that when I was a child and when I was a teenager.

As I discussed in the previous chapter, Islamic identities began to gain visibility in the urban socio-political life in the 1980s and 1990s (Cinar, 2005). This was the time when the Kemalist secularist and Islamist discourses began to be portrayed as binary oppositional in the socio-political scene. Indeed, the accounts of secular participants, who were young in the 1980s and 1990s, mirror the separation of “us” as the secular and/or non-religious families from “them” the religious families. For instance, while participants were articulating their dressing habits and experiences during childhood, they particularly stated that they came from secular/non-religious modern families, even though I had not asked them a particular question in regard to their families’ political or religious standpoint.

While talking about their dressing habits during their childhood and teenage years, some of them remarked that since their families were “modern” families, they did not constrain their dressing styles and exercise power over their choices of dress.

17Prayer Leaders and Preachers’ Schools are offering religious education and the main aim those schools are to train imams, but they were brought under the control of the state since the foundation of the Republic. To this day, Prayer Leader Schools remain under the control of the state.

113

The narrative I encountered implies a strong polarization between the secularist and Islamist discourses. Moreover, the secularist discourse appeared in opposition to an

‘oppressive’ Islamist discourse – “the other” – that was perceived as exercising power over women’s bodies. By specifying that their families were “modern”, my secular participants disassociated themselves from the conservative Islamists families – “the other” – who

“supposedly” forced their daughters to veil. For instance, when I asked Yasemin - who is a businesswomen and a writer – about her dressing habits in her childhood and youth, she says, “I was never forced to do anything or to wear the headscarf. My family was modern, I was raised free and I was also a rebellious kid and a teenager”. Her narrative assumes the binary opposition between modern families that raised their daughters free from constraints and religious and/or Islamist families that forced their daughters to wear the headscarves. In this regard, many of my secular participants basically deny the capacity for agency of women who wear headscarves.

However, the Kemalist secular discourse also imposes restrictions and controls on the female body in terms of dress and sexual moral norms, as discussed in the previous chapter. The modernization process in Turkey did not eliminate the preoccupation with modesty and honour (Parla 2001); rather, the Kemalist discourse attributed a new significance to honour and morality, which was gained through appearing ‘modern’ but also ‘modest’ in public space (Arat, 1997; Durakbaşa 1998; Atasoy 2009; Cinar 2005). For instance, Deniz’s narrative on her childhood reflects the secularist sexual moral discourse.

She stated that even though her father was a very secular ‘modern’ man, he specifically monitored the way she dressed rather than her brother’s ways of dressing:

I could not wear tank tops when I was a child, because I was not allowed. Of course it was because I was a girl. For example, until the end of elementary school, we [girls] were wearing leggings when we were playing

114

at the park. I was wearing the short ones and mom told me not to wear them anymore.

While Deniz thought that her father’s “modern secular” worldview was in contradiction with the way he treated her, the secularist discourse he embodied did not conflict with the control he imposed on his daughter’s body in terms of dress choices.

Even though the secular participants talked about the control mechanisms imposed on female bodies, only a few of them directly linked their experiences with the secularist morality discourse. There were only a few statements in the interviews that mentioned that the Kemalist discourse was not freeing women from patriarchal morality.

Most statements pointed out that there is an increasing oppression of women’s bodies today and some of them directly mentioned that this is the result of political Islam. As I also discuss in the next chapters, almost all of the interviewees were in support of the elimination of the ban on the headscarf at the universities on the basis of human rights.

They claimed that even though they see the headscarf as a tool of patriarchal oppression, they stated that the ban was a violation of women’s rights to education and work; hence, they were against the ban. They also added that because the ban takes away a woman’s right to education and work, it has the potential to reproduce an Islamist patriarchal system and women’s dependency on their fathers and husbands.

Some participants insisted on a differentiation between the türban and/or tesettür from the başörtüsü (headscarf). Some emphasized that the türban and/or tesettür only emerged in the late 1980s with the Islamist movement, that it carried a political meaning and signified the oppression of women. Therefore, while some participants are not against the başörtüsü, which they perceived as a traditional headscarf worn by grandmothers and villagers, they are against the tesettür and/or türban because it is a political Islamist

115

symbol. I need to note that even though these participants did not support the ban on the headscarf since it is seen as a violation of a human right, particularly headscarved women’s right to education, they did not support the tesettür or türban either, since they perceive it as an obstacle to women’s liberation. The tesettür is defined as the türban (a veil), which tightly covers the head and the neck accompanied by a loose long overcoat called pardesü. Participants also added that some Islamist women’s outfits are now more stylish and fashionable which they saw as conflicting with Islamic modesty:

Sometimes I see Islamist women wearing knee-long skirts together with the türban. I mean their legs are revealed in a very modern way but their heads together with their necks are covered. One day I saw a woman who covered her head in a very stylish beautiful way, and she was wearing very tight jeans with high heels.

Participant’s statement points to a change in the clothing style of Muslim women.

Like the participants of this study, many scholars (Navaro-Yashin 2002; Gokariksel 2012;

Gokariksel and Secor 2010; Saktanber and Corbacioglu 2010) also contend the Islamist outfit has become stylish and fashionable. As Gokariksel and Secor (2012) states, fashionable veiling styles have become popularized through advertisements, billboards and shop windows and have become desirable commodities for religious Muslim women.

There is also a discussion on whether these styles conflict with Islamic sexual morality.

According to Islamic modesty, if a woman participates in public life, her sexual, alluring body must not be subjected to the public gaze; her body needs to be concealed through the practice of veiling. Even though there is a debate about the way women cover their bodies, according to many Islamic scholars zinat, which is everything used to enhance or beautify one’s appearance, including make-up and decoration of the body, is not allowed for women (Afshar 1998; Hajjaji-Jarrah 2003). According to the Islamic morality discourse, the female body must not be adorned in a way that would draw the attention of strangers

116

who are not related to the woman, namahrem. Along the line of Islamist morality, Melek, in her forties, who always wears a pardesü with a large dull-coloured headscarf, also criticized Islamist women wearing their veils in a fashionable style:

If the woman is wearing tight or short revealing things, it is not important cause it is her personal choice. But if she is wearing a headscarf, she needs to follow the rules. It is not only short-sleeved t-shirts or short skirts or shirts with décolleté, she should not wear anything that will show the bodily form.

On the other hand, the other three participants who wear headscarves, young women in their twenties and early thirties, did not agree with this perception and described how they always try to match the color and the fabric of their headscarf with their outfit and accessories, such as their bags or shoes. For instance, Cemile, who completed her education abroad because of the ban on the headscarf at the universities, noted how much she liked to wear bright colourful stockings with colourful headscarves matching her outfit.

Ayse, a university educated housewife in her thirties, also emphasized that she likes to match her headscarf color with her accessories, like her bag, or with her clothes and she added that she tries to follow the fashion trends, and she excitedly talks about her favourite pieces of clothing in her closet and where and how she wears those clothes. While she was talking about her favourite leather coat, she began telling me how much other religious Muslim women at the university criticized her because of her fashionable style.

Women wearing long large headscarves with loose long pardesü criticized her because she was wearing knee-length skirts with leather coats and colourful silk headscarves.

Ayse’s dressing style was questioned by other Islamist women because it was not in line with the Islamic modesty norms.

The headscarved participants’ statements reflect that they conform to Islamic modesty to varying degrees in relation to the different Islamist discourses they embody.

117

While older women conform to a more strict Islamist discourse and dress in a way which would make their sexual bodies ‘invisible’ in the public, younger ones embody a more moderate Islamist discourse and they fashion a ‘modest modern Islamic self’ while covering their heads and bodies.

Along the line of Mahmood’s (2005) conceptualization of agency, I should note that

I do not claim that this new Islamic self of younger women is an attempt to resist Islamist sexual morality. I would rather argue that the multiple discursive systems that these women are subjected to need to be explored to comprehend their different modality of agency. Unlike the older generation of religious Muslim women, the younger generation is not only subjected to the Islamist sexual morality discourse, but also the Islamist consumerist culture, which emerged in the 1990s (as explained in Chapter III). While veiling fashion (tesettür modası) might be perceived as a discrepancy in Islamist sexual morality, it might also be seen as consistent with the beauty regime within the consumerist culture. I believe these younger women’s narratives show how these two normative systems – Islamist and consumerist – become entangled with each other. Their experiences point to the complex ways they engage with multiple normative systems of which require contradictory dress norms. While these women submit to the norms of Islam they believed in through covering their sexual bodies, they also submit to the norms of the beauty regime through adorning fashionable clothes. Thus, I argue that the way Islamic modesty is lived and inhabited has been altered by this emerging veiling-fashion. The headscarf is still perceived as a necessary element of sexual morality in Islamist discourses, but the way these ‘new’ urbanized Islamist women adorn the Islamic dress style reveals their different modalities of agencies.

Although these younger Islamic women alter the ways that morality is lived and

118

inhabited, the increasing dominance of Islamic morality is changing the sexual regime.

While almost all of the participants’ narratives indicated that society is becoming more conservative, some directly pointed that the reason for the rising conservatism of sexual norms in society is the current Islamist AKP government. Some of the participants asserted that due to the increasing power of the AKP government, the government’s

Islamist discourse is imposing Islamist moral norms onto the bodies of women.

Consequently, women who are not wearing headscarves are labeled ‘immoral’ and

‘sexually available women’. Some of the participants argue that the rising conservatism of the culture and society associated with the AKP and Islamist movements, as well as the

Islamic definition of moral woman as veiled, partly explained the increase in violence against women in the last decade.

Violence against Women: “Provocative” Dress

Dress codes and norms provide a framework of reference for determining the abstract processes of social control (Arthur, 1998). Dress serves as a daily discursive practice of gender situated within the flow of time and gendered dress practices “… are rooted in relational process that occur at the macrostructural level of history and nation and at the micro world of social interaction and lived experience.” (Huisman and

Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2005, 44). Even though choices of dress are regulated and monitored through formal state policies regarding the public and civil institutions of Turkey, they are also controlled through informal mechanisms, which determine what type of dressed body is acceptable morally. In this context, how dress codes and norms are held in check by the threat of punishment from society requires exploration. Foucault’s (1977) notions of how bodies are controlled through self-discipline and surveillance are relevant here too,

119

particularly when dress norms are considered within a context of sexual morality discourses.

The sexual morality discourse that can be seen through norms of dress imposes particular ways of being in public space. While the male gaze disciplines women through imposing the sexual moral norm; in the case of failing to follow the norms, it also judges and punishes women. One of the participants in her late thirties stated:

When I was at the university, I remember that I was harassed almost every day for a while […] I noticed that especially during spring and summer, whenever I wore tank tops and mini skirts or shorts, I was harassed more. When I say I was harassed, it was not necessarily physically. They were just staring, but it is still harassment.

Secular participants’ sexual harassment stories point to a particular type of clothing style defined as “provocative” and “sexually alluring”. Almost all of these participants noted that when they wear short skirts, décolleté and high heels, they are categorized as “sluts” or

“loose women” [read: ahlaksız (immoral)] who are sexually promiscuous. As Demet, in her late twenties, noted:

For instance, if you wear a shirt with décolleté, men would stare at your boobs, and they would harass you verbally. What is more is that when you wear short skirts and shirts with décolleté, you are labeled as ‘available woman’, a woman to sleep with rather than wife material.

The differentiation between a “woman to marry” and a “woman to sleep with” came up several times particularly in the interviews with women. This differentiation demonstrates how dress is used to draw the boundary between ahlaklı (moral) and ahlaksız (immoral) women in the discourse of sexuality. This identification of women as ahlaklı or ahlaksız through dress not only forces them to internalize the moral values and discipline their

120

bodies accordingly, but also justifies the sexual harassment of the ahlaksız women by labeling this particular type of dressing style as consent for sexual advances.

This identification of women as ahlaksız is utilized to produce self-controlled bodies. The accounts of participants, like Demet, suggests that women discipline themselves to avoid wearing revealing clothes in order to avoid becoming a target of sexual harassment:

If I am going out, especially at night, I do not wear short skirts in Ankara because I am tired of dealing with men and their gaze. In the past, I was wearing short skirts but men always say something or you feel their gaze on your legs. I do not dress up very conservatively but I try not to wear revealing shirts or short skirts, particularly if I am going to come home late.

If women do not discipline themselves according to the dress norms, sexual violence is another disciplinary technique to turn them into ‘docile bodies.’ In cases of sexual assault and/or rape, the link between discourses of morality and the way women dress and display their body becomes explicit. In most cases, it is women who are morally condemned for dressing up immodestly and/or seductively (Entwistle, 1997). In this respect, some of the participants stated that even though they are not interested in their appearance or what people would think/say about them, they follow the dress norms of public spaces to avoid social threats, such as the gaze, or sexual harassment.

As mentioned above, some participants argued that due to the association of morality with the headscarf, women who are not wearing one have been harassed more often since the heightening of the Islamist discourse in Turkey. While some of the participants claimed that the headscarf would not prevent sexual harassment, some claimed that veiled women are harassed less comparably due to the labeling of unveiled women as immoral (read: sexually available). Indeed, one of the participants wearing a headscarf claimed that in Islam, one of the functions of the headscarf is to protect women

121

from harassment. Islam constructs female sexuality as powerful and this powerful sexuality has the potential to cause fitne (disorder), which can lead a man to commit wrongful deeds (Mernissi 1987). Therefore, to maintain public moral order as well as to protect women, women are required to veil their sexuality in public.

Women are not only accused of dressing immorally but also blamed for men’s behaviour or “wrongful deeds”. If a man follows his sexual temptation, it is considered a woman’s fault for having dressed provocatively. “In this way, dress is used discursively to construct the woman as ‘asking for it’” (Entwistle 1996, p. 22) and to construct men as the ones who are not in control of their sexual desire. When I consider the dominant discourses in Turkey, I argue that this premise is dominant in both Islamist and secularist discourses. Even though this Islamist sexual morality was quite often repeated and criticized by the participants, only a few pointed out that the secularist discourse carries the same sexual moral norms. Only two of the participants indicated that in Article 29 of the Turkish Penal Code, particularly in cases of sexual violence, judges can reduce the sentencing in accordance with the idea of “unjust provocations” (Ilkkaracan, 2008).

According to Article 29, dressing up in a “sexually alluring” manner can be interpreted as provoking assault. Under the scope of this Article, “provocative” and/or “sexually alluring” clothing can be interpreted as “consent” which could cause a reduction in the sentencing.

Moreover, three participants brought up Article 225 of Turkish Penal Code in their discussion of the Gülcan Köse case on the regulation of dress by the state. On June 12,

2008, Gülcan Köse was taken into custody because she was dressed “inappropriately” while she was fishing on the Galata Bridge in Istanbul. She was sentenced to 5 months of

122

prison time for violating Article 225 of Turkish Penal Code (Gulbahar 2008). Article 22518 states that “Any person who openly enters in sexual intercourse or exposes one’s self is punished with imprisonment from six months to one year.” The article also prohibits

“impudent/indecent (hayasız) manners” (Gulbahar 2008). In this particular lawsuit, Ms.

Köse’s leggings and long t-shirt were labeled as “impudent/indecent”. While this Article reflects the sexual moral norms of the foundational discourse of the Republic, which shaped the Turkish Penal Code, my participants noted that this Article began to be used more frequently against women since the AKP came to power. Even though I failed to find any statistic related to this statement, the accounts of the participants indicate that they felt the law was increasingly being used by the AKP government as a mechanism of surveillance to regulate women’s bodies according to sexual moral norms.

Conclusion

The association of the body with women has been the reason why discourses on dress have predominantly targeted women and their bodies. Understanding why women dress the way they do requires an analysis of sexual moral discourses. In Turkey, it is evident that the debate on dress norms is only focusing on religious Muslim women and their headscarves and excluding the various forms of dress in relation to sexual morality.

As I endeavour to demonstrate in my analysis in this chapter, sexual moral norms have been shaping and disciplining the bodies of all women since the foundation of the Republic and it is not only an issue for Muslim women wearing headscarves.

18http://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/tur/2004/criminal_code_law_no__5237_html/Turkey_Cri minal_Code_Law_No._5237_2004.pdf

123

The specific political discursive regimes that participants referenced as the most significant players in the identification of ahlaklı (moral) and ahlaksız (immoral) women were those associated with modernism and Islam. The increasing tension between these two competing political discourses evidently manifested in conflicts over the headscarf and the visibility of Muslim female bodies in public spaces. Even though both secularist and Islamist discourses aim to hide female sexual bodies through dress in public space, the increasing acceptance of the association of the headscarf with morality, which labels unveiled women as ahlaksız, has created a concern for women who are not veiled. This concern becomes more evident with the presence of female bodies on the street at night and in particular neighbourhoods populated with Islamist people.

Women and men experience public spaces differently and the dress norms imposed on female bodies determine how female bodies can exist in certain spaces.

Exploration of the construction of ahlaklı women in the public space is crucial to understanding women’s agency. Particularly in Turkey, dress codes have been setting the tone of what is “acceptable and respectable” and “unacceptable and unrespectable” for female bodies in public institutions. Moreover, the definition of what an ‘acceptable’ body is has been changing with the increasing dominance of an Islamist discourse in

Turkey. Thus, in the next chapter, while I explore how the moral boundary between respectable and an unrespectable woman is defined through spatial gendered norms. I will also explore the shift in those definitions due to the power shift from the secularist discourse to the Islamist one.

124

Chapter 5. Space, Dress and Sexual Morality

Introduction

As Spain (1992, p.30) claims, “[t]hroughout history and across cultures, architectural and geographic spatial arrangements have reinforced status differences between women and men” and the seclusion of women has reduced women’s access to knowledge for centuries. With the foundation of the Republic of Turkey, women gained their right to enter public spaces from which they were previously excluded. However, public spaces are not open to any female body to occupy undisputedly. In this chapter, I will examine my participants’ experiences of public places. In the analysis of the relationship between space and female body, I consider public spaces as the ones where women’s bodies are subjected to public gaze. Their narratives reveal that while women are free to exist in public spaces, their behaviour and how they dress are determined by a spatial sexual morality that limits their movements.

Most of the participants I interviewed for this study stated that they dress up according to “the space or the occasion” (yerine gore giyinmek)”. Their narratives on their choice of dress based on space demonstrate the strong link between the female body and dress, and how spaces are gendered based on sexual moral norms. In other words, participants’ accounts reveal how women should cover their bodies in particular spaces to be deemed as ‘acceptable’ and ‘moral’. Therefore, in this chapter, I aim to examine how the boundary between the ‘moral/proper’ and ‘immoral/improper’ woman is defined through gendered norms of space. Through an analysis of the narratives of the research subjects, I will also show how socio-political discourse shapes the ways in which the female body can be identified as ‘moral’ and respectable in certain spaces.

125

Even though a wide variety of spaces and occasions came up during the interviews such as weddings, dating, art events, beach, etc., I will focus only on those spaces that were most frequently mentioned, such as public transportation, mahalle (neighbourhood), university campuses, and workplaces. These are crucial spaces to consider since the visibility of women in these spaces has not been unquestioned. First, I will focus on public transportation, particularly buses. Public transportation is very important for women’s mobility in urban centers such as Ankara and Istanbul. Women’s discomfort on public transportation limits their mobility in and to public spaces. Examining women’s mobility in public spaces points to spatial moral norms, which construct sexuality in relation to space.

While I am exploring public transportation and how women experience buses, minibuses and ferries, I also focus on the strategies that women have developed to deal with the public gaze when they move from space to space. Secondly, based on the participants’ narratives, I compare how women experience rural spaces and various mahalle

(neighbourhood) in the cities, and how and why they change their dress styles and appearances in rural areas and in particular mahalle. Some of the participants argued that society is becoming more conservative due to the change in the dominant political discourse from a secularist to a more Islamic one, and the effects of the change can be seen from their experiences in mahalle and the city centers.

While the examination of the experiences of women in mahalles and public transportation will reflect how women’s bodies are subjected to the public gaze, which disciplines and punishes women if they transgress sexual morality, the examination of state regulations on university campuses and on government premises will reveal how women’s bodies are targeted by state surveillance and how these forms of state-gaze have shaped women’s experiences of these spaces. Hence, in the rest of the chapter, I

126

will focus on the experiences of women in university campuses and the workplace. I will explore how the ban on the headscarf aimed at regulating veiled bodies on campus produced distinct modes of embodiment. Later, I will pay particular attention to the experiences of women in the workplace, a space that acts as a technology of power to produce a ‘docile body.’ I will also explore how women utilize dress as a strategy to manage the male gaze and gender regime imposed by the patriarchal structure of public space.

Women’s Mobility in Public Spaces

The narratives of the participants clearly revealed that of all the spaces women can occupy, public transportation in Istanbul and Ankara is one of the spaces where they felt most unwelcomed and unsafe. Most of the participants stated that how they chose their dress was determined by whether they would be driving or taking a bus or a taxi.

Particularly in the urban areas, public transportation is very important for women’s mobility.

Demet, a young academic working at a university in Ankara, stated that if she takes the bus to the university, she is more careful with what she wears than if she takes a taxi:

For instance, I love wearing tank tops with décolleté. I do not like wearing skirts, I prefer skinny jeans and I love crop tops and t-shirts with back décolleté. Indeed, I want to dress up like this but when I am leaving the house, I think about whether I will be taking the bus to school or not.

The unwelcoming feature of public transportation limits the freedom of women in

Turkish cities. The narratives of the participants described how public transportation is a gendered space that is accepting of women’s presence when they conceal their sexuality.

The bodies that are not properly covered deviate from hegemonic spatial norms and are thus subjected to the public gaze, a gaze that judges women on the basis of sexual

127

morality. The participants particularly noted that as a result of the gaze they are subjected to, they prefer to take a shawl or a jacket on public transportation. Also they prefer to stand up instead of sitting down if they are wearing short skirts on a bus. Sengul, who is a professor at a public university in Ankara, pointed out that she is not only bothered by men’s gaze but also women’s gaze on the bus and she added that if she wears a short skirt, she always tries to conceal her legs with books or with her bag even if she is sitting next to a woman. On the other hand, Derin, a young academic doing her graduate studies in Ankara, stated that she is mostly bothered by men’s gaze on the bus, and that’s why she prefers to sit next to a woman:

If I am wearing revealing clothes that could get attention from other people on the bus, I prefer to stand up instead of sitting down. Or I might sit next to a woman rather than a man to feel more comfortable and to avoid the gaze.

As Longhurts (2008) asserts, body and gender play a significant role in the ways in which people experience space. The experiences of my research subjects demonstrate that the disciplinary power of the public gaze on female bodies produces self-controlled bodies on public transportation. Their statements not only reveal the force of the male gaze on public transportation, but also show how women develop strategies to manage the gaze. If they wear revealing clothes, they cover their shoulders with a shawl or put their bags or books on their laps or they prefer to stand up instead of sitting. The subjects’ experiences with public transportation show they develop tools to assert their desire and right to wear what they feel like, even if their clothes reveal their sexuality. Yet, their effort to alter their dress style to preserve a degree of modesty shows their subjection to the dominant sexual morality.

128

Participants also stated that it is not only on public transportation that they need to be careful with what they wear. As soon as they step outside of their home they have to be more careful with their clothing and manners than men. Meryem, who is a feminist writer and an activist in her late thirties, stated that women laughing loudly in public spaces is condemned and stared at. She explains: “Especially, when a woman sitting cross- legged wearing a short skirt, and if she is also laughing loudly in a public space, then she will for sure be labeled as a slut”. Like Meryem, other participants emphasized the existence of more restrictions on women’s behaviour and their public appearance than for men. They agreed that when women violate the norms of space, they fall into the danger of being condemned and labeled as ‘immoral’.

The participants’ claims that women are pressured to appear and behave in a moral manner were supported with the statement of Bülent Arınç, The Incumbent Deputy of Prime Minister of Turkey. On July 28, 2014, while complaining about the moral corruption in Turkey, Mr. Arınç said, “Woman should be modest/chaste. She needs to know what is mahrem and namahrem. She should not laugh loudly in front of everyone.

She should not be inviting/alluring in her manners and should protect her chastity.” (Bulent

Arinc, 2011; Turkish Deputy Prime Minister, 2011). He lamented that people today had abandoned their values and claimed they needed to rediscover the Quran for society to become moral again (Bulent Aric, 2011). Arınç’s statement demonstrates the gendered nature of public spaces in Turkey and reveals that the new Islamist discourse, which emerged in the 1990s, maintains the same sexual discourse in which women’s bodies continue to draw the boundary between mahrem and namahrem. In this context, a woman who occupies the public space without concealing her sexual body is labeled ‘immoral’, while the one who veils her body and makes her sexual body invisible to the public gaze

129

is ‘moral’. As a response to Arınç’s statement, women from all over Turkey and internationally (for instance the English actor and activist Emma Watson shared a photo of herself laughing on Twitter) shared their laughing photos on social media to protest the sexual morality discourse that continues to constrain women’s experience of public spaces.

Rural Spaces and Mahalle (Neighbourhood)

When I asked participants in which locations and on which occasions they usually change their dress style, they answered that if they were going to a rural area they would dress according to the traditional dress norms of the rural town or the village. When I asked particularly what they would prefer to wear in rural areas, they stated that they would dress more conservatively and avoid wearing sleeveless, tight and short clothes. The regional differences in socio-economic conditions continue to exist between Eastern and

Western Turkey. While the West was urbanized throughout the Republican years, most of the population in the East continues to live in more impoverished rural conditions

(Ilkkaracan 1998). As I previously discussed in the history chapter, the early Republican period which was marked by Kemalist reforms to modernize the lives of citizens did alter the lives of urban women. Rural women, however, remained unaffected by these reforms.

After the early Republican period, the lives of citizens in the rural regions were changed mainly through the state’s attempt to industrialize the region. The traditional sexual moral norms largely remained intact. Ilkkaracan (1998), who conducted a study on sexuality in the Eastern regions of Turkey, argues that current existing tribal social structures together with religious and customary practices continue to produce social control over women’s sexuality. Due to the dominance of customary practices in the East and Anatolian villages,

130

some participants noted that they would be careful to dress according to the customs if they visited these villages. Some claimed that if they did not dress like a local when they visited rural towns or villages, they would certainly not wear revealing clothes. Participants who altered their dress style while visiting rural regions stated that they would do so to show their respect for the customs of the village and/or to avoid the public gaze. Muge, who is a documentary filmmaker in her late thirties and often goes to rural areas in Anatolia for movie or documentary shooting, indicated that she usually changes her clothing style in rural regions:

I like to wear tank tops in summers. I mean this is my style. However, if I am going to Anatolia for a movie shoot, I immediately change my clothes or I wear something else, such as a jacket or a shawl, on top of the tank top. I try to fit in when I go there. It is showing respect but also I try to fit in not to get attention, so I feel more comfortable. I try to avoid the gaze in this way. For instance, I was in one of the towns of Erzurum [a city in Eastern Turkey] for a movie shoot for two months, and during those two months, I wore long sleeves shirts and long loose clothes.

The participants’ narratives revealed that dressing like a local is a sign of respect.

Challenging the dress norms of the regions would be disrespectful while they are visiting the region. In other words, they present a different form of agency in rural regions by conforming to the norms of the space to gain the respect of the locals. Moreover, they often follow the norms of dress in that specific space to blend in and not to stand out in the crowd. Based on their experiences, some participants further explained that women are not very visible in public spaces in rural areas. As urban women, they are already different – ‘outsiders’ – on the streets of small villages where women are associated with the private sphere. Hence, as women, they prefer to dress according to the customary norms of dress of rural areas not to draw attention. In other words, they opt to be ‘invisible’ in that space. Failing to follow the dress code would make them ‘visible’, an ‘outsider,’ and as a result they would become vulnerable to social condemnation. For instance, Yagmur,

131

a young woman in her early twenties, refused to dress according to the tradition of the space she was visiting. She told me that during her trip to a rural Anatolian town she was subjected to the gaze due to her “indecent” clothing. Sengul, in her early forties, also told me her experience in Urfa – which is a southeastern city known to be conservative – where she was invited as a lecturer:

I was invited as lecturer to give a speech on women and politics in Urfa. I am usually carefully about what I am wearing in these kinds of meetings in Anatolia but I do not know why but I decided to wear a short skirt. It was one of my favourite skirts with a unique style and it was not actually very short. Somebody from the audience asked me a question and I somehow began to talk about how women and men experience public transportation differently. And one of our feminist activist friends, who was also a speaker, said to me that ‘for example, you cannot take a bus like this – she was referring to my clothes –, you have to be careful about what you are wearing!’ At that moment, I felt completely naked and uncomfortable. I do not think that she had bad intentions in saying this to me. I guess I got so much attention because of my clothes in that meeting.

Rural spaces in Turkey are still shaped by traditional gender notions that identify women with the private sphere. Due to a very conservative sexual morality, public spaces in rural regions are not very welcoming of female bodies. In cases where female bodies are visible in public, their bodies need to be hidden from the public gaze through the means of loose and long clothing.

Participants also stated that they have to pay more attention to what they wear when they are visiting different mahalles (neighbourhoods). Mills (2007) defines mahalle as “… the Turkish cultural space of closeness and familiarity produced through practices of neighbouring that create bonds of ‘knowing’ (tanımak)” (p. 349). Mahalle is the space for the community, a space that creates a sense of belongingness for its residents; in other words, it carries the collectivistic feature of society in its traditional cultural form (Mills,

2007). It is a familiar space for residents, one that makes people’s private lives known to

132

others. In other words, in traditional neighbourhoods, residents not only know each other but also know each other’s lives. Mahalle life was more gendered in the past in urban neighbourhoods when traditional gender roles placed women into the private sphere

(Mills, 2007). Even though women’s roles have been changing in urban life as a result of the increasing participation of women in the labour market, the participants’ narratives reveal that mahalle lives remain intact and transcend the privacy of the individual. Because the traditional mahalle is more collectivist than individualistic, the morality of one person extends to the community. Particularly because women are seen as the carriers of morality in the nationalist discourse, as was discussed in the history chapter, women’s bodies are the sites where the community’s moral values are imposed. Therefore, women experience various social controls in their everyday lives in the mahalle:

I like wearing short skirts and shirts with décolleté but I walk to work from home every day. I am not driving and my home is very close to work. Every morning, I pass by our mahalle grocery store, florist, convenient store, etc., and men are staring at me if I wear revealing clothes, that’s why I always try to cover myself with a shawl or a jacket […] I have been living in the same mahalle for seven years, and I live alone and people know me. Thus, I try to dress up ‘decently’.

Like Sibel, other participants mentioned that because of the public gaze they feel on their bodies in some mahalle, they avoid wearing revealing clothes. The public gaze in mahalle functions as a control mechanism, which disciplines female bodies according to the sexual morality discourse. In other words, the public gaze aims at producing docile bodies that hide their sexualities.

Participants’ narratives revealed that particularly in mahalle inhabited mostly by conservative and/or religious people, women feel a more intense gaze on their bodies, a gaze that makes them feel uncomfortable. A few participants equated conservative

133

mahalle with spaces that are shaped by Islamic values and inhabited solely by veiled women. Other participants did not equate conservative mahalles with religion. They defined mahalles as places where women are not seen on the streets because of the dominance of the traditional division of labour. Participants understood that short skirts and revealing clothes do not belong in the space of mahalle. Esin, a professor at the university, who conducted research with women in a mahalle in Tuzlacayir (Mamak,

Akara) explains:

I was careful with what I was wearing there because it is a shantytown mostly inhabited by Alevis. Their conservatism is not like Sunnis, they do not veil. But they do not wear miniskirts, and I did not either.

People in Tuzluçayır are not Sunni religious people, but they are conservative in their sexual norms. Therefore, to blend into the neighbourhood and not to stand out as an outsider, Esin conformed to the sexual moral norms, which shaped the mahalle culture.

Esin, like other participants, also stated that she feels uncomfortable in Ulus (a mahalle located in the center of the old downtown of Ankara) and Kızılay (current downtown of

Ankara). Even though Esin alters her dress depending on the neighbourhood she visits, one day she went to Ulus in a sleeveless long dress and she felt very uncomfortable because of the gaze she attracted. As a result of her discomfort, she went back home and changed her clothes before returning to Ulus. Demet, who had a similar experience in

Kızılay, seems to think that harassment has increased over the years: “it was not like this in the past. We were not getting harassed or stared at this much in Kızılay”. Another woman I spoke to, a young feminist activist working at an NGO in Ankara, also claimed that Turkish society has become more conservative and restrictive in their clothing choices:

134

I think society is more conservative today, but I do not know the reason. Now, it is quite possible to get harassed in Kızılay; however, when I was at secondary school, Kızılay was a cultural meeting space [….] Sometimes I look at my mother’s youth photos and she was wearing short skirts in the 1970s but now I cannot wear those short skirts in Kızılay.

Even though some of participants from Istanbul insisted that women could wear whatever they want without restriction in Taksim (downtown of Istanbul), they also accepted that harassment has become part of women’s lives. The general consensus among the participants is that society has become more conservative in terms of notions of gender and sexuality in the last decade. While some did not provide any explanation for the increasing conservatism, some linked this change to the rise of Islamist discourse and the AKP governments. Pointing to the conservatism of the incumbent Prime Minister and to current President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s public statements on women and gender equality, – such as “there is no gender equality” and “every woman should have at least three children”, they insisted that the AKP’s Islamist discourse has altered the sexuality discourse which has made public spaces less welcoming of female bodies. Their claim is that with the rise of the Islamist discourse, public spaces like mahalles as well as the city centers have been re-shaped to include the presence of ‘moral women.’ A moral woman is no longer a secular asexual woman, but a veiled woman.

When discussing the rise of the Islamist discourse, my participants often brought up the headscarf ban on campuses. It is to this ban and the changes associated with it that I now turn to.

The Veiled Bodies on Campuses

As discussed in previous chapters, secularism has been one of the core norms of

135

the modernity discourse of the Turkish nation since the foundation of the Republic. The early Republican secularist discourse is very similar to the gender discourse of European colonialism discussed by Nagel (2005). In a sense, both discourses regarded Islamic culture as inferior and perceived Islam as the principle reason for the oppression of women. Ahmed (1992) asserts that veiling was the most significant marker of the inferiority of Muslim society in colonial discourse, and that it became a method to attack Muslim societies. Nagel (2005) states that the European colonialist discourse is one where “… the emancipation and revival of Muslim societies required the transformation of women’s roles in society through education, legislative reform, and, perhaps more symbolically, the abolition of the veil” (p.2). This same orientalist view of the headscarf/veil and Islam has been present in Turkey because of the adoption of the secularist discourse of modernity, and as a result, veiled female bodies on campuses have become the symbol of the challenge against secularism and modernity.

Even though Islamist and secularist discourses are not binary oppositional discourses in the context of sexual morality, as discussed in the previous chapters, when the debates on the headscarf on university campuses are considered however, they appear as opposing discourses fighting over the appearance of female bodies on campuses. As discussed earlier, secularism and Islamism in Turkey share a similar view of sexual morality, one that necessitates concealing female sexuality through dress. Both discourses have made use of the female body as an important site of contestation in the public sphere. Secularist and Islamist values and norms are made visible in public spaces by inscribing them on female bodies. One could argue that the headscarf has become a heated debate in Turkey mainly because it is women who wear it. As mentioned before, with Atatürk the state saw education as an important tool to secularize its subjects. It is

136

believed that as a result of education and development, women would internalize the new image of the secular Turkish woman, and eventually the headscarf would disappear from public space (Saktanber&Corbacioglu 2008). Therefore, the increasing visibility of veiled students on campuses in the 1990s was a significant challenge to the state discourse. The debate that occurred was not simply about what women were wearing at universities.

Women’s attire became a flashpoint in wider debates about the striking challenge coming from the waxing Islamist discourse against the secularist discourse in the socio-political arena. As discussed in the history chapter, the ban on the headscarf in universities was implemented in 1987 and was tightened in 1997 after the 28 February military intervention, the so-called postmodern or soft coup. The narratives of the participants who attended university after 1997 with their headscarves suggest the presence of secularist surveillance on veiled female bodies on campuses.

While participants who did not wear headscarves stated that they felt comfortable with whatever they wore on university campuses, the veiled participants who attended university around the time of the 1997 coup, or after 1997, expressed the problems they faced on campuses. One of the veiled participants, who finished her bachelor’s degree just before the coup, explained that it took her eight years to finish a four-year degree program because of the ban:

In general, I was going to school with my headscarf and that’s why I was punished several times. Once I was almost expelled, and had to unveil in a couple of professors’ classes. Even then, I did not take off my headscarf when I entered the campus; they were letting us enter the campus at the time. However, I was taking it off when the professors came to the classroom. We were a bit luckier since it was before February 28th. We had the luxury to argue with the professors but now the students do not have that luxury since 1997.

As Cinar (2005) argues, “clothing marks bodies so as to allow for public recognition” (p.55)

137

and “… inscribes bodies with gender, class, status, ethnicity, race, religion, and age.”

(p.55). On university campuses, the national discourse of the state used attire as a tool to determine and label female bodies as “modern” or “Islamist”. The exclusion of headscarved women from universities, clearly show that the female body was once again a site where modern secular values could be inscribed. Thus the secular modern attire of women has been very significant for the secularist state discourse since it became the modern face of the Turkish Republic.

Foucault’s insights into the ways in which bodies are shaped and disciplined in and through discourse can be utilized. For example, the experiences of the veiled participants show that the state’s discourse of modernity acts upon the body and transforms it into an

‘acceptable’ modern body. By not meeting the dress code of a particular space, Islamic bodies were marked as ‘unfit’ and were subject to disciplinary techniques by the university administration and faculty members – such as, being asked to leave the class or face expulsion.

One of the veiled participants (Cemile), who attended the university a couple of years after 1998, stated that she had arguments with her family because she did not want to enrol into the program due to the ban on the headscarf. As a result of the pressure coming from her family, she decided to enrol into the classes, but she pointed out that she was very discouraged. Cemile contended that like herself, many other students felt discouraged and even if they attended classes, some were expelled from the university at some point in their education because of their headscarves. Even though Sedef was not expelled from school during her graduate studies, she was dismissed from her job at the faculty for insisting on wearing a headscarf:

138

I was expelled three years after receiving my doctorate title in sociology because of my Ph.D. thesis. But at the time my thesis was accepted and it was even published as a book [she laughs]. Of course the main reason was my headscarf but I was officially expelled after February 28th for the reason of the nature of my doctorate thesis […] My thesis topic was modernization and Islamist movements in the Middle East. First, they filed a criminal complaint against me at the State Security Court claiming that my thesis contained an element of a crime […] Of course, the main reason was my headscarf, they even included my veiled photo from a newspaper in the file even though it is irrelevant [...] The thesis involved some case studies of Islamist movements in the Middle East, and in the appendix, I included the photos of the leaders of these movements and this was presented as an element of a crime. As a result I was expelled.

As this statement suggests, the gaze of the state over female bodies on campuses aimed at reducing the public visibility of Islamist bodies and to achieve this goal, the state employed forms of surveillance mechanisms, which also involved forms of punishment.

Expelling veiled students as well as faculty members from the universities, and preventing veiled students from entering the campuses were punishments utilized by the state to reiterate the norms of secularism.

This situation was not limited to students and faculty members of the universities, but involved any visible veiled female body on campus. Before 1998, when the ban was implemented more arbitrarily throughout different campuses, Ayse finished her university degree without experiencing any problems. However, in 2009, when she tried to enter a university campus in Istanbul for her children’s extracurricular activities, she was not allowed to enter the campus because of her headscarf. Even as a parent, her veiled body was seen as a challenge against the secularist discourse, which still shaped the university space.

Even though the ban was effective as a disciplinary technique in terms of forcing students to take off their headscarves on campus or discouraging attendance, some

139

students also developed strategies against the ban. Some began wearing a wig or a hat over a headscarf. Cemile expressed that she is uncomfortable when she is not veiled, and for this reason she decided to wear a hat to cover her hair and long turtleneck sweaters and shirts to cover her neck instead of the headscarf. She noted that during the years at school, she mostly wore a hat; however, on the day of enrolment, she wore a wig. She told me the story of the day when her photo had to be taken on campus to be enrolled in a program. Her headscarf was not tolerated and she was not allowed to wear a hat in the photo either; thus, she wore a wig and covered her neck with her headscarf when her photo was taken. While she was narrating her experience of that day, she expressed how sad and uncomfortable she felt on that day.

State surveillance on campuses has changed with the elimination of the ban on the headscarf in 2010. This change is a result of shift in the balance of power with the victory of the Islamist AKP party in 2002. Even though none of the participants were against the changes on university campuses, a few of them argued that the AKP government’s success in lifting the ban is meaningless without a change in the official dress code, which still prohibits women from wearing headscarves in civil and public institutions. Participants argued that without this change, veiled women would go back to their homes with university degrees, and they would not be able to work in the public sector. However, three years after lifting the ban on the headscarf at the universities, the

AKP government also lifted the 70-year-old ban on the headscarf for public and civil servants, which also changed the secular nature of the workplace.

140

Workplace: Dress Like a Lady, Act Like a Man

The participants’ narratives reflect how the workplace shapes their choices of attire. Even though they “try” to wear what they want, their choice of dress is regulated and monitored through formal state policies as well as informal mechanisms, which determine what type of dressed body is acceptable in which work spaces. While some participants, who are/were working as public and civil servants, have/had to follow the

Kamu Kurum ve Kuruluşlarında Çalışan Personelin Kılık ve Kıyafetine Dair Yönetmelik

(By-law on the Garments of Public Personnel)19, others stated that they have/had to pay attention to their appearance at work to be taken seriously as a woman.

One of the participants, a retired public servant, stated that she could not wear casual dresses due to the formal dress code implemented at her workplace during the

1990s. According to this official dress code, women were not allowed to wear headscarves, stretch-pants, jeans, sleeveless and revealing shirts and blouses as well as shorts, miniskirts and dresses (above the knee length). This example illustrates how dress is utilized by the state as one of the technologies of the body to form ‘acceptable’ and

‘respectable’ gendered moral bodies at the work place. This official dress code, mandated by the state for employees of public institution, reflects the ‘ideal’ Turkish woman who is

‘asexual,’ ‘modest’ and secular. The narratives of the participants who are or who used to work at public institutions indicate that women internalize and normalize the dress code in their lives. When I asked the participants how they dressed generally, they mostly answered that they prefer to dress casually. However, when I asked them whether they

19 “Madde 5 – 2 nci maddede sözü edilen personelin kılık ve kıyafette uyacakları hususlar: a. Kadınlar; Kolsuz ve çok açık yakalı gömlek, bluz veya elbise ile strech, kot ve benzeri pantolonlar giyilmez. Etek boyu dizden yukarı ve yırtmaçlı olamaz. Terlik tipi (sandalet) ayakkabı giyilmez” http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/3.5.85105.pdf

141

also dress casually at their workplace, they usually replied, “of course not, it is different”.

For instance, Pinar who used to work at a public institution, said “I mean of course when I was going to work I was not wearing causal dress. It is a workplace, thus I preferred more formal style”. Their response to my question demonstrates that the dress norms at work have been normalized into the lives of women in Turkey.

Dress regulations have affected faculty members as well as teaching and research assistants on university campuses. However, participants working on campuses mentioned that the regulations have not been strictly implemented on campuses, except for the ban on the headscarf in the past. The participants noted that they are mostly free to wear whatever they want while they are teaching. They also pointed out that they do pay attention to their clothes as a sign of respect to their students:

In my daily life and in the days when I am not teaching, I dress up in sporty style. For example, in the winter, I wear jeans/trousers, sweater and a jacket. But if I am teaching on that day, I try to dress up decent because I respect my students. I try to pay attention to the color coordination of my clothes and I avoid bright colors and tight jeans/trousers […] I also do not want them to pay attention to my clothes… Moreover, I dress up in a more formal way if I have a meeting at the university. I wear shirts with a jacket.

Dress is seen as a tool to show professionalism, and professional attire is also the expectation from the members of the universities as being highly educated modern women. For instance, one of the professors, Sevim who is an academic in her late thirties, revealed to me that she thought about what to wear for our meeting for the interview. I met her at a coffee house in Taksim (downtown of Istanbul) on a very hot summer day, and she was wearing a tank top with jeans:

It is very hot so I decided to wear a tank top and then when I looked at myself in the mirror, I thought that I look like a student more than a professor. And then I thought, well this girl [she is referring to me] is coming

142

from abroad, she is probably used to seeing professors dressed like me since professors dress up like this in the West.

Sevim’s narrative, together with other academic participants’ accounts of their dress choices at work, reflect how gendered bodies are constituted through performance on campus. During the early Republican years, female teachers were used as symbols of the new modern nation to represent the modern educated professional woman. That same secularist discourse continues to form and shape the professional identity of female professors on campuses and dictate how they should dress in a modern (read: unveiled) feminine way while hiding their sexualities. In other words, following Butler’s (1990) premise on gender performance, I argue that dress enables the repetitious production of modern professional gender on university campuses through “stylized repetition of acts”

(1990, p. 191) – which in this context are the dress norms. Here, I also need to note that none of the narratives of the participants indicated a lack of agency. Indeed, I claim that their accounts reflect a different modality of agency, which needs to be recognized. Even though they are not resisting the dress code of their workplace, the women working on campus inhabit spatial norms as a way to communicate their respect and value of their jobs.

As a result of this gender performance on university campuses, both students and faculty expect professors to dress in a formal way to show their respect to others. In cases of a failure to conform to this expectation, they are condemned and excluded from the space, as in the case of Sedef, who was dismissed from her job at the faculty. The condemnation is not unique to veiled bodies, but also applies to any other body that does not conform to the norm:

143

When I began working as an assistant, I faced many problems because of my dress style. Everybody was wearing dark formal clothes […] I preferred mostly unique styles and colourful clothes which would get the attention of others. I was warned by professors, the head of the department and the Dean about my attire at work. One of the professors, whom I was close with, told me to pay more attention to my clothing and I told him that I spent one hour to choose this dress! [she laughs] And I was wearing a very colourful PJ like sweatpants and a tank top.

Professionalism requires a certain kind of gender performance at the work place in Turkey. Like Entwistle (2007) and Puwar (2004) also argued in their studies, my interviewees stated that dress and appearance are more important to women than men because in male-dominated workspace women have a need for credibility, recognition and professionalism that dress can communicate. In Puwar’s (2004) terms, women are still

“insiders as outsiders” due to the patriarchal nature of workspaces. That is to say, even though women have a right to exist in the workplace, it is a contested right as a result of the masculine structure of the space, which does not welcome women.

When gendered bodies participate in places where they are not the ‘figurative authority’, they become highly visible as the deviations from the norm in places where their capabilities will be questioned (Puwar, 2004). Demet, a young academic narrated that she pays attention to her attire particularly when there is an important meeting at the faculty.

Another participant, a woman working at a feminist NGO, mentioned that if she is going to a meeting with male members of parliament, she dresses up “smart” to prove her professionalism. In other words, dress is used as a technology to make gendered bodies

‘acceptable’ and ‘appropriate’ at the male-dominated work place.

Most of the participants – even the ones working at NGOs – stated that even when the workspace is not regulated by the state formal dress code, they have to follow the

144

formal dress code at meetings or in the space where there are male participants. One of the participants stated:

Being taken seriously is quite difficult for women at work, so dress plays a significant role. Women usually try to make themselves accepted through their dress style and appearances, then they start talking. I usually try to make myself accepted through what I say.

Women’s ideas and voices are not given as much recognition as that of men as a consequence of the mind/body binary opposition, which reduces women to their bodies.

As Entwistle (2001) notes, “power dressing” at work can be seen as a “technology of the self” in the light of Foucault’s theory on the body. According to Entwistle (2001) power dressing allows women to fashion themselves as career women, and this type of dressing provides them with techniques and strategies to enter into career structures as ‘modern’

‘smart’ professionals capable of doing the job for which they were hired. Even when dress codes are not enforced by state institutions – such as in public universities or the organization/company –, women dress up formally. This demonstrates how dress norms are imposed onto women and enforce them to fashion themselves as career women through internal self-management.

The narratives of participants show that they have to monitor their bodies and appearances more closely than men and negotiate between unacceptable and acceptable moral norms at the work place. Although women are expected to dress femininely, they should not accentuate their sexuality. As participants claimed, when they dress up in a way to reveal their sexuality, they will be objectified by men and will not be respected. For instance, one of the participants stated that she does not want to reveal her body or sexuality because she wants people to pay attention to her words rather than her body.

145

Furthermore, they should not look masculine. As one of the participants pointed out, they are expected to dress like a lady, but act like a man.

When I first started to get involved in the leftist movement, I was wearing jeans and one day my manager called me to his office – and our relationship was good at work – but he reprehended me; ‘you are a woman but you are not wearing anything other than these black jeans!’

Dress regimes are not detached from the operations of power and play a significant role in policing the boundaries of sexual difference and modesty. As Puwar (2004) states

“A ‘ladylike feminine’ image plays a central role in the struggle to be seen as an acceptable form of ‘woman’ in a male outfit in a male space” (p.97). In the case of Turkey, as I discussed in the previous chapter, the discourse of sexual morality identifies a hanım hanımcık (ladylike) woman as the one who dresses up in a way which emphasizes her femininity while it conceals her sexual body. In summary, women are trapped between the norm of modesty, which requires them to veil their sexual body and the norm of femininity, which dictates that women reveal their female sexuality without becoming sexual objects of male sexual desire. In case of failing to conform to either of these norms, they might be labeled as ‘masculine’, such as a ‘tomboy’ (erkek fatma) or boy (erkek çocuğu) or as

“immoral” or a “loose woman”. While it might look like my participants are falling into the trap set by the norms of modesty and femininity, I argue that the claim to “dress like a lady, act like a man” at the workplace shows a modality of agency rather than a passive subjection to sexual morality. Women dress up like a lady and act like a man in order to get the respect they deserve, be taken seriously and to be treated with equality. With this strategy, they manage to avoid falling into the trap of the norms of modesty and femininity.

146

Streets at Night: ‘Immoral’ Woman

The narratives of the participants demonstrate that as they move between public spaces at different times of the day, they engage in a negotiation of the sexual norms shaping their clothing. The participants, particularly the ones between the ages of 20 and

40, stated that they often dress up differently at night when they are going to a pub or a nightclub. Deniz, a young feminist activist working for an NGO, stated that if she wants to go to a nightclub to have fun, she wears a miniskirt and sometimes revealing shirts. And then she adds, “[s]ometimes, I dress up sexy to flirt with men. But this does not mean that every time I dress up sexy, I want to flirt.” Like Deniz, other young participants also made the same statements about dressing up for men. Indeed, Sibel, a feminist activist working for a feminist NGO in Ankara, indicated that she even pays attention to her underwear when she has a boyfriend to seduce him. The experiences of women demonstrate that in a patriarchal society where women are associated with their bodies, women learn to prepare themselves as the objects of male desire.

Even though some women pointed out that they sometimes dress up to be sexually alluring to get the attention of men, often they also do not want male attention. For instance, Deniz stated that she sometimes dresses up just to feel good when she looks at herself in the mirror, but she gets harassed at the pubs/bars by men, as if she dresses up for them. As Entwistle (1996) and Lynch (2007) argue, women fall into a trap where women’s sexually alluring appearance and ‘narcissistic’ inclinations to seduce men and compete for sexual attention are viewed as “natural”. Under this patriarchal construction, men have the right to make sexual advances and the license to reinforce sexual morality through their gaze - a gaze that disciplines women and punishes them if they transgress.

As a result of this, ‘provocative’ and ‘sexually alluring’ clothes deliver consent for sexual

147

advances and women get sexually harassed at nightclubs, as participants stated.

Furthermore, how women experience the street also changes at night. The street at night is perceived to be a male space. Almost all of the interviewees emphasized the risk of getting sexually harassed by men on the street at night. They stated that due to their so-called “provocative” dress, they are labeled as “asking for it” or “available women.”

They usually get sexually harassed at night.

The reason why I am living in the downtown is that it is easier to get home at night. I found a safe, short way to come home at night. This is the only reason why I am paying more rent. If I have to travel long distance, I have to pay attention to what I am wearing at night but now I am more flexible in my dress choices. Even being on the street as a woman at night is difficult and with revealing clothes, it is even more difficult. You will most probably get harassed. It is dangerous.

Participants noted that when they are going out at night and planning to return to their homes alone, they choose loose and less revealing clothes or they take a shawl or a jacket to cover their décolleté. Dress has been constructed as one of the signifiers of modesty and morality. Failing to conform to dress norms can result in being labeled ‘sexually promiscuous’, ‘available’, ‘loose’, and ‘immoral’ labels that encourage men’s sexual advances.

If I am going out to drink and/or party, then I will wear something, which would make me feel comfortable. I mean for instance, I take a jacket or something with me to cover my décolleté, because I will be walking on the street at night […] I like wearing skirts and dresses in the summer. I would like to wear short ones but it bothers me – men’s gazes, verbal harassments, etc. I might prefer to ignore these things, but it is harassment and it bothers me so that’s why I prefer not to wear short ones.

Due to the concerns around safety on the streets at night, women either take taxis or wear clothes that conceal their bodies in order to protect themselves. In other words, on the street at night, women either do not exist or they make their bodies sexually invisible

148

objects. As a result, the street at night remains dominated by men. As Lahsaeizadeh, and

Yousefinejad (2011) suggest, sexual harassment on the streets substantially limits women’s liberty and spatial mobility in public spaces. However; women are also held responsible for the harassment they endure for portraying themselves as ‘available’ women on the streets. As the participants stated, when a woman gets harassed, it is usually the woman who is blamed for the attack. Derin claims “when a woman is attacked, the first question people ask is ‘what were you doing on the street at night?’ and then they would ask ‘what were you wearing?’”. In other words, it is mostly women who are condemned morally for dressing immodestly and/or seductively on the streets at night and they are not only accused and held responsible for this action but also for men’s behaviour too. In the interviews, sexual harassment was one of the most discussed issues on the topic of sexual morality and dress. The participants claimed that as a result of increasing conservatism in Turkish society, sexual harassment cases have increased significantly, and they added that there are not enough precautions taken by the current government against this issue.

On February 9th, 2011, three moths after I completed my research, a group of AKP deputies presented a bill to Parliament calling for harsher punishment and longer jail sentences for sex offenders. This proposed bill on sexual crimes generated a strong reaction from the head of the theology faculty of Selçuk University, Professor Orhan

Çeker, who accused women of inviting rape by way of their behaviour (Dekolte Giyersen,

2011). He stated that women are at the center of the problem of sexual assault and women's décolleté is the reason for men’s sexual arousal, and they should not be surprised if they are attacked. Even though Professor Çeker received some support from some Islamist writers, his comments caused a large uproar and opposition from different

149

groups of women, including religious Muslim women activists. Women activists accused

Professor Çeker of legitimizing sexual assault by giving men the right to abuse women on the basis of their clothing, which also means that women wearing a revealing dress deserve sexual assault. In many cities in Turkey, women gathered to demonstrate against

Prof. Çeker and his supporters, and these recent demonstrations and debates placed the issue of dress, sexuality and female body on top of the feminist/women's agenda to construct a stronger counter-discourse, which I will be discussing in the next chapter.

Conclusion

Sexual morality shapes women’s experiences in public spaces in Turkey.

Historically, women began to participate in public spaces with the foundation of the

Republic. Before the Republic, the Ottoman state attempted to maintain the sexual moral order in public space through the veiling and seclusion of women. In spite of the formation of mixed-gender public spaces through Republican gender reforms, my participants’ experiences of space revealed that public spaces have continued to remain gendered.

They all asserted that their mobility was restricted in public.

Liberating women politically, as the Kemalists did, increased the visibility of women, but not without restrictions. By defining public spaces in ways that only welcome certain types of sexual bodies, Kemalism limited the freedom of women’s movements and subjectivities. To exist in certain public spaces in Turkey– such as the workplace, universities and on the streets at nights – women have to conform to the sexual moral notions of space. This spatial limitation has reinforced traditional notions of women’s domesticity. Female bodies that do not conform to sexual moral norms are not welcomed in public spaces; they are labeled “loose” or “immoral”. As the participants’ statements

150

clearly demonstrated, women are not only discouraged to be on the streets at night, they are threatened with sexual harassment.

To avoid sexual harassment and/or the stigma of being “immoral”, women conform to the sexual moral discourse, which dictates that they hide their sexualities in public spaces. Women develop strategies – such as taking a shawl or a jacket to cover their décolleté and standing up rather than sitting down on the bus when wearing miniskirts – to subvert the dress norms. However, these coping strategies are not sufficient to reconstruct and reverse sexual morality discourse that limits their mobility in public spaces.

Still, they provide women with a sense of freedom and power over their lives. In the next chapter, I will be looking more closely at emerging discourses from the women’s movements and their attempts to challenge the morality discourses.

151

Chapter 6. The Modes of Agencies: Women’s Movements and Sexual Morality

Introduction

Women are socio-political actors who have the power to produce discourses that can potentially subvert, resist or reinforce the dominant discourse. In this chapter, I draw on my participants’ experience in various women’s movements to analyze the discussion these movements have had on sexual morality and dress. The analysis aims to demonstrate different modalities of agencies in the struggle against sexual morality, a morality that reinforces sexual violence against women and limits the freedom of women in public spaces throughout Turkey.

Firstly, I will focus on the narratives reflecting participants’ resistance against the control the state has over their bodies. I will do so by exploring their challenge against state-sponsored virginity exams in the 1990s. I will look at their critique of laws regulating

“impudent/indecent (hayasız) manners” and of arguments justifying the “unjust provocation” defence in sexual violence cases.

Secondly, I will examine their resistance against the disciplinary public gaze over women’s bodies. I will examine women’s voices on the first campaign of Mor İğne

Kampanyası (Purple Needle Campaign) in 1989, where they questioned the judging gaze used against them. That gaze labels women as ahlaksız or ‘available/loose women’ and makes them the targets of sexual harassment. Then, I will focus on more recent campaigns aimed to “take back the streets at night”, and how they contested the disciplinary public gaze.

152

Thirdly, my examination will focus on religious Muslim women activists and their modalities of agency, based on their arguments about sexual and bodily rights, and the ongoing debate about the headscarf. After a discussion of the headscarf and sexual morality, I discuss the new agencies and voices of young feminists in associated movements, voices that can potentially create a strong challenge against the sexual morality discourse.

Challenging State Surveillance

In the late 1980s, women began to establish autonomous organizations dedicated to women’s issues (Cosar and Gencoglu Onbasi 2008; Tekeli 1986; Yesilyurt Gunduz

2004). Until the 1980s, women could not find the grounds to start autonomous women’s movements as a result of the state monopoly over women’s issues. Kandiyoti argues, “the authoritarian nature of the single-party state and its attempts to harness the ‘new woman’ to the creation and reproduction of a uniform citizenry aborted the possibility for autonomous women’s movements.” (Quoted in Cinar 2005, p. 67).

Women involved in the student and working-class movements of the 1960s and

1970s (Aldikacti Marshal 2013), together with intellectuals/academics (Koc 2006), led the women’s movement in the late 1980s. The early years of the movements consisted of informal meetings with women at their homes where they shared their thoughts and experiences as women. One of the participants, who was active in the movements in the

1980s, emphasized the importance of these meetings for changing the way they looked at their lives as women. She stated that through these consciousness-raising groups, they began to question their sexuality and their relationship with men. As a result of these consciousness-raising group meetings, women’s groups that first formed in Istanbul and

153

Ankara (Timisi and Agduk Gevrek 2002) began to challenge the state’s gender discourse.

The questioning of female sexuality and the affirmation of a right to bodily integrity were brought into the public forum with the critique of state sponsored virginity exams in the late 1990s. As Parla (2001) states in her study on virginity exams, the exams were performed on girls and women in public dormitories and hospitals and on sex workers to expose ‘immoral’ behaviour and to protect ‘public morality’. According to Parla (2001), this practice reflected the Turkish state’s preoccupation with women’s chastity and morality. It also indicated the Turkish state’s perception of women’s sexual purity as the manifestation of the honour of the family and the nation. Some women’s/feminist groups protested against the virginity exams with the following slogan: “No to Virginity Tests! This is My

Body!” (“Bekaret kontrolüne hayır! Bedenimiz bizimdir!” (Miller, 2007). Esin, who protested the virginity exams in the 1990s, spoke about her experience in campaigns about sexual rights:

Having a discussion about [sexual freedom] was not easy at the time. In the consciousness-raising groups, we had discussed virginity exams and we launched a campaign. However, when we started talking about it in public, we received threats in the early 1990s. People sent us threatening letters, they phoned us, and it was terrible.

Esin contends that questioning the virginity examinations was a crucial moment in the course of women’s movements, though they could not discuss it in depth due to the reactions they received from the public. She adds that despite the threats that the women received, the protests continued and led to an amendment of the regulation. A woman’s consent became necessary for virginity tests to proceed. The women’s movements’ protests against the virginity tests represented a challenge against the larger Kemalist state project of portraying the modern woman as moral and chaste. As Sule also stated,

154

virginity tests were portraying women’s sexuality as the property of the nation, which is in need of protection. While the Kemalist discourse aims at liberating women, women and their sexuality have been portrayed as the property of the nation, symbolizing morality and honour. As Parla (2001) also argued, virginity tests done by state authorities can be conceived as a form of state-sponsored violence for reproducing the modern, moral woman constituted in the Kemalist modernity discourse.

Participants’ narratives revealed that the challenge against the state and its moral discourse has increased in the last decade. They claimed that since the AKP took hold of power, the state’s discourse has become more conservative, which also made the sexual morality more conservative. Deniz, a young activist who has been taking an active role in the movement through several groups and NGOs, claimed that today the clothes revealing only the shape of the legs (not the skin) can even be labeled as “provocative” by the state, as it was in the criminal case against Gülcan Köse. Gülcan Köse was sentenced to five months in prison based on the accusation that she was dressed “inappropriately” (long loose t-shirt and tights) while she was fishing on the Galata Bridge in Istanbul on June

12th, 2008. Women publicly protested the decision and in the press release pointed out that the law had been applied to discriminate against women. They claimed that Article

225 of Turkish Penal Code on “impudent/indecent (hayasız) manners” needs to be removed from the criminal code to prevent the use of the law to justify inequality and discrimination, as well as the use of undue power on women’s bodies. They also argued that the laws and rules regarding “public morality” have been used in sexual violence cases in order to reduce sentencing. They underlined that men who murder women benefit from the ‘unjust provocation’ reduction “[…] by referring to excuses such as how their wives were wearing tights or tight clothes or how flirtatious they were in their relations with

155

others.” (Women meet, 2008). For instance, Ruya and Derin, who are members of

Feministbiz and Ankara Women’s Platform, mentioned that in rape and sexual harassment cases – that feminist groups have been following – the morality of women is being questioned. Derin said that the questions asked during these trials are “were you flirting with him?”, “what were you doing at night on the street?”, and “what were you wearing?” at the time of the attack. Ruya, Derin and others, like Deniz, remarked that there are cases where the sentencing was reduced based on Article 29 of Turkish Penal Code regulating “unjust provocations”. Even though the actions considered ‘unjust provocations’ and the attire considered ‘provocative dress’ or ‘sexually seductive’ are not well-defined in the Article or the court cases, the subjects’ accounts of sexual violence cases reveal that the law has functioned as a surveillance mechanism to institutionalize and reproduce the sexual morality discourse that labels women as ‘asking for it’ based on their clothing.

I argue that Köse’s case and the rape cases mentioned above reveal how state surveillance as a mechanism of power operates on women’s bodies through law.

Moreover, according to participants, Article 225 of the Turkish Penal Code20 which has been in place for a long time and applied mainly in cases of “exhibitionism”, such as when one exposes himself/herself or has sexual intercourse in public, has for the first time ever in the Kose case been used to condemn a woman for wearing “inappropriate” clothing.

They see this case as a significant sign of the heightened conservatism of Turkey since the rise to power of the AKP government.

20 As discussed in Chapter III, the Article states that “Any person who openly enters in sexual intercourse or exposes one’s self is punished with imprisonment from six months to one year” and it is an Article to regulate “impudent/indecent (hayasız) manners”

156

Taking Back the Streets!: Contesting the Public Gaze

As discussed in the previous chapter, the narratives of the participants suggest that public spaces – such as buses, ferries, and minibuses – are not accepting of women.

Women’s bodies on buses and ferries are subjected to the public gaze, which disciplines women and punishes them if they transgress sexual morality. Participants’ accounts suggest that the punishment varies from a judging gaze, which labels the women as ahlaksız or ‘available/loose women’, to sexual harassment.

Sule, and other participants, explained that one of the first challenges against the public gaze originated in 1989 with the campaign called Mor İğne Kampanyası (Purple

Needle Campaign). The campaign was launched in 1989 to challenge the disciplinary public gaze that labels women as ‘available’ or ‘immoral,’ rendering them susceptible to sexual harassment. The campaign aimed to raise awareness around the issue of violence against women on public transportation (such as ferries, buses, etc.) as well as in the workplace (Tekeli 1992). Meryem, who participated in the campaign in 1989, noted that it was a challenge against the morality discourse, which dictates how women should dress and behave in public spaces. To counteract and protest sexual harassment on public transportation, women handed out purple needles on the ferries. The needles were intended to be used to stab attackers.

Meryem explained that the slogans of the protest were obviously feminist ones:

“Our dress is not an invitation to harassment” and “our bodies our rights!” Through claiming their rights on their bodies, women rejected the control imposed onto their bodies by men. Muge, who participated the second Purple Needle Campaign in 2008, said:

157

I did not participate in the first campaign in 1989, but I participated in the second campaign and I know that in the first one, they actually talked about dress and sexual violence. I think they began discussing it when a woman was kidnapped from the street at night and raped. People were asking why was she wearing a miniskirt at night on the street and what was she doing on the street at night? You know, there is an assumption that because she was walking on the street wearing a miniskirt at night, that, of course, “she was looking for it” […] In the campaign basically they were questioning this presumption.

Not all women supported the Purple Needle campaign. In one of her articles, Handan Koc

(2006) – whom I also interviewed for this research – argued that during the first Purple

Needle Campaign, some women were ill-at-ease. This uneasiness was a result of the counter critique coming from anti-feminist groups that labeled the feminists involved in the campaign as women “who would like to wear revealing clothes and want to have sex all the time” (Koc, 2006, p. 23). In other words, women who launched the campaign were labeled as “immoral” due to their demand to control their bodies and to dress up freely without the risk of sexual harassment.

A stronger women’s voice against sexual harassment as a disciplinary technique to exclude women from the streets at night, came later in the 2000s. As discussed in the previous chapters, women’s presence on the streets at night makes them appear as ahlaksız/‘available’; hence, it makes them vulnerable to sexual harassment. The participants’ statements revealed that women began to challenge the public gaze they were subjected to for being on the streets at night. For instance, Deniz, a young activist working at Women for Women's Human Rights – New Ways (Istanbul) and a member of various e-mail groups and other women’s NGOs such as Socialist Feminist Collective

(Sosyalist Feminist Kollektif – SFK) and Amargi, stated that a couple of years ago, on

March 8th, some young feminists organized a late night street party on the streets of downtown Istanbul to challenge the morality discourse, which dictates that women must

158

stay at home at nights. She walked the streets in solidarity and shouted, “the nights are ours, the streets are ours.” She explained that during their attempt to take back the night they also questioned the dress norms that limit women’s mobility in the public space.

We are always concerned about what we wear when we are going out at night. We pay attention to what we are wearing while walking on the street at night, because we are always at risk of getting sexually harassed! So as feminists, we wanted to make our voice heard and to claim the streets at nights!

Derya, who is also involved in the feminist organizations of Amargi and SFK, also talked about the March 8th night walk in 2010, and mentioned that during the walk, they carried banners challenging the dress norms and expressing their freedom to wear miniskirts. Indeed, in 2010 one of the slogans of the night walk was: “The decision about the length of our skirt does not belong to men. We will dress however we like, and we will beat the pavement at nights however we like!” (Cakir, 2010). In other words, participants’ accounts of the night events demonstrated that women activists preferred to challenge the labeling of ahlaksız imposed on their bodies by the public gaze, rather than avoiding the gaze by making themselves scarce on the streets at nights.

Women’s challenge against the sexual morality has grown stronger, as the morality discourse has become stronger in cases of sex crimes. For instance, in 2011 Professor

Orhan Çeker, the chair of Religious Studies at Selcuk University, publicly stated that revealing clothes provoke sexual harassment. He said: “If you wear clothes that reveal your cleavage, it would not be a surprise for you to encounter such ugliness. It would not be reasonable for you to complain about the result after your provocation.” (Hurriyet,

2011). Immediately after this statement, in various cities, women took this issue to the streets wearing miniskirts and they cried out “the way we dress is not an invitation to

159

harassment!” They have continued their challenge against the sexual morality and the public gaze in every March 8th celebration, through the slogan “If I want I wear mini skirts, if I want I walk on the street at night! Who cares!”

The Veiled Agencies: The Question of Bodily Rights

Since the beginning of independent women’s movements in Turkey in the late

1980s, women began to struggle against patriarchal control imposed on their bodies and to assert their bodily rights. According to participants like Meryem and Muge, the aforementioned Purple Needle Campaign was a crucial campaign on the account of being the first feminist event affirming women have sexual and bodily rights. Koc (2006) explains that during this campaign in 1989, no one denied women’s ownership of their bodies.

However, later with the growing Islamist discourse, feminists in women’s movements began to hear a counter discourse: “Our bodies belong to Allah!”. Some participants like

Melek, Meryem, Demet and Yuksel questioned this religious Muslim women’s counter- discourse. Melek, who is a journalist and an active member of Amargi and Birbirimize

Sahip Çıkıyoruz (We Look Out for Each Other), points out that even though she has been trying to understand the women wearing headscarves, she is still unable to comprehend how they can challenge the patriarchal structures while denying ownership of their own bodies. Yuksel, a member of Türk Kadınlar Birliği (The Association of Turkish Women), stated that because religious Muslim women activists do not think that their bodies belong to them, whenever they hear women shouting the slogan “our bodies belong to us!”, they leave the events, as was the case in the last March 8th celebrations in Ankara. She claims that religious Muslim women’s lack of support in the struggle for gaining bodily rights weakens the resistance against patriarchy. Demet concurred that indeed religious Muslim

160

women are self-contradictory in their claims. While they claim their right to their bodies in their struggles to remove the ban on the headscarf, they do not support unveiled women in their fight for their rights to their bodies.

However, Sedef, a headscarved woman (and ex-academic) and an activist explained that the Muslim women activists’ standpoint does not support the patriarchal discourse and its power on women’s bodies. She is adamant that through their claim that their bodies belong to Allah, Muslim women refuse the patriarchal societal control over their bodies:

We are against abortion of course because our bodies belong to Allah… Of course, if you ask whether our bodies belong to the society or men, of course we as women have rights over our bodies. However, if you look at it from an Islamic point of view, our bodies belong to Allah, our bodies are entrusted to us. It is the same for men too. This does not mean that women’s bodies can be controlled by men or male view in the society, this is not correct. Especially, defining all the morality problems through women’s bodies is not correct at all, we posses the right to our bodies.

Cemile, a headscarved young woman activist working at AKDER – which was formed to struggle against the ban on the headscarf – also stated that she completely disagrees with the slogan that ‘our bodies belong to us.’ She claims she joined the struggle against the ban on the headscarf because of her belief that her body belongs to Allah. Indeed, Cemile began the interview by stating that she is a Muslim woman and she chooses her clothes to conceal not only her body but also its shape, in accordance with the requirement of

Islam and the order of Allah. She explains:

I think my body is Allah’s property, and that’s why I need to cover my body based on Allah’s rules since Allah owns my body. This is exactly why I fight for my right to wear the headscarf… In fact, I discussed this with friends who claim their bodies belong to them, but I do not think saying ‘my body belongs to me’ is in accord with dressing up fashionable, having a fashionable hairstyle and color and acting cool or modern. I mean every

161

woman would accept that a bra is not comfortable but if you are saying ‘this body belongs to me’ while wear a bra? I think there is a conflict there you need to question.

In other words, Cemile claims, through the argument that her body belongs to

Allah, that she challenges the patriarchal control over her body that tells her to dress in a particular way, such as wear a bra but not wear a headscarf.

I do not disregard the different modalities of agencies religious Muslim women present in the women’s movements. I argue that even though they do not challenge the patriarchal elements of the Islamist discourse, they in fact aim to subvert the patriarchal power structure embedded in the Kemalist discourse. Through accepting Allah’s power as the sole power on their bodies, they employ Islam as a tool to resist the power that society and the state impose on their bodies and invest in men to discipline women. In other words, even though wearing a headscarf might be understood as a sign of docility and submission to the will of Allah by secularist feminists, it can also very well be perceived by the state as a resistance to its power imposed on their bodies. When religious Muslim women’s struggle against the ban on the headscarf is considered, it can be seen why they did not accept the power of the state over their bodies. Therefore, I argue that Mahmood’s conceptualization of agency provides an alternative perspective to explore the formation of various modes of agencies where the line between what is submissive and resistant blurs within the complex normative systems. As also argued by Shively (2014),

Mahmood’s theory on individual’s agentive capacity allows us to move beyond the limited definition to see how “… acts of submission and resistance become entangled with each other.” (463) In this context, I assert that the argument that “our bodies belong to Allah” does not reflect their submissive and passive position, rather it reflects a different modality of agency, particularly in their fights against the ban on the headscarf.

162

“Does Moral Woman Mean Headscarved Woman?”: The Debate on the Headscarf and Islamic Sexual Morality

In the late 1990s, women’s movements flourished in Turkey and we witnessed much diversification in the movements. The question of difference was brought onto the agenda, and women began to question the homogenizing identification of women in the modernist discourse, and acknowledged that gender inequality should be discussed in relation to other differences, such as class, ethnicity, and religion. Bordo (1993) reminds us that the ideological construction of femininity “...is always homogenizing and normalizing, erasing racial, class and other differences and insisting that all women aspire to coercive, standardized ideal” (Bordo, 1993, p. 169). From this point of view, the homogenizing discourse of the Kemalist discourse was challenged mainly by two actors during the early 1990s: the Kurdish women and Islamist women (Bodur 2005). While the

Kurdish women questioned the ethnic dimension of the gendered Kemalist discourse,

Islamist women problematized the understanding of modernity and secularism in the

Kemalist nationalist discourse.

In the 1990s, with the involvement of women in the emerging Islamist movement, these “new” Islamist women became visible in the social and political spheres. Religious

Muslim women started to demand participation and not merely representation in the

Islamist movement. They founded their own organizations to voice their demands, fight against the ban on the headscarf, and participate in the political sphere and women’s movements in Turkey (Cayir 2000). Especially with the expansion and the institutionalization of women’s movements in the 1990s, religious Muslim women activists founded various NGOs. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, while some secular women activists supported religious Muslim women activists’ struggle against the ban on

163

the headscarf on the basis of expanding human rights, others refused to cooperate with them in any campaign or events (Ozcetin, 2009).

The narrative of the participants in this study reflected that, in general, the ban on the headscarf is considered a violation of human rights. As discussed in Chapter III, while some participants stated they are against the ban on the basis of human rights, they still perceive the headscarf as an oppressive Islamic practice or a tool of the political Islamist movement. They thus reject the headscarf as a patriarchal Islamist practice. Meryem, a feminist writer in Pazartesi, who has been involved in the movement since the late 1980s, insisted that there is a difference between the headscarf and the türban/tesüttür, which is mostly worn by urban Islamist women:

There are different styles of headscarf. The tesettür tightly covers every strand of your hair, and neck and nowadays Islamist women wear it with a pardesü (long loose coat), exactly like Emine Erdogan [the wife of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan]. We might not know whether the woman is wearing a tesettür because of the pressure coming from her family or whether it is her choice but you can be very religious and you might prefer not to wear a tesettür. It is the Islamist dressing style, which came after 1980s. It carries more of a political meaning.

During our conversation, in a couple of occasions, Meryem as well as Yasemin – a feminist writer – stated that they sometimes feel that the Islamist women are forced to cover their heads. Meryem and Yasemin’s accounts reflect the modernist discourse, which identifies headscarved women as passive actors without agency. On the other hand,

Cemile, who has been wearing the headscarf since high school, explained that she chooses to wear the headscarf because she comes from a religious family. She sees women who were raised in “secular families” as choosing not to wear a headscarf. She insists that the perception of the Muslim headscarved woman as passive is still dominant in the secularist women’s movements due to the dominance of the Kemalist modernist

164

view, and as a result of this perception, she sometimes feels the judging gaze of secularist women. Melek, member of Başkent Kadın Platformu (Başkent Women’s Platform), made a similar statement as she narrated her experience in the movements. She stated that usually they were not welcomed in the events organized by the other feminist NGOs, particularly Kemalist ones like Türk Kadınlar Birliği (The Association of Turkish Women).

She added that sometimes women’s groups change their view on religious women after building communication:

From the name of our organization [Başkent Kadın Platformu], they cannot understand what kind of organization it is. Last year, I went to a meeting called ‘women’s lobby.’ At the door, they were all surprised to see me with my headscarf but I was on the invitation list, so they could not say anything. However, after having a conversation, their attitude towards us usually changes.

As I have also argued elsewhere (Ozcetin, 2009), religious Muslim women activists have not been welcomed in the feminist movements due to the dominance of the orientalist view which labels them as ‘backward’ and ‘oppressed’. As Melek and Cemile, member of AKDER and Başkent Kadın Platformu, stated this attitude is changing in recent years as a result of increasing communication among women’s groups. Religious Muslim women activists noted the importance of communication to break the stereotype of religious Muslim women as ‘passive backward oppressed’ women (Ozcetin 2009). In contract to the general assumption that religious Muslim women’s organizations are only fighting against the ban on the headscarf, they also conduct several projects on women’s rights and to improve their social, political and economic conditions (Ozcetin, 2009). To this reason, Melek pointed out that solidarity among women’s groups are important because they are all fighting against inequality. She noted that some women’s organizations have created more respectful arenas, which welcome women with their differences to learn more about each other. As she pointed out, the recent example is the

165

Birbirimize Sahip Çıkıyoruz (We Look Out for Each Other), which is composed of women academics and activists from various religious, ethnic, and political orientations. This initiative tried to bring the discussion into a new platform that is open to diversity and differences (Ozcetin, 2009).

The participants’ accounts revealed that despite the increasing communication between religious and secular women resulting in wider acceptance of headscarved women, there seems to be a continuing division of “us” and “them”, “our rights”, and “their rights” in the women’s movements. Some of the unveiled participants claimed that even though they fought with “them” for “their right” to wear the headscarf at the universities, religious Muslim women are not fighting for their bodily and sexual rights.

Participants like Meryem, Melek, Emel and Demet argued that the definition of moral has shifted from “secular modern woman” to “headscarved woman”, and as a result, while “secular women” are defined as iffetsiz/ahlaksız (unchaste/immoral), headscarved women are increasingly defined as iffetli/ahlaklı (chaste/moral). Demet, a graduate student involved in various women’s groups in Ankara, asserted that the increasing number of headscarved women, particularly in Kızılay (downtown of Ankara), created a shift in what is considered as the norm and the “other”. She argued that in the past while the headscarved women were defined as the “other”, women without headscarves were considered as “normal” bodies. However, as a result of the increasing number of headscarved women in Kızılay, headscarved bodies today have become the ‘normal’ bodies in the public sphere. She added that the increasing visibility of headscarved women in conjunction with the AKP’s conservative patriarchal sexuality discourse led to a change in the definition of ahlaklı women from those wearing secular modest clothing to those wearing headscarves. She also denoted that her problem is not about women wearing the

166

headscarf, but with religious Muslim women’s reluctance to participate in the campaigns and protests to fight for secular women’s rights to wear anything without the risk of being labeled as ahlaksız. Emel, who was very actively involved in the fight to remove the ban on the headscarf, also stated:

Of course we will fight for their rights to wear the headscarf or whatever they want to wear. If some are allowed to wear tight jeans, the others are also allowed to wear the headscarf. But currently there is an equation of headscarf with ahlak (morality). I am expecting help from my headscarved friends now to struggle against this equation. [The problem] now [is that] they are ahlaklı (moral) and iffetli (chaste) because they wear headscarves and I am not because I do not wear it!

Esin, a professor in Ankara, claims that it is currently not possible to critique the dominant association of the headscarf with morality. The reason this is the case, she says, is that religious Muslim women’s rights to education were violated for a very long time and they were discriminated against due to the ban on the headscarf. The discrimination women experienced due to the headscarf is still a sensitive issue for headscarved women, thus, it is very difficult for feminists to start a conversation with them about the headscarf and what it symbolizes. Melek, a journalist in Istanbul, frustratingly refers to an Islamist female writer’s article to demonstrate how religious Muslim women accept the association that is increasingly made today between morality and the headscarf:

Her article is titled something like “the miracle of the tesettür”. In the article, she says that in Beyoğlu [central district of Istanbul], I go to the movie theater alone at night, I drive alone at night, I walk on the streets at night without any trouble because my tesettür protects me from harassment. So what? Do we all need to wear a tesettür to avoid harassment?!

As these words make clear, nobody disturbs headscarved women on the streets at night, because the tesettür is the symbol of ahlaklı woman. Women who are harassed are those who make their bodies available. This assumption was shared by the secular participants

167

and one religious Muslim woman activist, Melek. Melek – a member of Başkent Kadın

Platformu – claimed that Allah’s rule about covering the body is not just about the headscarf but about the entire body, arguing that one of the reasons Allah orders women to conceal their body is related to sexual harassment. According to Melek, Allah instructs women to conceal their bodies through dress to avoid harassment. Thus, by hiding women’s bodies from the public eye, the function of the tesettür is to protect women from harassment. Even though Melek emphasized her objection to the labeling of women as immoral based on their clothes, her narrative on dress and the male gaze reflects the

Islamist sexual morality:

I sometimes argue with my husband. He says that sometimes some women do not realize that every part of her body becomes visible under the sunlight. I say it is ok, it is her decision, and everyone can wear whatever she wants. But you do not have to look at her just because she is dressed in this way. And he says “ok but in Kızılay [Downtown of Ankara] wherever I look, I see these women I cannot help it; then, I need to look down at my feet all the time”. I mean when I think, of course I understand him, on the other hand I tell him that if everyone dresses up like me [long loose coat and headscarf], where would be your testing by Allah [she smiles]. Of course, my husband is looking at it from a man’s point of view, and then tells me “should the test be this hard!” [she smiles].

Melek’s banter with her husband reveals the Islamist sexual morality discourse, which defines female sexuality as a threat to public morality due to its power to seduce men. As discussed before, while Islamist sexual morality identifies female sexuality as destructive, it constructs male desire as a weakness in the presence of the seductive power of the female body. It is as if men cannot control their sexual desire when confronted by this powerful female sexuality. The Islamic practices of veiling and seclusion, therefore, aim at making women’s bodies and sexualities invisible in the public (Mernissi 1995; Afshar

1998). Indeed, this was a discourse criticized by the secular participants, in that such a discourse could lead not only to the labeling of women who deviate from the Islamic dress

168

norms as ‘immoral’, but also situate these women as the targets of harassment. Thus, if a man harasses a woman who does not conceal her ‘tempting’ sexual body, the blame is placed on the woman.

Even though the aforementioned secular participants’ accounts demonstrate their disappointment in headscarved women activists for not challenging the Islamist discourse that marks the headscarf as a symbol of morality, another interpretation is possible considering their agencies. Based on her study of the women’s mosque movement in

Egypt, Mahmood (2005) argues that veiling is not a symbolic marker of the body or the self as pious, but veiling is a “… conscious act of self cultivation in which the body is an instrument utilised towards piety.” (quoted in Bautista 2008, p.79). I also argue that the headscarved participants’ statements on headscarf and morality reflect they followed the dress norm that they believed in accord with Islam to become religious/pious Muslim women. As I mentioned in the previous chapters, the participants who are wearing headscarves stated that they dress according to Islamic rules because they are “religious” people. By submitting to the Islamist normative system, they are making themselves into what they considered to be moral Muslim women.

The Agencies of Younger Generation: “New Blood, New Challenges!”

It must be noted that women who launched the first independent women’s movements were products of the Kemalist modernization process: highly educated, professional women living in major urban cities such as Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir

(Aldikacti Marshal 2013). Women in these movements questioned the Kemalist gender discourse and its paternalistic features, which defined them as transmitters and carriers of the nation’s morality. However, the narratives of the participants indicated that the

169

Kemalist modernist sexual morality is still visible to some extent, due to the internalization and normalization of its norms. For instance, Deniz, who participated in the protest against the aforementioned sentencing of Köse due to her ‘improper’ clothing, said:

We, as feminists, were there to protest and to say “we wear whatever we want!” but I noticed that women there ended up dressing up modestly and this is what they tell us to wear! I wore a mini short and a tank top since we are demonstrating against [the dress code], but I looked around and I realized that everybody was dressed up modestly. They wore jeans and loose t-shirts!

Deniz’s complaint about the movements was also echoed by the other participants’ statements. Indeed, some also confessed that, at times, they found themselves judging or labeling other women for their so-called provocative dressing style, while emphasizing that they felt ashamed of these thoughts. From a Foucauldian point of view, I argue that as a result of state surveillance mechanisms together with the disciplinary public gaze, women learn to survey what they wear and administer self-discipline. Some even revealed that in feminist gatherings and forums, women judge women who wear revealing clothes.

Nehir, an academic in Istanbul, told her experience in the first Purple Needle Campaign:

I guess it was in 1989 during the first Purple Needle Campaign. There was a closed-door meeting where women were sharing their sexual harassment experiences… I cannot forget the woman who shared her story in the meeting. It was a very heavy harassment story. She was raped two times; one time in Germany and one time in Turkey. The feminist women in the meeting began to question her. They asked, “Did you scream?” “When did it happen?” “Where did it happen?” “What were you wearing?” This line of questioning bothered me a lot because the woman was questioned and judged as if she was a convict.

Nehir also acknowledged that expressions of disapproval happened in the early years of the women’s movements when they had just begun to discuss the patriarchal discourse on sexuality and the body. Esin, who is an academic, also stated that such discussions

170

about the female body and morality was one of the reasons why she left the online feminist discussion groups Birbirimize Sahip Çıkıyoruz:

One of the women in the group made this statement and said if you do not want them to look at you, you should not reveal your cleavage. Of course, others challenged her and said “I wear whatever I want”. If I want to feel desirable, I will dress accordingly, who cares […] Who is to say I should not dress in one way or another!

While Esin was explaining her disappointment in the feminist discussion group

Birbirimize Sahip Çıkıyoruz, younger participants, like Demet and Deniz pointed to a different tension in the women’s movements, one based on a generational gap. Women coming from the Kemalist tradition as well as women from the 1970s leftist movement continue to dominate the women’s movements in Turkey. These women are now in their late 50s and early 60s and are not open to questioning the discourse of sexuality and the dress codes imposed on women. In fact, younger participants argue that the older generation disregards the voice of young women who challenges hegemonic sexuality.

Ruya, a woman in her twenties, involved in both feminist and LGBTTQ movements, pointed out the continuing dominance of the Kemalist tradition in the movements and said:

The Kemalist women identified womanhood for us, but we should fight against it. For instance, do not tell me that I am fat or I have body hair or how to dress. Do not control my body. However, they do not confront the regulation of their bodies. They do not take this issue as a political matter and ignore that this is body politics.

The young participants’ narratives suggest that the older generation of women conform to the Kemalist sexual morality, which tells women what to wear or what not to wear in public.

While the younger ones perceive the women from the older generation as passive subjects without agency, they portray their own agency through their resistance against the

Kemalist discourse and the feminist discourse of past generations. For instance, Yagmur

171

argued that even though some feminists who embrace Kemalist ideology expect her to dress “properly” according to the modern standards in feminist meetings, she would continue to resist their power on her body and continue to wear jeans and t-shirts to meetings.

The young participants not only criticized the enduring Kemalist tradition, but also the discourse of leftist women, who participated in students’ movements in the late 1960s and 1970s. As discussed in previous chapters, the women of the 1960s and 1970s leftist movements mainly criticized the link between capitalism and patriarchy. They chose to hide their sexualities by wearing shabby clothing and refusing to put on make-up as a strategy to protest the objectification of the female body in the capitalist system (Cinar

2005). Deniz expressed her unhappiness with this “old-fashioned” feminist perspective, which constitutes the female body as ‘asexual’:

Because these women come from the leftist movements, they are still under the influence of the 1970s leftist discourse, and you can see that from their dress styles. They dress up in a masculine way as if they already gave up on their bodies […] They do not relate to their bodies, even if they are talking about bodies, it is not their bodies but other women’s bodies. They do not question the body politics through their bodies. However, young feminists are women who are at peace with their sexualities and bodies. We need to break this hierarchy to create a space for freedom, to talk about our bodies and sexualities. For instance, yesterday there was a demonstration, and I wanted to dress up. Because I am sick of this ‘mustached feminist’ image! I want to dress up in a sexual feminine way to deconstruct this image.

Deniz’s narrative indicates that women must begin to question the sexuality discourse, and to exist in public spaces as sexual beings, rather than as ‘asexual’ beings that conceal their bodies through shabby, loose, masculine-style dress. Demet, who is a young academic and feminist, complained about reactions she receives for dying her hair blonde and showing a preference for dressing up and wearing make-up:

172

In feminist circles, you might get reactions like “hmmm you are wearing high heels today” or in a very sarcastic way they would say “you are beautiful today” in an insinuating way. I would like to dress up in a way I like when I am going into the feminist circles but usually people would just wear a t-shirt and jeans with sneakers, so I would be the one who likes to wear make-up and look good. For instance, I dye my hair blonde, and I like it. But, I feel that I am harassed sometimes. It is not like dying your hair dark red; being blonde still carries a stereotype and is made ridicule of. Sometimes I get reactions like “are you trying to be beautiful and ostentatious?” and “are you trying to get attention?”. But when I dyed my hair to bright red, I did not get any reaction.

Demet also added that the old generation feminist discourse ignores the importance of fashion and how it can serve as a tool for liberation. For instance, when miniskirts or tights are in fashion, and more people wear them, different clothing items together with different bodily appearances are normalized in the public space. In addition to being a liberating force, fashion is seen as capable of challenging the kind of sexual discourse that aims to hide the female body and sexuality. It needs to be noted that Deniz and Demet’s narratives are also ignoring the agency of feminist women involved in the

1970s leftist movements. Those women strongly criticized the objectification of female sexual bodies in the consumerist discourse. Therefore, their shabby clothes as well as their questioning of the beauty image and fashion can easily be seen as a modality of agency challenging the consumerist culture that is highly sexualizing and objectifying the female body for male desire.

Demet also claimed that due to the age and seniority hierarchy that exists in the movement, the voice of young feminists resisting the sexual morality discourse is not being heard. Talking about the March 8th celebrations in Istanbul, Defne, like Deniz and Demet, also complained about the hierarchical structure of these movements. She said that the younger generation of women organized night protests to claim back the streets but that the older generation found these events unnecessary and redundant. Defne claims that

173

the older generation does not see the issue of sexuality as political, and, as a result there is little discussion about the way sexual morality limits the mobility of women.

Even though young women might feel that their voices are being ignored, the older participants who initiated the first organized women’s movements in the late 1980s and

1990s expressed their hope in younger generations. For instance, Nehir, an older generation feminist, stated that during the first Purple Needle campaign, when some women began to blame the rape victim, she could not stand up and challenge them because she felt they were unable to question the status quo on sexuality. However, she believes that the younger women in the movements today are more open-minded, more willing to question sexuality and claim their sexual freedom, and that this new fresh blood in the movements is necessary to break the taboo and to question patriarchal sexuality.

Conclusion

Lila Abu-Lughod (2001) reminds scholars working on women’s issues in the Middle

East that they have a duty to challenge the negative depiction of Middle Eastern women in the orientalist perspective through unveiling the complexity of their subjectivities.

Scholars, such as Lila Abu-Lughod (2001), Leila Ahmed (2011) and Saba Mahmood

(2005) have challenged the stereotype of Middle Eastern and Muslim women as the passive victims of patriarchy and revealed instead their various modalities of agencies.

For instance, Najmabadi (1993) looks at the Iranian modernity discourse and women’s entry into the public spaces in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In her analysis, she challenges the equation of modernity with women’s liberation by arguing that even though women’s bodies were unveiled during the modernization process of Iran, their bodies and languages were disciplined and ‘desexed’. Mahmood (2005) also questioned the

174

modernist conceptualization of agency through her analysis of pious women involved in the mosque movement in Egypt in 1990s in order to challenge the stereotype of

‘passive/oppressed’ Muslim woman, as discussed earlier.

In the context of Turkey, I also strongly believe that the exploration of women’s movements and the complex subjectivities of women are important to challenge the orientalist perception of women. There has been a wide range of studies conducted on women’s movements in Turkey lately (Aldikacti Marshall 2005; Arat 1994; Cosar, S. and

Gencoglu Onbasi 2008; Gole 1997; Yesilyurt Gunduz 2004; Tekeli 1986; 1992; Yuksel

2006; Diner and Toktas 2010). These studies challenge the Eurocentric image of the passive woman and demonstrate women’s resistances against the patriarchal normative systems. These studies also reveal women’s multiple subjectivities at the intersection of gender, sexuality, race and religion. However, none of these studies has focused on women’s agencies in the context of the intersectionality of sexuality and morality.

My participants’ responses to sexual morality as well as their experience in the women’s movements in Turkey indicate there are several modalities of agencies, including many that are not necessarily liberating. Even though both religious and secular women activists share a common goal to challenge the patriarchal regime, their narratives pointed to a divide among themselves, a sort of “us” and “them” division. I believe this division prevents women from developing solidarity in their struggles against the patriarchal power on their bodies, be it Islamist or secularist and/or religious or non-religious/secular.

The analysis of the interviews reveals that women would like the women’s movements to be more active in challenging sexual morality in relation to dress norms.

There is some agreement that the debate relating to the ban on headscarves has occupied

175

the feminist agenda too long, and that it is now time to move beyond the headscarf and focus more on the connection between dress norms and sexual morality in a wider context in order to explore the control imposed on women’s bodies. To do so, interviewees also noted that the taboo many women share around sexuality need to be broken. One way to weaken the taboo is to give more space to the voice of young women in the movements, women who have the potential to counter the patriarchal sexuality discourse.

176

Chapter 7. Conclusion

This dissertation analyzed the sexual morality shaped by Kemalist and Islamist discourses through the reading of dressed female bodies in Turkey. Drawing on secondary sources on the history of Turkey, as well as 31 interviews with women involved in women’s movements in Turkey, this study aimed to reveal how sexual morality affects women, particularly how they relate to their bodies and to what extent they resist or conform to the dress norms. The main argument of this study is that even though the secularist and

Islamist discourses have been perceived as contradictory, both these discourses embody a sexual morality that identifies female sexuality as a threat to the public order. I also claimed that while sexual morality has been utilized to control women’s bodies though dress norms, it has also structured public spaces in a way that does not welcome or accept the presence of sexual female bodies.

During the nation-building process of the Turkish Republic, the modernizing elite aimed at detaching and differentiating the new nation from the Ottomans through accentuating the ‘civilized’, ‘modern’ and secular face of the nation. The Kemalist modernity project carried out various reforms to fashion its ‘modern’ secular subjects, and women were at the center of this project as the symbol of the break from the religious

‘backward’ Ottoman State. The gender reforms implemented during the early years of the

Republic avowed to save women from the oppressive Islamist regime and to make them equal participants of the public space. Indeed, the Kemalist discourse claimed to rescue women from the Islamist regime by opening the public space to them.

Gole argues that with the elimination of Islamic practices of segregation and veiling and women’s increased participation in the public space during the Kemalist modernity

177

project, the Islamist conceptualization of women’s bodies as mahrem (private or belonging behind the walls of the private sphere) began to deconstruct. In other words, the idea that women’s bodies are to be “forbidden to a foreigner’s gaze,” (mahrem), and thus in need of seclusion, began to wane (Gole, 1996, p. 7). Consequently, the boundary the Islamic order created between mahrem (private) and namahrem (public) began to disintegrate with the Kemalist modernity project. Gole claims, however, that with the emergence of

Islamist movements in 1990s and the increased presence of ‘modern’ educated veiled women in public spaces, Turkey is now confronted with a “modern mahrem” (Gole 1996).

I agree with Gole’s claim about a significant transformation that has appeared in the public sphere since the 1990s in Turkey. However, I have argued in this dissertation that the Islamist sexual morality (ahlak), which defines a woman’s body as a threat to public order – hence, in need of hiding from namahrem (public gaze) – has been preserved in the modernist secular discourse. While the Kemalist secular discourse celebrated the ideal woman as unveiled, it insisted that she not be allowed to display publicly her sexuality. Liberated from the veil, the modern Kemalist woman could take her place in the public sphere as long as she remained mahrem by hiding her sexual body with modern clothing.

I have demonstrated that that even though secularist and Islamist discourses are conceived as dualistic, the sexual morality norms they impose on the bodies of women come from the same patriarchal roots that define their bodies as tempting and dangerous.

Through the analysis of the data I collected during my field research, my findings suggest that both discourses have serious concerns with female sexuality. Both utilize dress as a technology of the body to conceal the female sexual body and regulate the visibility of women in public spaces. On the one hand, the headscarf together with the long loose

178

dresses and/or pardesü (long coat) hide the body and its contours, thus ensuring the ahlak

(morality) of women is protected from the gaze of namahrem (strangers). On the other hand, hanım hanımcık (ladylike) dress style marks the secular female body as “moral and respectable” through the concealing of its sexuality from the judgmental public gaze. As such, both the hanım hanımcık dress style and the headscarf have been setting the tone for what is ‘acceptable and respectable’ for female bodies.

By employing various technologies of discipline, the state and the people in

Turkey use sexual morality to constrain the freedom and mobility of women in public spaces. Even though women participate in public spaces, this study suggests that their existence in public spaces remains disputed as a result of sexual morality, which only opens spaces to ahlaklı (moral) bodies (the bodies that conceal their sexualities). The examination of the experiences of women in mahalles (neighbourhoods), rural and urban spaces, and public transportation in Turkey indicated that women’s bodies are subjected to a public gaze that draws a clear boundary between ahlaklı (moral) and ahlaksız

(immoral) women. In case of failure to conform to the dress norms, women become targets of the public gaze, which disciplines and punishes them. While the punishment can be a disapproving gaze that marks the body as ahlaksız, it can also be in the form of explicit sexual violence used to discipline the woman who, by revealing her sexuality, has made herself ‘loose’ and ‘available’. By failing to confirm the sexual moral order through their modest modern or religious attire, Turkish women are labeled ‘loose’, ‘available’, ‘immoral’ and ‘sexually promiscuous’ by the public gaze, a gaze that legitimizes also men’s sexual advances. Women discipline themselves and follow the dress norms of public spaces in order to avoid the gaze, social threats, and, ultimately, sexual harassment and violence.

While the identification of women as ahlaklı (moral) or ahlaksız (immoral) through dress

179

encourages them to internalize moral values and then discipline their bodies, it also justifies sexual harassment of the ahlaksız women by labeling this particular type of dressing style as consent for sexual advances. Needless to say, women are discouraged to participate in public spaces, particularly at night. In other words, through sexual violence as a technology of discipline, the public gaze of sexual morality constitutes the streets at night as male spaces. Women are far from being welcome in the streets at night.

Despite the disciplinary gaze of sexual morality, women are not passive, ‘docile’ subjects when they move in public spaces. My research demonstrated that women develop strategies to manage and subvert the disciplinary gaze, such as taking shawls or jackets to cover their décolleté or standing up rather than sitting down on the bus when wearing miniskirts. Even though these strategies are not sufficient to reconstruct or reverse the dominant sexual morality discourse limiting the mobility of women in public spaces, they reflect different modalities of agencies that women use to observe sexual norms but also create more freedom for themselves in public spaces.

While women’s bodies are subjected to a disciplinary public gaze of sexual morality, state surveillance mechanisms also target women and impose sexual moral norms on their bodies through dress. The by-law regulating the Garments of Public

Personnel, Kamu Kurum ve Kuruluşlarında Çalışan Personelin Kılık ve Kıyafetine Dair

Yönetmelik, released in 1982, has been utilized as one of the technologies of the body to fashion ‘acceptable’ and ‘respectable’ gendered moral bodies. Even in the cases where the official dress code is not applied, women follow the code in order to gain respectability and recognition in the male-dominated workplace. Women ‘dress like a lady and act like a man’ in order to validate and defend their presence in the workplace as equals of men.

180

Hence, they use dress as a strategy to manage the norms of the male-dominated workplace.

The power of state surveillance was especially visible on moral Muslim bodies on university campuses particularly during the years of the ban on the headscarf (1985-2010).

While the ban on the headscarf in public universities reflected the attempt of the state to resist the rise of Islamist movements by transforming ‘unfit’ bodies into ‘acceptable’ secular bodies, the resistance coming from veiled Muslim bodies reflected their opposition to have their bodies controlled by the state. However, with the shift from a secularist to an

Islamist government, the headscarf ban at the universities was abolished in 2008 and the headscarf ban for public and civil servants at the workplace was lifted in 2011 by the AKP government. The narratives of the subjects of this study suggested that with the rise to power of the AKP government, the meaning of an ahlaklı (moral) woman has become increasing conservative and, unfortunately, responsible for an increase in cases of violence against women.

The analysis of the narratives of the participants suggests that there is an increasing concern about the shift in attire associated with the definition of ahlaklı woman: a shift from the hanım hanımcık (ladylike) dress style to the tesettür (new Islamist dress code). Their narratives convey that while secular women are increasingly defined as iffetsiz/ahlaksız (unchaste/immoral), headscarved women have begun to be defined as iffetli/ahlaklı (chaste/moral). Therefore, women who deviate from Islamist sexual morality

– which defines female sexuality as a threat to public morality due to its power to seduce men – are not only marked as ‘immoral’, but, unfortunately, become targets of harassment.

The evidence provided by the participants for the shifting definition of ahlaklı (moral) women was not limited to their experiences in Turkish society before and after the rise of

181

the Islamist discourse. The increasing amount of sexual violence against women, the increasing recourse to the Penal Law articles on “impudent/indecent (hayasız) manners” and “unjust provocations”, as well as the AKP’s gender discourse, which associates women with motherhood and the private sphere were presented as evidence of the increasing conservatism of sexual morality in Turkey.

One of the goals of this study was to reveal the complexity of the participants’ subjectivities in spite of the disciplinary sexual morality discourse; hence, the analysis unveiled different modalities of agencies, including non-liberating ones. Mahmood’s conceptualization of agency as “capacity for action” enabled me to explore both religious and secular women activists’ agencies without limiting their agency to resistance. For instance, even though the headscarf is still perceived as a sign of submission, the narratives of the religious Muslim women activists suggest that by following the requirements of Islam and its dress code, they actively submit to a set of norms they believe in. When these norms were disrespected by the secular state, these women fought for their right to determine their public appearance. Their subjectivities and actions reveal the complexity of normative systems and how “acts of submission to one set of norms may entail resistance to another set” (Shively, 2014, p. 462). Thus, while their headscarf is self-understood as an active form of submission to Islam, it is also an act of resistance to the secularist state discourse, and, by the same token, an affirmation of a right to self-determination.

Mahmood’s conceptualization of agency does not attenuate the importance of resistance; rather it allows us to deconstruct the Eurocentric image of women as passive subjects of the patriarchal regime. The participants’ responses to the sexual morality as well as their experiences in women’s movements in Turkey show that women are not just

182

the passive objects of patriarchal sexual discourses; rather, they challenge the sexual morality that shapes their bodily experiences and monitors and limits their mobility in public spaces. However, this study also suggested that by giving more space to the voices of young women in women’s movements, Turkish women could develop a a stronger solidarity to challenge patriarchal sexual morality.

The Significance and Contribution of the Study

Fashion studies explore the role of dress and its cultural inscriptions over sexual bodies and reveal how the body is controlled through dress (Entwistle 1996, 2000;

Entwistle and Wilson, 2001; Andrewes 2005). Even though these studies discuss how bodies are made ‘acceptable’ and ‘proper’ through dress, they often lack a sociological lens that explores the role morality discourses play in imposing power on female bodies through dress. The study of dress norms in relation to sexual morality is a widely neglected area in feminist and gender studies. In this context, I believe this study makes a contribution to the theories of fashion studies by revealing how dress has been utilized in the materialization of a Turkish sexual moral female body.

While studies on dress and sexuality have also been conducted in Middle Eastern societies, they focus on the relationship between the veil and Islamic sexuality, and the role of the veil in the construction of sexuality in Islamic texts and socio-political discourses

(e.g. orientalist and colonial discourses) (Mernissi 1995; Afshar 1998; El Gundi, 1999).

Other studies examine the agencies of veiled women in Muslim societies (Ahmed 1992,

2011; Abu-Lughod 1990; Mahmood 2005; Najmabadi 1993). None of these studies pay attention to the way sexual morality utilizes dress as a form of disciplinary technology to regulate and control female bodies, as well as shape the bodily experiences of women.

183

The literature on Turkish society and dress is mainly limited to the discussion on the headscarf and secularism. Some examined the construction of the secular unveiled modern citizen in the modernization process of the early Republic (Arat 1997, 1998;

Kandiyoti 1987, 1997; White 2003); others focused on the ban of the headscarf and the image of the ‘new’ Islamist urban educated woman that emerged in the 1990s and the challenge it posed against secularism (Gole 1996, 2000; Ozdalga 1998; Secor 2002); still, others explore the tesettür fashion and the headscarf as the commodification of an Islamic symbol (Navaro-Yashin, 2002; Gokariksel and Secor 2010; Gokariksel 2012). While all these studies have enabled a discussion on how the dress code of the headscarf regulates and shapes women’s bodily experiences, this limited focus on the headscarf left out numerous dress norms that apply to women’s appearances and that produce control mechanisms over women’s bodies. Through a reading of dressed female bodies in

Turkey, this research demonstrated how both the state and the public gaze of sexual morality regulate and shape the bodily experiences of both secular and religious women and how they produce different modalities of agencies.

In terms of gender and sexual morality, studies conducted on Turkey are limited to the issues of virginity and crimes of honour, which include sexual violence. These studies unveiled the traditional notions of female sexuality and how moral claims are made through women’s bodies in the name of protecting the honour of the family or the nation.

However, these studies have failed to see how dress norms are appropriated to maintain the patriarchal sexual moral order, which constrains the mobility and freedom of women in public spaces in Turkey. This study reveals how sexual morality structures public space around patriarchal norms, norms that do not welcome or accept the presence of sexual female bodies. It also sheds light on the link between dress, morality and sexual violence,

184

by revealing how sexual violence acts as a technology of discipline to reinforce a dress code that hides female sexuality.

Limitations and Future Directions

In this study, I chose to interview women involved in women’s movements in

Istanbul and Ankara in order to reveal the different modalities of agencies of women activists already engaged in bringing about change for women. Since women’s movements in Turkey are mostly composed of urbanized, educated women from middle or upper-class environments, the participant’s socioeconomic status did not vary significantly in this study. Women who do not participate in women’s movements and women who come from various class backgrounds would not only diversify the voices and modalities of agencies I presented, but would also reveal the role socio-economic status play in shaping the morality discourse and women’s bodily experiences.

Moreover, the fieldwork made it clear that the inclusion of men’s voices would make a significant contribution to the findings of a study on sexual morality. The participants of this study mainly pointed out how their dressed bodies have been perceived and labeled by the male gaze. Thus, including men’s voices in the study would help understand how men use the gaze of the sexual moral order to mark women’s bodies as moral.

Even though the participants came from a variety of cities, they were all living in

Ankara and Istanbul during the time of this field research. Due to the limited time I had for my field research, I was unable to visit other cities and/or rural towns in Turkey to conduct interviews with more women activists. To the degree that my participants experienced

185

public spaces in rural regions, my study barely touched upon the way rural space enforces different dress norms of sexual morality. A study that includes the narratives of rural women would likely reveal more nuanced differences in sexual morality than I have not been able to address.

Dress is not only appropriated as a disciplinary tool in sexual morality discourses in Turkey. Studies have revealed that women are more likely than men to be condemned morally for their dress choices on the grounds of being immodest or promiscuous, and this condemnation is used to justify sexual assault cases (Entwistle, 1997; Wolf 1991; Moor

2010). While studies have shed light on the varying definitions of ‘provocative’ dress in different cultures and how these definitions are appropriated into law to reinforce sexism by the justice system, studies on Turkey have overlooked the significant relationship between patriarchal sexual moralities and sexual violence, and how it shapes the daily lives of women. It is my hope that future feminist studies on sexual morality will reveal how dress is utilized differently in various cultures to control women’s bodies and how women find creative means to resist this control.

186

References

Books and Journal Articles

Abadan-Unat, N. (1990). The legal status of Turkish women. In. F. Ozbay (Ed) Women, family and social change in Turkey. Namgkok: UNESCO.

Abu-Lughod, L. (1990). The romance of resistance: Tracing transformations of power through Bedouin women. American Ethnologist, 17(1), 41-55.

Acar, M (2011). Concepts of Morality, Personal Autonomy, and Parental Authority in Multifaceted Social Issues: An Examination of Daughters’ and Mothers’ Reasoning in Religious and Secular Istanbul, Turkey. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Division of the University of California in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. University of California, Berkeley.

Acun, F. (2007). Görsel Verilerde Kadın Imajı (1923-1960) [The image of woman in the visual materials (1923-1960). SDÜ Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16, 91-112.

Afshar, H. (1998). Islam and feminisms: an Iranian case-study. Houndmills : Macmillan.

Ahmad, F. (1993). The making of Turkey. New York: Routledge.

Ahmed, L. (1992). Women and gender in Islam: Historical roots of a modern debate. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ahmed, L. (2011). A Quiet revolution: The veil's resurgence, from the Middle East to America. New Haven: Yale university Press.

Alemdaroglu, A. (2005). Politics of the body and eugenic discourse in early Republican Turkey. Body&Society, 11(61), 61-76.

Aldikacti Marshall, G. (2008). A Question of Compatibility: Feminism and Islam in Turkey. Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, 17(3), 223-238.

Aldikacti Marshall, G. (2013). Shaping gender policy in Turkey: Grassroots women activists, the European Union, and the Turkish state. New York: Sunny press.

Alvi, S. S., Hoodfar, H. and McDonough, S. (2003). The Muslim veil in North America: issues and debates. Toronto: Women's Press.

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

187

Andrewes, J. (2005). Bodywork: Dress as Cultural Tool: Dress and Demeanor in the South of Senegal. Leiden: Brill.

Arat, Z. F.(1997). Turkish women and the republican reconstruction of tradition. In S. BozDoğan and R. Kasaba (Eds.), Rethinking modernity and national identity in Turkey. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Arat, Y. (2010). Nation building and feminism in early Republican Turkey. In C. J. Kerslake, K. Oktem and P. Robins (Eds.), Turkey’s engagement with modernity: Conflict and change in the twentieth century. Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan.

Arig, A. S. (2007). Atatürk Turkiye’sinde kilik kiyafette cagdaslasma (Modernization of clothing laws in Atatürk’s Turkey). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.

Atasoy, Y. (2009). Islam's marriage with neoliberalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Avci, Y. (2007). Osmanlı devleti’nde Tanzimat döneminde “otoriter modernlesme” ve kadının ozguurlesmesi (“Authoritarian modernity” in the Ottoman Empire in the Tanzimat period and the question of women’s liberty). OTAM (Ankara Universitesi Osmanli Tarihi Arastirma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi). Ankara: Ankara Universitesi Osmanli Tarihi Arastirma ve Uygulama Merkezi, 21.

Ayata, S. (1996). Patronage, party, and state: The politicization of Islam in Turkey. The Middle East Journal, 50(1), 40-56

Barnard, M. (ed.) (2007). Fashion theory reader. London: Routledge.

Barras, A. (2014). Refashioning secularisms in France and Turkey: The case of the Headscarf ban. Yew York: Routledge.

Bartky, S. (1988). Foucault, femininity and the modernization of patriarchal power. In L. Quinby and I. Diamond (Eds.), Feminism and Foucault: reflections on resistance. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press.

Bell, Q. (1976). On human finery. London: Hogarth Press.

Berktay, F. (1995). Has anything changed in the outlook of the Turkish left on women? In S. Tekeli (Ed.), Women in modern Turkish society. London: Zed Books.

Berktay, F. (1996). Tek tanrili dinler karsisinda kadin (Woman in monotheist religions). Istanbul: Metis Yayinlari.

188

Bodur, M. (2005). Modernity, social movements, and democracy: Feminist Movements in post-1980 Turkey. A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Political Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontaria.

Bordo, S. (1993). Unbearable weight. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Booth, M. (2010). Harem histories: Envisioning places and living spaces. Durham: Duke University Press.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York and London: Routledge.

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: on the discursive limits of “sex”. London: Routledge.

Cinar, A. (2005). Modernity, Islam and secularism in Turkey. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cinar, A. (2008). Subversion and subjugation in the public sphere: secularism and the Islamic headscarf. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 33(4), 891-913.

Cosar, S. and Gencoglu Onbasi (2008). Women's movement in Turkey at a crossroads: From women's rights advocacy to feminism. South European Society and Politics, 13(3), 325-344.

Davis, F. (1992). Fashion, culture and identity. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Demirel, S. (2008). The roots of headscarf ban in Turkey. Journal of Islam in Asia, 5(2), December 2008.

Diner, C., and Toktas, S. (2010). Waves of feminism in Turkey: Kemalist, Islamist and Kurdish women's movements in an era of globalization. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 12(1), 41-57.

Durakbasa, A. (1998). Kemalism as identity politics in Turkey. In Z. Arat (Ed) Deconstructing Images of “The Turkish Woman”. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Durakbasa, 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), 195-203.

Entwistle, J. (2000a). The fashioned body: Fashion, dress and modern social theory. Malden, MA, Cambridge: Polity Press.

189

Entwistle, J. (2000b). Fashion and the fleshy body: Dress as embodied practice. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture, 4(3), 323-347.

Entwistle, J. (2001). The dressed body. In J. Entwistle and E. Wilson (Eds.), Body dressing. Oxford: Berg.

Entwistle, J. (2007). ‘Power Dressing’ and the construction of the career woman. In M. Barnard (ed) Fashion Theory: A Reader. New York: Routledge.

Entwistle, J. and Wilson, E. (Eds.) (2001). Body dressing. Oxford: Berg.

Erol, S. (1992). Feminism in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey, 8, 109–120.

Faroqhi, S. (2004). Introduction, or why and how one might want to study Ottoman clothes. In S. Faroqhi and C. K. Neuman (Eds) Ottoman costumes: From textile to identity. Istanbul: Eren.

Fraser, N. (1993). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In B. Robbins (Ed.), The Phantom Public Sphere. Minneapolis: U of MNP

Featherstone, M. (1991). The body in consumer culture. In M. Faetherstone, M. Hepworth, and B. S. Turner (Eds.) The body: social process and cultural theory. London: SAGE Publications.

Finkelstein, J. (1991). The fashioned self. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: the birth of prison. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, M. (1990 [78]). History of sexuality (Vol. 1): An introduction. New York: Vintage Books.

Gains, J. and Herzog, C. (Eds.) (1990). Fabrications: costume and the female body. London: Routledge.

Gocek, F. M. and Balaghi, S. (1994) (Eds.) Reconstructing gender in Middle East: tradition, identity and power. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gokariksel, B. & Mitchell, K. (2005). Veiling, secularism, and the neoliberal subject: national narratives and supranational desires in Turkey and France. Global Networks, 5(2), 147-165.

Gokariksel, B. and Secor, A. (2010). Islamic‐ness in the life of a commodity: veiling‐ fashion in Turkey. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 313–333.

190

Gokariksel, B. (2012). The intimate politics of secularism and the headscarf: the mall, the neighborhood, and the public square in Istanbul. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(4), 847–862.

Gole, N. (1996). The forbidden modern: civilization and veiling. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Gole, N. (1997).The quest for the Islamic self within the context of Modernity. In S. BozDoğan and R. Kasaba (Eds) Rethinking modernity and national identity in Turkey. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Gole, N. (2000). Islam ve modernlik uzerine melez desenler (Hybrid patterns on Islam and modernity), Istanbul: Metis Yay.

Gole, N. (2004). Visible women: actress in the public sphere. New Perspectives Quarterly, 21(2), 12-13.

Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana. University Press.

Gulendam, R. (2001). The development of a feminist discourse and feminist writing in Turkey: 1970-1990. Kadin/Woman, 2(93), 93-116.

Hajjaji-Jarrah, S. (2003). Women's modesty in Quran'ic commentaries: the founding discourse. In S. Alvi, S., H. Hoodfar, and S. McDonough, (2003). The Muslim veil in North America: issues and debates. Toronto: Women's Press.

Heintz, M (2009). Introduction: Why there should be an anthropology of moralities. In M. Heintz (ed.), The Anthropology of Moralities. New York: Berghahn Books.

Hock, S. (2013). “Do You Know What It Means to Be a Woman?”: Negotiating Kemalism and State, Feminism During the Transition to a Multi-Party Republic in Turkey. A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. The Faculty of Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington.

Hoodfar, H. (1991). Return to the veil: Personal strategy and public participation in Egypt. In N Radcliffe and M. T. Sinclair (eds.). Working Women: International Perspectives on Labour and Gender Ideology. London: Routledge.

Howell. S. (1997). Introduction. In S. Howell (Ed.), The Ethnographies of Moralities. New York: Routledge.

Huisman, K. and Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2005). Dress matters: Change and continuity in the dress Practices of Bosnian Muslim refugee women. Gender and Society, 19(1), 44-65.

191

Ibrahimhakkioglu, F. (2012). Embodied affective experience in Saba Mahmood’s politics of piety: Reformulating agency for an inclusive transnational feminism. Feminism and Philosophy, 12(1), 14-19.

Ilkkaracan, P. (2008). Exploring the context of women’s sexuality in Eastern Turkey. Reproductive Healt Matters 6(12), 66-75.

Ilkkaracan, I. (2008). How adultery almost derailed Turkey’s aspirations to join the European Union. In P. Ilkkaracan (Ed.) Deconstructing Sexuality in the Middle East. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Jayawardena, K. (1992). Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World. London and New Jersey: Zed Books.

Kabasakal Arat (2010). Opportunities, Freedoms and Restrictions: Women and Employment in Turkey. In C. J. Kerslake, K. Oktem and P. Robins (Eds), Turkey’s engagement with modernity: Conflict and change in the twentieth century. Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kadioglu, A. (1996). The Paradox of Turkish Nationalism and the Construction of Official Identity. Middle Eastern Studies, 32(2), 177-193.

Kandiyoti, D.(1987). Emancipated but unliberated? Reflections on the Turkish case. Feminist Studies, 13(2), 3317-338.

Kandiyoti, D. (1991). Identity and its discontents: Women and the nation. Journal of International Studies, 20(3), 429-443.

Kandiyoti, D. (2000). Gendering the modern: On missing dimensions in the study of Turkish modernity. In S. BozDoğan and R. Kasaba (Eds.), Rethinking modernity and national identity in Turkey. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Kandiyoti, D. (2004). “Slave girls – temptress and comrades: Images of women in the Turkish novel. In P. İlkkaracan (Ed.), Women and sexuality in Muslim societies. Istanbul: Women for Women’s Human Rights Publication.

Karpat, K. H. (1959). Turkey’s politics: The transition to a multi-party system. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kawamura. Y. (2006). Fashion-ology: An introduction to fashion studies. Oxford: Berg.

Kawamura. Y. (2011). Doing research in fashion and dress: An introduction to qualitative methods. New York: Berg.

Keyman, F (2003). Turkiye’de laiklik sorununu dusunmek: modernite, sekulerlesme ve demokratiklesme (Thinking the problem of laicism in Turkey: modernity, secularization and democratization). Dogu- Bati, 23.

192

Koc, H. (2006). ‘Bedenimiz Bizimdir!’ demek ve Islamcilar (Saying ‘It is our body!’ and Islamists). Pazartesi, 11, 23-28.

Kongar, E. (1998). 21. yuzyilda Turkiye (Turkey in the 21st century). Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.

Lahsaeizadeh, A. and Yousefinejad, E. (2011). Social Aspects of Women’s Experiences of Sexual Harassment in Public Places in Iran. Sexuality and Culture, 16, 17-37.

Lewis, B. (2002). The emergence of modern Turkey. New York: Oxford University Press

Lombardi, B. (1997). Turkey - the return of the reluctant generals? Political Science Quarterly, 112(2), 1991-215.

Longhurst, R. (2001). Bodies: Exploring fluid boundaries. New York: Routledge.

Lynch, A. (2007). Expanding the Definition of Provocative Dress: An Examination of Female Flashing Behavior on a College Campus. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25(184), 184-201.

Mahmood, S. (2001). Feminist theory, embodiment, and the docile agent: Some reflections on the Egyptian Islamic revival. Cultural Anthropology, 16(2), 2002- 236.

Mahmood, S. (2005). Politics of piety: Islamic revival and the feminist subject. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mahmood, S. (2006). Agency, performativity, and the feminist subject. In E.T. Armour and S.M. St Villle (Eds), Bodily citations: Religion and Judith Butler. New York: Colombia University Press.

McDowell, C. (1992). Dressed to kill: Sex, power and clothes. London: Hutchinson.

McLaren, M. A. (2002). Feminism, Foucault, and embodied subjectivity. Albany, NY : State University of New York Press.

McNay, L. (1991). The Foucauldian body and the exclusion of experience. Hypatia, 6.

Mernissi, F. (1987). Beyond the veil: male-female dynamics in modern Muslim society. Bloomington : Indiana University Press.

Mernissi, F. (1995). Peçenin Ötesi: İslam Toplumunda Kadın-Erkek Dinamikleri (Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society). İstanbul: Yayınevi Yay.

193

Mert, N.(1994). Laiklik tartismasina kavramsal bir bakis (Discussing laicism from a conceptual perspective). Istanbul: Baglam Yay.

Micklewright, N. (1986). Women’s dress in nineteenth century Istanbul: Mirror of a changing society. University of Pennsylvania: ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.

Mills, A. (2007). Gender and mahalle (neighborhood) space in Istanbul. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 14(3), 335-354.

Miller, R. (2007). Limits of bodily integrity: Abortion, adultery, and rape legislation in comparative perspective. Abingdon: Ashgate Publishing Group.

Miriam, K. (2012). Feminism, neoliberalism, and slutwalk. Feminist Studies, 38(1), 262- 266.

Moor, A. (2010). She Dresses to Attract, He Perceives Seduction: A gender gap in attribution of intent to women's revealing style of dress and its relation to blaming the victims of sexual violence. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 11(4).

Multuler-Bac, M (1999). Turkish women’s predicament. Women’s Studies International Forum, 22(3), 303–315.

Nagel, C. R. (2005). Introduction in Geographies of Muslim women: Gender, Religion and Space. New York: Guildord Press.

Najmabadi, A. (2005). Women with mustaches and men without beards: gender and sexual anxieties of Iranian modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Najmabadi, A. (1993). Veiled discourse – Unveiled bodies. Who’s East? Whose East?, 19(3), 487-518.

Navaro-Yashin, Y. (2002). The market for identities: Secularism, Islamism, commodities. In Kandiyoti, D. & Saktanber, A. (Eds.), Fragments of culture: the everyday of modern Turkey, New York: I.B. Tauris.

Niranjana, S. (2001). Gender and space: Femininity, sexualization and the female body. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

O’Keefe, T. (2014). my body is my manifesto! Slutwalk, FEMEN and femmenist protest. Feminist Review, 107(107), 1-19.

Olson, E. A. (1985). Muslim identity and secularism in contemporary Turkey: "the headscarf dispute". Anthropological Quarterly, 58(4), 161-171.

194

O’Neil, M. L. (2008). Being seen: headscarves and the contestation of public space in Turkey. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 15(2), 101-115.

O’Reilly, A. (2012). Slut pride: A tribute to slutwalk Toronto. Feminist Studies, 38(1), 245- 250.

Osbourne, R. (1997). Men Without Clothes: Heroic Nakedness and Greek Art. Gender & History, 9(3), 504-528.

Ozcetin, H. (2009). ‘Breaking the Silence’: The religious Muslim women’s movements in Turkey. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 11(1), 106-119.

Ozdalga, E. (1998). The veiling issue, official secularism and popular Islam in Turkey. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon.

Ozsu, U. (2010). Receiving’ the Swiss Civil Code: Translating authority in early republican Turkey. International Journal of Law in Context, 6, 63-89.

Parla, A. (2001). ‘The ‘Honor’ of the State: Virginity Examinations in Turkey. Feminist Studies, 27(1), 65-88.

Peres, R. (2012). A history of the headscarf ban in Turkey. Turkish Review, 2(5), 34-46.

Polat, R. and Cagli, E. (2014). New directions for women’s political development in Turkey: Exploring the implications of the internet for Ka-der. Information Polity, 19, 179-194.

Polhemus, T. and Proctor, L. (1978). Fashion and anti-fashion: An Anthropology of clothing and adornment. London: Cox and Wyman.

Pomerantz, S. (2007). Cleveage in a tak top: Bodily prohibition and the discourse of school dress codes. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(4), 373-386.

Puwar, N. (2004). Space invaders: Race, gender and bodies out of place. New York: Berg.

Quataert, D. (1997). Clothing Laws, State, and Society in the Ottoman Empire, 1720- 1829. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 29(3).

Rydstrom, H. (2006). Sexual Desires and ‘Social Evils’: Young women in rural Vietnam. Gender, Place and Culture: A journal of Feminist Geogreaphy, 13(3), 283-301.

Rydstrom, H. (2009). Moralising female sexuality: The intersections between morality and sexuality in rural Vietnam. In M. Heintz (Ed.), The Anthropology of Moralities. New York: Berghahn Books.

195

Sakallioglu, U. C. (1996). Parameters and strategies of Islam-state interaction in Republican Turkey. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 28(2), 231-251.

Saktanber, A. and Corbacioglu, G. (2008). Veiling and headscarf-skepticism in Turkey. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 15(4), 514- 538.

Sancar, S. (2012). Turk modernlesmesinin cinsiyeti: Erkekler devlet, kadınlar aile kurar (The sex of modernization of Turkey: Men form states, women form family). Istanbul: Iletisim.

Secor, A. (2002). The veil and urban space in Istanbul: women's dress, mobility and Islamic knowledge. Gender, Place and Culture, 9(1), 5-22.

Shilling, C. (1993). The body and social theory. London: Sage.

Shively, K. (2014). Entangled Ethics: piety and Agency in Turkey. Anthropological Theory, 14(4), 462-480.

Smart, C. (1989). Feminism and the power of law. Yew York: Routledge.

Spain, D. (1992). Gendered spaces. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Yumul, A. (2010). Fashioning the Turkish body politic. In C. J. Kerslake, K. Oktem and P. Robins (Eds.), Turkey’s engagement with modernity: Conflict and change in the twentieth century. Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tekeli, S. (1992). Europe, European feminism, and women in Turkey. Women’s Studies International Forum, 15(1), 139-143.

Timisi, N. and Agduk Gevrek, M. (2002). 1980’ler Turkiye’sinde feminist hareket: Ankara Cevresi (Feminist Movement in 1980s Turkey: Ankara Circle). In A. Bora and A. Gunal (Eds.), 90’larde Turkiye’de feminizm (Feminism in 90s Turkey). Istanbul: Iletisim.

Toprak, B. (1990). Emancipated but unliberated women in Turkey: The impact of Islam. In. F. Ozbay (Ed.), Women, family and social change in Turkey. Namgkok: UNESCO.

Tseëlon, F. (1995). The masque of femininity: The presentation of woman in everyday life. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Tyner, K. and Ogle, J. P. (2007). Feminist perspectives on dress and the body: an analysis of Ms. Magazine, 1972 to 2002. Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 25(74), 74-105.

196

Yesilyurt Gunduz, Z. (2004). The Women’s Movement in Turkey: From Tanzimat towards European Union Membership. Perceptions, 9, 115-134.

Yilmaz, H. (2006). Reform, social change and state-society encounters in early Republican Turkey. The University of Utah: ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.

Yuval-Davis, N. (1997). Gender and nation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Yüksel, M. N. (2006). The encounter of Kurdish women with nationalism in Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 42(5), 777-802.

White, J. (2002). Islamist Mobilization in Turkey: A Study in Vernacular Politics. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

White, J. B. (2003). State feminism, modernization, and the Turkish Republican women. NWSA Journal, 15(3), 145-159.

Wieringa, S. E. (2009). Postcolonial amnesia: Sexual moral panics, memory, and imperial power. In G. Herdt (Ed.), Moral panic, sex panics: Fear and fight over sexual rights. New York: New York University Press.

Wilson, E. (2003). Adorned in dreams: Fashion and modernity. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press.

Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth. London: Vintage.

Zilfi, M. C. (2004). Whose laws? Gendering the Ottoman sumptuary regime. In S. Faroqhi and C. K. Neuman (Eds.), Ottoman costumes: From textile to identity. Istanbul: Eren

Zurcher, E J. (2004). Turkey: A modern history. London and New York: I.B. Tauris.

Newspaper Articles

Cakir, B. (2010). Kadınlar Geceleri de Sokakları da Meydanları da Terk Etmedi. Bianet, March 9, 2010.

Gulbahar, H. (2008). Bir toplumsal baski araci olarak 225. madde. Haber Vesaire. http://www.habervesaire.com/news/bir-toplumsal-baski-araci-olarak-225-madde- 836.html

Turkish Prime Minister sayswomen should not laugh out loud. (July 29, 2014). The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/turkish-minister-women- laugh-loud-bulent-arinc

197

Bulent Arinc fetva verdi: Kadin herkes icinde kahkaha atmayacak. (July 28, 2014). http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=kadin-herkesin-icinde-kahkaha-atmayacak- 2807141200

Dekolte Giyersen tacize ugrarsin. (February 16, 2011). Posta Gazetesi. http://www.posta.com.tr/turkiye/HaberDetay/_Dekolte_giyersen_tecavuz_ederler _.htm?ArticleID=61615

Akkoc, R. (17 February 2015). Turkish women post selfies wearing black as US condemns Özgecan Aslan murder. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/11417870/Turkish- women-post-selfies-wearing-black-as-US-condemns-Özgecan -Aslan- murder.html

ABC News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-17/rape-and-murder-of-young-turkish-woman-sparks- mass-protests/6131368

Özgecan'ın annesi: Ne olur iki üç yıl yatıp çıkmasınlar (February 15, 2015). Radikal Newspaper. http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/Özgecan in_annesi_ne_olur_iki_uc_yil_yatip_cikmasinlar-1293733

Üniversiteli kız yakılarak öldürüldü! (13 February, 2015). Milliyet Newspaper. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/universiteli-kiz-yakilarak-gundem-2013343/

Protests against violence mount after Özgecan’s murder (18 Februrary, 2015). Daily Sabah. http://www.dailysabah.com/nation/2015/02/18/protests-against-violence- mount-after-Özgecan s-murder

Murder a fact of life for women in Turkey (20 February, 2015).Hurriyet Daily News. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=women-murder- victims-increase-snowballing-in-turkey-2011-02-20

Nihat Doğan’in Özgecan tweeti buyuk tepki cekti (15 February 2015). Radikal Gazetesi. http://www.radikal.com.tr/hayat/nihat_Doğanin_Özgecan _tweeti_buyuk_tepki_cekti-1293716

Turkish men are wearing miniskirts to fight for women’s rights (23 February 2015). Time. http://time.com/3718618/turkey-men-miniskirts-Özgecan -aslan/

Özgecan Aslan için etekli eylem çağrısı (17 February 2015). En Son Haber. http://www.ensonhaber.com/Özgecan -aslan-icin-etekli-eylem-cagrisi-2015-02- 17.html

Turkish teacher calls for ‘harassment teams’ against miniskirts (19 February 2015). Hurriyet Daily News. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-teacher-calls-for- harassment-teams-against- miniskirts.aspx?PageID=238&NID=78572&NewsCatID=341

198

Turkish religious Head criticizes remarks blaming women for sex crimes. Hurriyet Gazetesi, February 17, 2011. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=bans-on-women- in-islam-cant-be-used-as-pretext-for-rape-says-gormez-2011-02-17

Women meet to walk without shame, July 4, 2008. Bianet. http://www.bianet.org/english/women/108094-women-meet-to-walk-without- shame

Kadınlar geceleri de sokaklari da meydanlari da terk etmedi, March 9, 2010. Bianet. http://www.bianet.org/bianet/toplumsal-cinsiyet/120531-kadinlar-geceleri-de- sokaklari-da-meydanlari-da-terk-etmedi

Websites

“Feministler uyumuyor e-grubu”, Hazar Grubu, April 21, 2008. http://www.hazargrubu.org/etkinlikler/gorusmeler-ziyaretler/362-feministler- uyumuyor-egrubu.html

Feministiz Biz Blog, http://feministbiz.blogspot.ca/p/metinler.html

Turk Kadınlar Birligi, http://www.turkkadinlarbirligi.org/kurumsal/Tarih%C3%A7e

199

Appendix A.

Research Participants

Every woman I interviewed with – in the scope of this research – was involved in women's movements either as members of feminist and/or women's non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or they actively participate in the campaigns, discussion groups, meetings, workshops on women's issues/gender equality, organized by the feminist groups or women's rights activists. All interviewees were members of one or multiple of e- mail groups on women's issues. It also needs to be noted that even though labeling all of the women participated in this research as feminist would be incorrect, identifying them as women’s rights activists would not be a mistake since they were all involved in the women’s movement in one way or another.

Thirty-one interviews were conducted with women involved in women’s movements in Istanbul (15 participants) and Ankara (16 participants) in 2010.

To sustain anonymity, all the names used in this research are pseudonyms.

Education: Except one of the participants (she had a high school degree), they all had at least a bachelor degree.

Occupation: One of the participants had never worked after completing her university degree. Rest of the participants were either graduate students, retired or working professionals.

Age: 7 participants were in their 20s; 11 participants were in their 30s; 9 participants were in their 40s; 4 participants were in their 50s.

200

E-mail Groups

All interviewees were members of one or multiple of e-mail groups on women's issues. The online groups are Birbirimize Sahip Çıkıyoruz (We Look Out for Each Other),

Henüz Özgür Olmadık (We Are Not Yet Free), Kadın Kurultayı (Women's Convention),

Feministbiz (We are Feminists), and Feministler Uyumuyor (Feminists are not Sleeping).

These email groups are not only important cyber platforms to generate discussions on gender and sexual issues, but also crucial cyber platforms to organize and announce the protests nation-wide.

Birbirimize Sahip Çıkıyoruz (We Look Out for Each Other), which is composed of women academics and activists from various religious, ethnic and political orientations.

This initiative tried to bring the discussion into a new platform that is open to the diversity and differences, claiming that “they were against the stereotypes that discriminate against women as ‘Islamist robots’ and immoral ‘sexual objects’ and announced that ‘they reject a public sphere where every woman cannot walk arm in arm’” (Saktanber and

Corbacioglu, 2008: 516). This initiative does not aim only bringing religious Muslim women and secular women together, but rather create solidarity among women from different political, religious and sexual orientations to stand against any kind of discrimination against women. Even though as participants noted this feminist initiative’s effectiveness has diminished since 2012, it has been a very good example of solidarity between women’s groups and religious Muslim women.

201

Henüz Özgür Olmadık (We Are Not Yet Free) is mainly composed of women

from various political orientations who are against the ban on the headscarf. It is an

email group started by Genç Siviller (Young Civilians). Three young women of Genç

Siviller, each of who wears a headscarf and suffered from the ban during her university

education, prepared a manifestation, which criticizes the YÖK (Higher Education

Council), the ban on the headscarf, militarism, marginalization of Kurdish population and

minorities, and the current constitution (which was prepared during military coup that

limits rights and freedom of speech). Hundreds of people, including academics and

activists signed this document.

Kadın Kurultayı (Women's Convention) is an e-mail group founded in 2000 and the goal of the group is to gather women who want to struggle against violence against women. This group brings over 300 women’s groups and this email group played a salient role when women’s organizations pressured the government to make amendments to the

Turkish Penal Code in 2004 (Karakaya Polat and Cagli, 2014). FeministizBiz is a group founded by feminist women from different socio-political groups to struggle against discrimination and violence in 2009. Feministler Uyumuyor was a short-lived groups founded in 2008, particularly to understand the difference among women and to understand each other as women. It was initially a small group bringing religious, secular and secular women to discuss women’s issues, such as increasing conservatism, women’s labour, violence against women, women’s freedom.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

The NGOs that the interviewees involved in are Kadın Dayanışma Vakfı (Women's

Solidarity Foundation, Ankara), Sosyalist Feminist Kolektif (Socialist Feminist Collective,

Ankara and Istanbul), Amargi Kadin Akademisi (Amargi Women's Cooperative, Istanbul),

202

Kadın Adayları Destekleme ve Eğitme Derneği - KADER (Association for Education and

Supporting Women Candidates, Ankara), Ankara Kadın Platformu (Ankara Women's

Platform, Ankara), Uçan Süpürge (Flying Broom, Ankara), Başkent Kadın Platformu

(Capital Women's Platform, Ankara), Ayrımcılığa Karşı Kadın Hakları Derneği – AKDER

(Women's Rights Organization Against Discrimination, Istanbul), Türk Kadınlar Birliği

(Turkish Women's Union, Ankara) and Kadının İnsan Hakları – Yeni Çözümler Derneği

(Women for Women's Human Rights – New Ways, Istanbul).

Some of the participants were also founders and/or writers in the feminist journals;

Pazartesi (Istanbul), Kazate (Istanbul), and Amargi (Istanbul) which are the nation-wide journals where women share their ideas and campaigns.

Türk Kadınlar Birliği (The Association of Turkish Women) claims to be the heir of the first women’s organization founded in 1924 “Türk Kadınlar Birliği”. In their website, they state that the organization was closed in 1934 and then re-opened in 1949 and since then they have been working to protect and improve women’s rights. This organization is well known as being Kemalist, which follows the modernist Kemalist perspective strictly.

Kadın Adayları Destekleme ve Eğitme Derneği – KA-DER (Association for Support and

Train Woman Candidates) was founded in 1997 to increase women’s participation in politics, and they are still supporting women both in local and national elections and aims at reaching equal representation in every aspect of political life.

Kadın Dayanışma Vakfı (Women's Solidarity Foundation, Ankara), Ankara Kadın

Platformu (Ankara Women's Platform, Ankara), Amargi Kadın Akademisi (Amargi

Women's Cooperative), Sosyalist Feminist Kolektif (Socialist Feminist Collective, Ankara and Istanbul), Uçan Süpürge (Flying Broom, Ankara), and Kadının İnsan Hakları – Yeni

203

Çözümler Derneği (Women for Women's Human Rights – New Ways, Istanbul) are women’s non-governmental organizations who have been actively involved in the women’s movements in the last two decades and they have been organizing events and campaigns against gender inequality and discrimination and struggling for women’s rights and equality. The NGOs are very diverse in terms of their campaigns and members. Their members come from different ethnic, class, and religious backgrounds and their campaigns vary from local to international projects. Particularly, these are the organizations, which identify themselves as feminist organizations, which are seeking to ensure gender equality in social, economic and political lives of women.

Başkent Kadın Platformu (Capital Women's Platform, Ankara), and Ayrımcılığa

Karşı Kadın Hakları Derneği – AKDER (Women's Rights Organization Against

Discrimination, Istanbul) are the organizations founded by women religious Muslim women in the late 1990s. AKDER was founded after in 1999 to struggles against the ban on the headscarf on university campuses. Although the starting point to establish AKDER was the ban on the headscarf, the explanation of their activities in their journals shows that they are also dealing with other issues, ranging from legal rights of women to the education of women (Ozcetin, 2009). Like AKDER, Başkent Kadın Platformu was also struggling against the ban on the headscarf, but their agenda has been wider than the issue of headscarf. In their journal, the aims of the organization are stated as follows: “Determining women’s problems and producing alternative perspectives, theoretical and practical solutions to improve women's intellectual, psychological, social and economic situation; providing dialogue, communication and solidarity between women, and conducting activities by gathering different women around common benefits.” (Quoted in Ozcetin

2009, p. 113).

204