DYNAMICS OF COLLECTIVE ACTION IN TURKISH PRISONS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MAMAK AND DIYARBAKIR PRISONS BETWEEN 1980 AND 1985 by Basak Gemici Ay Bachelor of Arts, Sabancı University, 2012 Master of Arts, Koc University, 2015 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Pittsburgh 2016 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS & SCIENCES This thesis was presented by Basak Gemici Ay It was defended on April 14th, 2016 and approved by Suzanne Staggenborg, Professor and Department Chair, Sociology Thesis Director: Jackie Smith, Professor, Sociology John Markoff, Distinguished University Professor, Sociology ii Copyright © by Basak Gemici Ay 2016 iii DYNAMICS OF COLLECTIVE ACTION IN TURKISH PRISONS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MAMAK AND DIYARBAKIR PRISONS BETWEEN 1980 AND 1985 Basak Gemici Ay, M.A. University of Pittsburgh, 2016 Historically, one of the most significant periods in which incarceration was used as a tool to manage political opponents of the regime in Turkey was the 1980s, specifically during and after the 1980 military coup. This study investigates the high-risk environments of the two notorious military prisons: Mamak and Diyarbakir Prisons between 1980 and 1985. These two military prisons: Mamak Prison, where Turkish revolutionaries were incarcerated and Diyarbakir Prison, where Kurdish revolutionaries were incarcerated, were infamous for the torture and level of repression implemented by the military junta. The aim of the military junta was to dissolve revolutionary organizations and military prisons were one of the state institutions that were used to realize this aim. Thus, while comparing the dynamics of collective action of the political prisoners in two prisons, I also consider how different prisons/ prison contexts affect the success a regime has in demobilizing dissident groups. Using in-depth interviews I conducted, along with contemporary writings from former political prisoners, my research will demonstrate how the development of solidary interpersonal relations and shared identity were solidified during prison life and facilitated formation of collective action. Moreover, the risk-taking ability of the leaders appear as contingently interconnected themes to identity and relations in explaining how political prisoners in iv Diyarbakir Prison formed more frequent and sustainable collective actions than the political prisoners in Mamak Prison. This thesis contributes to the discussions of different mobilization processes under high-risk contexts in undemocratic environments and addresses the understudied aspect of collective action in Turkish prisons. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ xi 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 8 2.1 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH ................................................................ 10 2.2 REFLECTIONS ON THE FIELD ........................................................................ 12 3.0 CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................... 15 3.1 THEORETICAL DISCUSSION AND LITERATURE ON PRISONS ............. 16 3.1.1 Core Justifications for Imprisonment in Penology...................................... 17 3.1.2 Disciplinary Power and Resistance in the Prison ........................................ 19 3.1.3 Productive Power and Resistance ................................................................. 21 3.1.4 Discussions on “Prison Riots” ....................................................................... 26 3.1.5 Discussion on the Dynamics of Collective Action ........................................ 28 3.1.6 Behavioral Approach ..................................................................................... 28 3.1.7 Rational Choice and a Critical Look ............................................................ 29 3.1.8 Resource Mobilization Approach ................................................................. 30 3.1.9 Political Opportunity Structure: Threats and Opportunities .................... 31 vi 3.1.10 Moving to Micro-Level Explanations: Cultural and Emotional Theory of Action 34 3.1.11 Emotions and Collective Action .................................................................. 34 3.1.12 Networks and Relations ............................................................................... 35 3.1.13 Leadership and Identity ............................................................................... 37 3.1.14 Repression and Collective Action................................................................ 38 4.0 CHAPTER II: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND .................................................... 42 4.1 TURKISH PRISONS AND POLITICAL PRISONERS IN THE REPUBLICAN HISTORY (1920-1980): CONDITIONS OF PRISONS BETWEEN 1920 AND 1980 ................................................................................................................... 42 4.2 POLITICAL PRISONERS OF THE EARLY REPUBLICAN PRISONS:1920- 1960 45 4.3 INCREASING NUMBER OF POLITICAL PRISONERS: 1960-1980 ............. 46 4.4 THE PRISON SYSTEM AS AN INSTITUTIONAL WEAPON AGAINST REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS ............................................. 51 4.5 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ON THE KURDISH QUESTION IN TURKEY ............................................................................................................................. 59 5.0 CHAPTER III: INSIDE THE MAMAK AND DIYARBAKIR PRISONS .......... 63 5.1 MAMAK MILITARY PRISON ............................................................................ 63 5.2 DIYARBAKIR PRISON ........................................................................................ 69 6.0 CHAPTER IV: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COLLECTIVE ACTION IN MAMAK AND DIYARBAKIR PRISONS ............................................................................... 75 vii 6.1 DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON OF THE INMATES IN MAMAK AND DIYARBAKIR PRISONS BETWEEN 1980 AND 1985 ................................................. 75 6.2 OPPORTUNITY AND THREAT: ROLE OF STATE REPRESSION............. 84 6.3 HOW DID MICRO AND MESO-LEVEL DYNAMICS VARY UNDER DIFERENT POWER STRUCTURES? ........................................................................... 87 6.3.1 Collective Identity, Emotions and Honor in Re-framing Resistance ......... 87 6.3.2 Role of Effective Leadership in High-Risk Collective Action .................... 95 6.3.3 Organizational Networks and Interpersonal Relations in Mamak and Diyarbakir Prisons ..................................................................................................... 98 7.0 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 104 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................ 109 List OF abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 109 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 111 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: 1970-89 Total number of convicted and detained prisoners. ......................................... 53 Table 2: Inmate Age Group .......................................................................................................... 75 Table 3: Education Level of the Inmates ...................................................................................... 76 Table 4: Chronology of the Hunger Strikes .................................................................................. 79 Table 5: Similarities and Differences of Diyarbakir & Mamak Prisons ....................................... 87 Table 6: Number and Causes of Injuries and Deaths in Mamak and Diyarbakir Prisons ............ 85 Table 7: Degree of Repressive Policies in Mamak and Diyarbakir Prisons ................................. 86 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Tabutluk (coffin) ........................................................................................................... 64 Figure 2: Kafes (cage) ................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 3: Physical education hour in Mamak Prison .................................................................... 69 Figure 4: Normative education session in Diyarbakir Prison ....................................................... 74 x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the chair of my MA thesis Prof. Jackie Smith for her insightful guidance and generous assistance throughout the writing process. I also would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Prof. John Markoff for his detailed and critical comments and Prof. Suzanne Staggenborg for her support. I am grateful to Asst. Prof. Murat Yuksel from my former institution, for his encouragement to do this research. I am especially thankful to the revolutionaries/former inmates whose participation made this project possible. Meeting and working with CISST was a very important turning point for this thesis; their