SPACE, IDENTITY, AND ABJECTION: PURIFICATION OF BEYOĞLU A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND THE INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES OF ĠHSAN DOĞRAMACI BĠLKENT UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ART, DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE By Emin Özgür Özakın January, 2011 i I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Art, Design and Architecture. ______________________________________ Assist. Prof. Dr. Ġnci Basa (Principal Advisor) I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Art, Design and Architecture. ______________________ Prof. Dr. Gülsüm Baydar I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Art, Design and Architecture. ______________________________ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Güven Arif Sargın I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Art, Design and Architecture. __________________________ Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gürata I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Art, Design and Architecture. ____________________________ Assist. Prof. Dr. Çağrı Ġmamoğlu Approved by the Institute of Fine Arts ___________________________________________________ Prof. Dr. Bülent Özgüç, Director of the Institute of Fine Arts ii ABSTRACT SPACE, IDENTITY, AND ABJECTION: PURIFICATION OF BEYOĞLU Emin Özgür Özakın Ph.D. in Art, Design and Architecture Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Ġnci Basa January, 2011 Beyoğlu provides uniquely rich material for a discussion on space and identity. Ever since its very foundation, the district has accommodated different nations, cultures, religions and architectural styles which were blended into a unique amalgam. Even if Beyoğlu fitted in the socio-political fabric of the Ottoman Empire, along with the Turkish modernization, there aroused a discontent over its identity. In the 20th century, Beyoğlu was turned into a contaminating element for the Turkish Republic and was subjected to various incidents that attempted to purify its complex identity. These incidents may well be read with Kristeva‟s “abjection”, a concept that serves in identity construction by simultaneously inventing and excluding an element of fear, revulsion, and hatred. Abjection towards Beyoğlu and its components were commonly masked by a nostalgic discourse that invented a pure bygone identity. In the 20th century, Beyoğlu has become a defiled resource, serving to perform and generate identities; but mostly chauvinist, nationalist, religious, and moralist ones. This fact necessitates a critical distance towards the essentialist view of identity construction operating with abjection, where the abject figure is merely regarded as something to be annihilated. Supported with an ethical dimension, post-structuralist ontology provides a non-violent and sustainable approach towards identity construction that necessarily includes the excluded. KEYWORDS: Beyoğlu, identity, abject, abjection, nostalgia, purification, chora. iii ÖZET MEKAN, KĠMLĠK VE ĠĞRENÇLEġTĠRME: BEYOĞLU‟NUN SAFLAġTIRILMASI Emin Özgür Özakın Sanat, Tasarım ve Mimarlık Doktora Programı DanıĢman: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ġnci Basa Ocak, 2011 Beyoğlu, mekan ve kimlik tartıĢması için eĢi bulunmaz zengin bir malzeme sunmaktadır. Semt, kuruluĢundan bu yana farklı etnik, kültürel, dinsel, dilsel ve mimari öğeleri barındırmıĢ ve bunları heterojen bir alaĢımda kaynaĢtırmıĢtır. Her ne kadar Osmanlı Imparatorluğu‟nun sosyo-politik dokusuna ters düĢmemiĢ olsa da, Türk modernleĢmesiyle birlikte Beyoğlu‟na karĢı bir hoĢnutsuzluk baĢ göstermiĢtir. 20. Yüzyılda Beyoğlu, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti için hastalık yayan bir öğeye dönüĢtürülmüĢ ve karmaĢık kimliğini saflaĢtırmaya yönelik birçok eyleme maruz kalmıĢtır. Bu eylemler Kristeva‟nın, kimlik kurulumuna hizmet etmek üzere bir korku, iğrenme ve nefret öğesi üretme ve bunu dıĢtalamaya dayanan, iğrençleĢtirme kavramıyla okunabilir. Beyoğlu ve öğelerine yöneltilen iğrençleĢtirme sıklıkla saf kimliği geçmiĢte üreten bir nostalji söylemi ile maskelenmektedir. 20. Yüzyılda Beyoğlu, çoğunlukla Ģoven, ulusal, dinsel ve ahlaki kimlikler üreten kirletilmiĢ bir kaynağa dönüĢmüĢtür. Bu gerçek, iğrenilenin sadece ortadan kaldırılacak bir figür olarak görüldüğü bir çeĢit iğrençleĢtirmeyle iĢleyen özcü kimlik kurulumuna karĢı eleĢtirel bir mesafe gerektirmektedir. Etik tartıĢmasıyla desteklenen yapısalcı sonrası varlıkbilim, kimlik kurulumuna yönelik olarak, dıĢtalananın içselleĢtirildiği, Ģiddet içermeyen sürdürülebilir bir yaklaĢım sunmaktadır. ANAHTAR KELĠMELER: Beyoğlu, kimlik, iğrenç, iğrençleĢtirme, nostalji, saflaĢtırma, kora. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to thank Gülsüm Baydar for giving me the courage for starting the Ph.D. program in which I have learned so much. The invaluable courses of Mahmut Mutman, Zafer Aracagök, Gülsüm Baydar, and Asuman Suner broadened my imagination and made me a brand new person; thank you for your patience and enthusiasm in teaching. A very special thanks goes out to Ġnci Basa, without whose motivation and encouragement I would not have finished this thesis. I would also like to thank Pınar Selek for her book on Ülker Street events. This book has given me the inspiration to develop this study, and meeting her in person made my world brighter. Thank you for your kind heart and your unwavering determination to be in solidarity with the ones in need. I have to mention Umut ġumnu, Aslı Çoban, Ülkü Özakın, Sinem Çınar, Ece Akay, and Metehan Özcan; thank you for believing in me and giving me the courage at times that I desperately needed. Last, but not the least, thank you Zoe, my precious girl. You made me more compassionate, more human, and more attentive towards all the living. Your company gives me courage… v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iii ÖZET……. ................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. viii 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Origin ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Conceptual Framework .................................................................................. 5 1.3. Structure ....................................................................................................... 11 1.4. Method ......................................................................................................... 12 2. IDENTITY OF BEYOĞLU ................................................................................... 14 2.1. Historical Background of Beyoğlu .............................................................. 14 2.1.1. Beyoğlu until 20th Century: A Heterogeneous Space ........................ 15 2.1.2. Foreign Literary Representations of 18th and 19th Century Beyoğlu . 25 2.1.3. 20th Century Beyoğlu: An Allergic Space ......................................... 30 2.1.4. Turkish Literary Representations of 20th Century Beyoğlu............... 35 2.2. Identity Crisis in late 20th Century Beyoğlu ................................................ 39 2.2.1. Beyoğlu as a Burden in Relation to Nation Building ........................ 43 2.2.2. Nostalgia and Identity Construction .................................................. 46 2.2.3. Nostalgic Identities versus Historic Facts ......................................... 50 3. BEYOĞLU AND ABJECTION ............................................................................ 52 3.1. Concept of Abjection ................................................................................... 52 3.1.1. Abjection and Identity Construction .................................................. 53 3.1.2. Abjection and Space ........................................................................... 57 3.1.3. Concealed Cooperation of Nostalgia in Abjection............................. 60 3.2. Abjection in the 20th century Beyoğlu ......................................................... 62 3.2.1. Abjection towards Entire Beyoğlu ..................................................... 64 3.2.2. Abjection within Beyoğlu .................................................................. 76 3.2.3. Beyoğlu as a Figure of Abjection in Contemporary Literature ......... 89 4. 1996 ÜLKER STREET EVENTS .......................................................................... 94 4.1. Transgendered Subjects and Beyoğlu .......................................................... 94 4.2. Ülker Street before the Events ....................................................................