Queering the Public Sphere: the LGBTI Movement in Gezi
PhD Candidate in Political Sciences at EHESS, CESPRA

(EHESS - CESPRA - Centre d'études Sociologiques et Politiques Raymond Aron)

Introduction

The Gezi Park Movement emerged in May 2013 in Istanbul as a defining moment in Turkish political life, as part of the public squaremovements around the world, characterized by common traits such as heterogeneity, performativity and horizontality. In this paper, I concentrate on a particular group among the demonstrators – the LGBTI 1 movement. I will try to analyze how the LGBTI movement contributed to the evolution of the protest culture that showed itself at Gezi Park. In order to study this subject, analyzing the relation between the public sphere and the LGBTI movement seems essential. Regarding the public sphere, I refer to Jürgen Habermas who defines it as an imagined community that is composed of private people reunited together as a public who articulate the needs of the society and the state2 . Another key concept in our analysis is Charles Tilly's repertoire of collective action, identified as “limited set of routines that are learned, shared and acted out through a relatively deliberate process of choice.” 3 . By means of these theories, I will try to understandhow the LGBTI movement's repertoire of collective action is composed in the public sphere and how it interacts with the repertoire of the Gezi movement. In order to do this, I will study the particular signification of the public sphere in Turkey, LGBTI people's visibility in the popular culture, the emergence of the LGBTI movement in Turkey, the relation of the LGBTI movement's repertoire of collective action with queer theory and finally how the LGBTI movement played a transformative role in Gezi.

Public Sphere in Turkey

Far from expressing a civil space composed outside of the state, the notion of "public" (kamu in Turkish) represents a space controlled by the state 4 . This notion being used as the synonym of state, a hegemonic representation of national identity obstructed the recognition and representation of other identities in the public sphere5 . The Turkish state drew a limit between the private and the public spheres in order to construct its own public space. The public sphere was designed as the space of modernity, progress, civilization and rationality against the private sphere, which is the space of religion, tradition and ethnicity 6 . It was determined by a French style secularism according to which the actors are obliged to leave their local and religious identities when they enter the public sphere, especially in the spaces of education and politics 7 . Ernest Gellner criticized this secularism, which he finds moral and pedagogical because of its spatiotemporal impositions on everyday life practices, by calling it "didactic secularism"8 . As for sexuality, its representation in the public sphere has its own specificities9 . According to Lauren Gail Berlant, sex and sexuality are organized as a public mediation, and heterosexism identifies, operates and assures its coherence. Heterosexist culture in Turkey is a system which creates its own institutions of intimacy and privacy in order to regulate the sexualities and bodies in the public sphere. It imposes boundaries and forms normalities and privileges accompanied by the mahrem culture10 . According to Nilüfer Göle, contrary to Occidental modernities which constructed the public sphere with women's exclusion, Kemalism defines its public sphere by positioning the women at the center11 . It's the reason why the feminine body is considered as the symbol of Turkish modernity and we can suppose that it's one of the reasons of the trauma caused by the emergence of veiled women's visibility in the public sphere in the 1980s.

In spite of the symbolic importance attached to women, we can say that sexuality is also imprisoned in the private sphere. It's not before 1983, with the "modern conservatism" of Motherland Party implemented after the military coup of September 12th1980, that the differentiation of the private and public spheres was discussed. After 1983, we observe a " return of the repressed" and the emergence of an important debate dedicated to the boundaries between the private and public spheres. In the first instance, it was Islam who launched the discussion, especially with the physical presence of veiled women in the public sphere. Social movements based on the ideologies that struggle for the possibility of a future utopia gave place to social movements which have reclamations "in the present" and which are based on identity12 . The post-September 12th 1980 era is perceived as an apolitical era, a period of depolitization. However, we observe three principal political movements in the 1980s: the Islamist movement, the Kurdish movement and feminism, which, compared to the most important movements before September 12th, have a different way of making politics. According to Kenan Çayır, the LGBTI movement, which was in the process of emerging in these years, has a similarity with these movements because all these identities were homogenized and categorized and this discursive essentialism legitimated the exclusion of these individuals perceived as minorities13 .

Nevertheless, we can say that the recognition of LGBTI's existence in the public sphere in Turkey is very recent. The roots of a first LGBTI movement can be found in the 1970s but it was so marginalized that the majority of the country didn't know about it. Until the 1980s, or even the 1990s, the LGBTI visibility in the public sphere was restricted to popular culture figures.

Images of the popular culture: possibility of a queer space?

When we talk about LGBTI visibility before the 1980s, the first figures that spring to mind are Zeki Müren, Bülent Ersoy and Seyfi Dursunoğlu.

Zeki Müren (1931-1996) was a singer of Turkish classical music who became famous in the 1950s with his particular singing style, his movies, his extremely elite manner of speaking Turkish and his costumes, which could be described as queer. According to Umut Tümay Arslan, his looks always remained sublime in a ridiculous way, which reminds of disintegrity and incompleteness while his voice and his usage of language function as the symbolic register of the integrity of the citizen idealized by the Turkish Republic14 . He never confessed his sexual orientation and Turkish society adored him by ignoring and never questioning his costumes and make-up.

Bülent Ersoy, born in 1952, is also a Turkish classical music singer, and an emblematic figure in Turkish popular culture given that she had a sex reassignment surgery in 1981, which made her visibility inevitable. The military government after the coup of September 12th introduced a law which was targeting principally Bülent Ersoy and which prohibited the actors and singers from performing by dressing up. In 1980, when she had a pre-surgery, she showed her breasts to her spectators and she was imprisoned because of it. After that, she left the country and had her surgery. When she came back, the Turkish state refused to give her a pink identity card, and to recognize her as a woman. Despite being a queer icon Bülent Ersoy always avoided LGBTI movements. Avoiding her homosexual past, she was defining herself as a heterosexual, conservative, Muslim woman, a member of the upper class15 .

As for Seyfi Dursunoğlu, born in 1932, he is famous for his stage and TV character; Huysuz Virjin (“Crusty Virgin”), which could be defined as a drag queen, characterized by her sexually sarcastic humor. Like others, he doesn’t identify himself publicly as LGBTI, and even claims himself asexual.

The three of them expressed a queer subjectivity in their public performances but never declared their sexual orientations in their private life and they always avoided being associated with LGBTI movements. They even made public declarations, which could be suspected of being homophobic. Nevertheless, this contrast between their private and public lives didn’t keep them from using the scene as a queer space: a space which challenges the private/public dichotomy by definition and a space which allows to perform a queer subjectivity16 . According to Eser Selen, these artists create spatial practices in order to realize a queer visibility in a nation which makes them invisible or rejects LGBTI individuals' existence. In order to be on the scene, they embody spatial representations, which are absent in daily life, at the cost of their identity apart from the scene 17 . Despite the fact that they aren't activists, we could say that they inspired the following generations by creating a queer space, even a counter-space and by bringing a queer visibility out in the Turkish public sphere.

Emergence of the LGBTI Movement

In Turkey, the LGBTI movement was firstly disseminated in the 1970s with Ibrahim Eren's initiative in Izmir, but this initiative was broken in the 1980s because of the coup d'État of September 12th 198018 . One of the targets of the new regime, which could be defined as militarist and conservative, was LGBTI individuals. The post-September 12th period was dominated by interdiction and torture. That is why, in these years, the movement favored a universalist demand for equality with heterosexuals19 . The transformation of the movement became more visible in the course of the 1980s. In 1985, Ibrahim Eren came back to Istanbul after leaving in 1981, founded the Radical Democratic Green Party and started the publication of the journals Yeşil Barış (Green Peace) et Gay Liberasyon (Gay Liberation). On May 5th 1987, Eren and his followers launched a hunger strike in Gezi Park in order to protest against the bad treatment of LGBTI in prisons and the arrests of transsexuals during Ramadan. That protest is considered as the first LGBTI protest in the public sphere, and given that it was published in Le Monde, it obtained a certain visibility even if it was limited20 . Ibrahim Eren, pioneer of the LGBTI movement in the 1980s, founded the Radical Party, which allowed him to play an international role during Turkey's membership process to the European Economic Community21 . However, his role didn't continue after the 1980s.

In the 1990s, the LGBTI movement developed as a reaction against police violence, which was targeting transsexuals. Since the second half of the 1980s, certain peripheral districts of Taksim (especially Ülker street in Cihangir) were in the process of becoming transgender "ghettos". Beginning in 1992, extreme police violence was concentrated on Ülker Street in order to expel the transsexuals from the street. That violence was embodied by Hortum Süleyman (Süleyman the Hose) who was famous for torturing transgenders with hoses. That violence, which went with the hate discourse adopted by the media, entailed transgender murders22 . In 1993, the Gay Men's Federation situated in Germany proposed to celebrate Gay Pride in Istanbul. In order to organize the parade, various organizations cooperated, and many LGBTI persons individually participated. Despite the fact that the parade was forbidden and the organizers were arrested, this cooperation inspired the creation of Lambdaİstanbul, which is henceforth the main association of the LGBTI movement in Istanbul.

In 1994, Kaos GL started its publication as a journal with an open call to gays, lesbians and everybody opposing heterosexism, establishing a platform to show them that they are not alone and inviting them to contribute by sending letters23 . Based on the idea that personal is political, they were inviting LGBTI individuals as well as everybody opposing heterosexism to share their individual experiences. In their first manifesto, they claimed that the freedom of homosexuals involves renouncing the social and political practices of the heterosexist dictate and expresses itself as integrity24 . That manifesto was also expressing Lambdaİstanbul's and Kaos GL's wish to act in solidarity with the feminist and Kurdish movements. Already in the first half of the 1990s, they realized common events with Mor Çatı (a feminist organization mobilized against violence against women) and İnsan Hakları Derneği (Human Rights Association, mainly engaged in human rights violations against Kurdish people). The first public protest of the group was to participate to the demonstrations of March 8th1996.

In 1996, it was decided that the United Nations Habitat II conference would take place in Istanbul, on Taşkışla campus at Istanbul University, close to Taksim. Related to urbanization politics and the will of organizing the city as a shop window in order to attract the global capital, the state ran a gentrification project of Ülker Street, which instrumentalized a medicalization discourse with the widespread usage of the word "purification", and employed for a second time "Süleyman the Hose" for the exclusion of transgender people. Transgenders reacted against this violence and contested Habitat II. Nevertheless, Kaos GL rented a stand in the conference and diffused their activities, but also contested the police violence in Ülker Street. Beginning from 1998, LGBTI individuals started to meet under the initiative of Kaos GL in Ankara and Lambdaİstanbul in Istanbul. They called Güztanbul the meeting in fall and Baharankara the one in spring. In 1999, Kaos GL's cultural center got open as a space that allows individual exchanges, encounters, conferences and events which could be defined as a counter-space for LGBTI sociability. Since that date, Kaos GL continues its activities at a national and international level.

Kaos GL was not "political" if we consider the word "political" as a will to access to power but their activism was political in another sense: it underlined that what is individual is political25 . At this point, I refer to the difference between the French notions le politique and la politique proposed by Albert Ogien and Sandra Laugier. While la politique is the space of vertical power and institutional politics, le politique embodies the actions of citizens in public life26 . We could propose that the journal constructed a counter-space in the sense used by Nancy Fraser: “[counter-spaces are] parallel discursive arenas where the members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counter-discourses which allow to formulate oppositional interpretations of their activities, interests and needs”27 . By sending letters which concern their own personal experiences, their own "coming out" stories, by encountering, exchanging ideas, participating to conferences on heteronormativity, militarism, sexism and authoritarianism, a counter-discourse could blossom. We can say that this collective consciousness and the creation of a counter-discourse allowed the subjectivation of the LGBTI movement in the sense used by Alain Touraine: more and more individuals, in Turkey, could recognize themselves as actors28

“Queering” the Public Space

Queer is a notion, which seems essential to us in order to understand the festive character of LGBTI activism. According to Gayle Rubin, "queer" refers to the rejection of all sort of restriction and hierarchization of the sexuality and therefore, it has a sense of quitting the normality imposed by the power. Hence, it's not a synonym for homosexual, but it's a potential new way of resistance29 . That's the reason why we are neither using the term as a word which means the sum of LGBTI, nor the formulation "LGBTIQ" because queer is not another category represented by a letter, but it's a theory, which (re)opens a discussion about the relation between power and sexuality30 . Criticizing the assimilationist and universalist strategies which are defending that LGBTI people are human beings like others and that therefore they shouldn't be stigmatized, queer doesn't try to integrate into the dominant system. In opposition, it celebrates its exclusion and develops a critical vision from outside31 . With queers, the perception of the stigma changes. According to Erving Goffman, the stigma is an individual sign perceived publicly as discreditable and which constructs the social identity of the individual32 . Queer changes "the closet" of shame into pride and reverses the stigma. The apparition of movements marginalized by the Republic in the public sphere in the 1990s caused a similar process of stigma reversal both for veiled women and the LGBTI movement in Turkey33

Another notion important to us in this analysis is “performance”. Performance art challenges the individual's relation to its own body and expresses motions and ideas with and through the body. This relationship to the body is included in Judith Butler's definition of gender identity as performance demanding a ritualized repetition and the stylization of the body34 . Gender identity is not stable, but enacted by corporal practices, gestures and movements. Butler's approach opens up the possibility to adopt a fluid, changeable conception of gender and emphasizes the precedence of bodily practices and repetitions over discursive level.

Queer performativity appeared clearly in Turkey with the problematization of the differentiation between the private and public spheres by the Gay Pride parades. Tuna Erdem emphasizes that the political power can tolerate the homosexuals "in the closet", living their sexuality in their mahrem, but is disturbed by the proud expression of their sexual orientation in the public space35 . Queer theory rejects the argument according to which sexuality belongs to the private space – where the political power shouldn't intervene. On the contrary, queer theory aims to destabilize the private/public dichotomy36

In this context, the Gay Pride parade appears as a method through which the LGBTI community publicly materializes itself in the space37 . In Turkey, as in many other countries, queer sexuality is expelled from the public space by the materialization of heteronormativity. Duncan defines actions like the Gay Pride parades, public demonstrations, performance art, street theater or openly homosexual behaviors, such as kissing publicly, as "deconstructive spatial tactics"38 . Therefore, the Gay Pride parade does not only assure queer visibility, but also performs a temporal re-articulation of the space by deconstructing the normative spatialization of the desire and by threatening the social production of everyday space39

Istanbul Pride 2011

Istanbul Pride 2011.

Gay Pride started to be celebrated in the entire world after a homophobic attack in the USA in 1969. The first initiative to celebrate it in Turkey took place in 1993 but it was prohibited. With the efforts of associations like Kaos GL and Lambdaİstanbul, there were several attempts to celebrate it until the first Gay Pride parade was organized in 2005 in Istiklal Street. The first Prides were realized with a group of less than fifty people but the number of participants has increased a lot through the years. Over the years, the Gay Pride parades constructed their own traditions like dressing up as drag queens, wearing sexy outfits which can't be worn in everyday life, humoristic and joyful slogans, dancing and performance art which compose a repertoire of collective action which differentiates itself from the "sectarian and militarist" discourse of the leftist movement of the 1970s40 . That is why we can say that the queer, performative and festive tradition of the LGBTI movement inspired and transformed the Gezi movement. 

The LGBTI Movement in Gezi: A Transforming Experience

Given that the Gezi movement is very heterogeneous, it’s not possible to reduce it to only one cause. However, we can consider the feeling of not being respected as Gezi's starting point. Richard Sennett explains the importance of that feeling by saying that “Lack of respect, though less aggressive than an outright insult, can take an equally wounding form”41 . Even though nobody is insulted, one is not recognized either, not considered as a human being whose presence is important. We can say that the government's absence of respect, which marginalized the protestors in Gezi, created a feeling of comprehension and solidarity within the protestors. Physically assembling together in Gezi Park allowed persons with different, even conflicting identities to encounter and communicate with each other. Public space does not only allow the expression of already existing identities, it also transforms them and creates new ones. The common experience of the Gezi movement had such an effect of transformation on its actors.

The presence of the LGBTI movement was striking at Gezi. Gezi park occupies a particular place in the collective memory of the LGBTI movement: in the 1990s, it was the place of the first demonstrations, and up until 2013 sex workers used to work there. Before Gezi, the LGBTI movement, marginalized by the state discourse, was gaining visibility only in the counter-space created in the Gay Pride parades. But in Gezi, like all other actors, LGBTI individuals were struggling against police violence, and demonstrating against state's interventionism in all domains. For Ayşe Gül Altınay, Gezi resembles to Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy: protestors had the chance to contact individuals against whom they were prejudiced and that Gezi served as a workshop for listening each other, overtaking the differences accentuated by state discourse42 . For Yıldız Tar (LGBTI activist and journalist), Turkey before Gezi was similar to an apartment block in which people were living their mahrem in separate apartments: Gezi signifies, above all, for him, the destruction of the walls and the sharing of the mahrems43 . In his view, people in Gezi didn't recognize LGBTI identity's normality, but rather celebrated it in its marginality, in an atmosphere where each resident became marginal, and could thus recognize the marginality of the others44

Istanbul LGBT Pride 2013 at Taksim Square.

Since the beginning of the movement in May 2013, the LGBTI movement had a tent in the center of the park on which “LGBT Block” was written. LGBTI individuals painted captured bulldozers in pink. They displayed the LGBTI flag on their tent and barricades. They frequently organized drag queen dances and small parade groups with slogans and songs45 . We could say that what we call the "Gezi spirit" by referring to the festivity and humor of the movement was particularly present around the LGBTI Blocks’ tent. Slogans, which were conjugating resistance and sexuality, like “Diren ayol!” (“Resist honey!), “Ay resmen devrim!” (“Holy moly it’s revolution!”), “Direnişin o biçimi!” (“Gay way of resistance!”)46  and “Faşizme karşı bacak omuza!” (“Legs on shoulders against fascism!”)47 , became very popular. The transformation of slogans, which were containing sexist, homophobic and misogynic swearwords, was a significant effect of the LGBTI and feminist movements. In the first days of the movement, especially with the participation of soccer team supporters like çArşı, sexist and homophobic swearwords like "faggot" or "son of a bitch" were used in slogans and street writings – until a LGBTI activist shouted at çArşı members: “Faggots are here! Police are not faggots and being a faggot is not a bad thing!”48 . Far from being denied or ignored, that manifestation caused an interrogation and a transformation. Feminists caused a similar transformation by empurpling sexist and homophobic swearwords written on the walls and by criticizing the masculine language used in the movement with the slogan “Don't touch the woman, the prostitute and the faggot”49 . These critics and the will to protest by overtaking the language of the state resulted in a request to learn anti-sexist and anti-homophobic slang and swearwords. Therefore, feminists organized swearing workshops. Another interrogation caused by the LGBTI presence in Gezi was about the content of the word “delikanlı” (“fella”) that is considered generally as a compliment with a macho and masculine connotation. It was used in the popular slogan “Sık bakalım! Sık bakalım! Biber gazı sık bakalım! Kaskını çıkar, copunu bırak, delikanlı kim bakalım!” which was inviting the police officers to leave their casks and batons to see who would be “delikanlı” in equal conditions. Unlike its conventional usage, “delikanlı” was referring to all protestors at Gezi – including women and LGBTI. As the LGBTI activist Levent Pişkin said, the LGBTI movement gained a new visibility in the Gezi movement, which transformed "transvestite terror" into "delikanlı ibnelik" (delikanlı faggots) and gave birth to a hybrid identity50 . Another incident which caused a debate about the word “faggot” was the trial against Levent Pişkin because of his tweet:

I'm waiting for a discourse by Erdoğan which will say ‘I'm totally a faggot. I won't learn to be a faggot from you.’ #LGBTintheconstitution51 .

Accused of insulting a public agent, he defended himself by saying that faggot is not an insult.

In Gezi, we can talk about the stigma reversal of faggot as well as the stigma reversal of  “çapulcu” (marauder), a word used by Prime Minister Erdoğan to discredit protestors in Gezi. According to Michel Wieviorka, stigma reversal happens when the stigma is approached in a reflexive way by the actors, transformed and reappropriated as an act of empowerment52 . We could say that the actors of the Gezi movement were obligated to do this work on themselves and on other groups in the park.

LGBTI individuals are one of the most stigmatized groups, but the stigma “çapulcu” imposed by the government defined Gezi protestors as a minority. According to Gilles Deleuze, majority is an abstraction, and each individual is destined to become minority, and it's the minority which has in itself the potential of a creation, in particular the potential to create a new language53 . Gezi is an example of the creative potential of minorities when the stigma is reversed, and reappropriated.That minority creativity already present in the LGBTI movement interacted with the counter-space created in Gezi Park, giving birth to new forms of resistance as well as new hybrid identities.

The impact of the LGBTI visibility acquired in Gezi Park can be observed in the post-Gezi period, especially in the two Gay Pride parades which followed the Gezi movement. Just after the end of the Gezi park occupation, the 2013 Gay Pride parade took place in Istiklal Street as always, with the theme  “resistance”. This time, Istiklal Street was full of people and totally became a queer counter-space. A lot of Gezi activists were participating for the first time in the Pride. One of the most remarkable slogans was a quotation of the gay poet Ece Ayhan: “Aşk örgütlenmektir.” (“Love is to engage”). With bags produced by LambdaIstanbul on which there were a rainbow and this slogan, “Aşk örgütlenmektir” continued to circulate in the public space. Another remarkable slogan was a dialogue:

– Neredesin aşkım? (“Where are you my love?")

– Buradayım aşkım. (“I'm here my love!”)

Both were expressing the spirit of solidarity created in the Gezi movement. 

In the same spirit, the theme of the 2014 Gay Pride was "contact". This time, with the biggest participation ever, the Pride parade entirely occupied Istiklal Street, with the LGBTI flag carried from the beginning to the end of the street. The link with Gezi was also established with the same slogans. The restaurants and cafes that had refused to accept the Gezi protestors escaping from tear gas and rather served the police were booed. The "Gezi Spirit" also maintained its existence in the parade through the anti-governmental and always humorous slogans shouted in Kurdish and in Armenian. However, 2015 constituted a turning point with the first prohibition of the Gay Pride, on the ground that it was overlapping with Ramadan54 . Notwithstanding with the prohibition, it took place and was attacked by the police. The fact that even parties at nightclubs, after the parade, were attacked, reveals the political and disruptive character of the Pride, which made it intolerable in the eyes of the political power. Since 2015, the Pride has been prohibited, on the basis of different reasons like the existence of social tensions or the risk of a terrorist attack. It has become a public controversy revealing norm conflicts and fracture lines in the Turkish society.

Conclusion

In this paper, I tried to analyze how the LGBTI movement in Turkey constructed a counter-discourse and a counter-space, and integrated performance in its repertoire of collective action. Considering the LGBTI "visibility" in the public space as a key-concept in order to understand the construction of a queer counter-space, I firstly considered the stage as a performative and queer space in the 1970s. This temporal visibility on the stage influenced the LGBTI movement in the 1980s and the 1990s. In these years, Kaos GL and LambdaIstanbul contributed to the configuration of a protest queer culture by carrying the private sphere to the public space. Putting aside the discussion on the queer character of the LGBTI movement in Turkey, I work on the assumption that the queer thinking exists in Turkey as a subculture lived in the private sphere, with its own slang, Lubunca55

When we talk about LGBTI individuals as actors of the Gezi movement, the spatial relation is important. Gezi Park has a particular symbolic meaning for the LGBTI movement: it was the place in which the first LGBTI protest was realized, and where others followed. After the Ülker Street events, transvestites were the victims of Taksim districts' gentrification. Gezi Park, back then, was a space of socialization and visibility for transgendered people. It is perhaps one of the most important reasons of the strong visibility of the LGBTI movement in Gezi Park. We could say that the practices of the LGBTI movement contain a transforming potential and that the new activism born in Gezi Park reciprocally transformed the people who were there. As Nilüfer Göle said, such movements “offer to democracy a new momentum – public communication and collective direction of personal action lead to the circulation of social imaginaries through common repetition”56 . In the example of Gezi Park, that new momentum has a strong relation with the practices of the LGBTI movement and, as such, invites us to analyze the queer character of the public square movements in their opposition to power and traditional politics.

Istanbul Pride 2014

Déplier la liste des notes et références
Retour vers la note de texte 5517

1

The letters LGBTI stand for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex.

Retour vers la note de texte 5518

2

Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1989, p. 27.

Retour vers la note de texte 5519

3

Charles Tilly, « Contentious Repertoires in Great Britain, 1758-1834 », in M. Traugott (ed.), Repertoires and Cycles of Collective Action, London and Durham, Duke University Press, 1995, p. 26.

Retour vers la note de texte 5520

4

Nurdan Gürbilek, Vitrinde Yaşamak, İstanbul, Metis Yayınları, 2011.

Retour vers la note de texte 5521

5

Feyzi Baban, “The Public Sphere and the Question of Identity in Turkey”, in Fuat E. Keyman (ed.), Remaking Turkey: Globalization, Alternative, Modernities and Democracy, Plymouth, Lexington Books, 2007, p. 77.

Retour vers la note de texte 5522

6

Feyzi Baban, “The Public Sphere and the Question of Identity in Turkey”, in Fuat E. Keyman (ed.), Remaking Turkey: Globalization, Alternative, Modernities and Democracy, Plymouth, Lexington Books, 2007, p. 94.

Retour vers la note de texte 5523

7

Nilüfer Göle, İslam’ın Yeni Kamusal Yüzleri, Istanbul, Metis, 2010, p. 23.

Retour vers la note de texte 5524

8

Ernest GellnerMuslim Society, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981, p. 68.

Retour vers la note de texte 5525

9

Lauren Gail Berlant, “Intimacy: A special issue”, Critical Inquiry, vol. 24, n° 2, 1998, p. 281.

Retour vers la note de texte 5526

10

Sertaç Sehlikoğlu. “The Daring Mahrem: Changing Dynamics of Public Sexuality in Turkey”, Gül Özyeğin (ed.), Gender and Sexuality in Muslim Cultures, Farnham, Ashgate, 2015, p. 1.

Retour vers la note de texte 5527

11

Nilüfer Göle, İslam’ın Yeni Kamusal Yüzleri, Istanbul, Metis, 2010, p. 14.

Retour vers la note de texte 5528

12

Nilüfer Göle, İslam’ın Yeni Kamusal Yüzleri, Istanbul, Metis, 2010, p. 7.

Retour vers la note de texte 5531

14

Umut Tümay Arslan, “Sublime yet ridiculous: Turkishness and the cinematic image of Zeki Müren”, New Perspectives on Turkey, n° 5, 2011, p. 190-191.

Retour vers la note de texte 5530

15

Rüstem E. Altınay, “Reconstructing the transgendered self as a Muslim, nationalist, upper class woman: The case of Bülent ErsoyWoman Studies Quarterly, vol. 36, n°  3, 2008, p. 210-229.

Retour vers la note de texte 5532

16

Eşcinsellerle ahbaplık kurmadım”, [online], Kaosgl, 2009, (2/28/2019); 

 

Eser Selen, “The Stage: A space for queer subjectification in contemporary Turkey”, Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, vol. 19, n° 6, 2012, p. 733.

Retour vers la note de texte 5533

17

Eser Selen, “The Stage: A space for queer subjectification in contemporary Turkey”, Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, vol. 19, n° 6, 2012, p. 732.

Retour vers la note de texte 5534

18

Deniz Yıldız, “Türkiye tarihinde eşcincelliğin izinde eşcincsel-lik hareketinin tarihinden satır başları-1: 80ler”, Kaos GL, n° 37, March-April 2007, p. 48-51.

Retour vers la note de texte 5535

19

Kenan Çayır, op. cit.

Retour vers la note de texte 5537

21

İdil E. Şahan, L’émergence d’un espace public LGBT en Turquie : une analyse de la revue Kaos GL, PhD. Diss., L’Université de Grenoble, 2006, p. 188-191.

Retour vers la note de texte 5539

23

« Tarihçe », [online], Kaosgldernegi, (2/28/2019).

Retour vers la note de texte 5540

24

« Tarihçe », [online], Kaosgldernegi, (2/28/2019).

Retour vers la note de texte 5541

25

İdil E. Şahan, L’émergence d’un espace public LGBT en Turquie : une analyse de la revue Kaos GL, PhD. Diss., L’Université de Grenoble, 2006, p. 60.

Retour vers la note de texte 5542

26

Albert Ogien, Sandra Laugier, Le principe démocratie. Enquête sur les nouvelles formes du politique, Paris, La Découverte, 2014, p. 73-74, (translation by the author).

Retour vers la note de texte 5543

27

Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy”, Social Text, vol. 25, n° 6, 1990, p. 67.

Retour vers la note de texte 5544

28

Alain Touraine, “La formation du sujet”, in F. Dubet, M. Wieviorka (dir.), Penser le sujet. Autour d’Alain Touraine, Paris, Fayard, 1995, p. 27.

Retour vers la note de texte 5545

29

Gayle Rubin, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” in H. Abelove, The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, New York, Routledge, 1993, p. 12-14.

Retour vers la note de texte 5546

30

Cf. Tuna Erdem, “Hizadan Çıkmaya, Yoldan Sapmaya ve Çıkıntı Olmaya Dair: Kimlik Değil, Cinsellik!, Tektip Cinsellik Değil, Cinsel Çeşitlilik!”, in Cüneyt Çakırlar, et Serkan Delice (dir.), Cinsellik Muamması: Türkiye’de Queer Kültür ve Muhalefet, Istanbul, Metis, 2012.

Retour vers la note de texte 5547

31

Joshua Gamson, “Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma”, Social Problems, vol. 42, 1995, p. 400.

Retour vers la note de texte 5548

32

Erving Goffman, Stigmate : Les usages sociaux des handicaps,Paris, Éditions de Minuit, 1975, p. 14.

Retour vers la note de texte 5549

33

Nilüfer Göle, “Islamic Visibilities and Public Sphere”, in N. Göle and L. Amann (ed.), Islam in Public: Turkey, Iran and Europe, Istanbul, Istanbul Bilgi University Press, 2006, p. 22.

Retour vers la note de texte 5550

34

Judith Butler, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay In Phenomenology And Feminist TheoryTheatre Journal, n° 4, 1988, p. 519.

Retour vers la note de texte 5551

35

Tuna Erdem, “Hizadan Çıkmaya, Yoldan Sapmaya ve Çıkıntı Olmaya Dair: Kimlik Değil, Cinsellik!, Tektip Cinsellik Değil, Cinsel Çeşitlilik!”, in Cüneyt Çakırlar et Serkan Delice (dir.), Cinsellik Muamması: Türkiye’de Queer Kültür ve Muhalefet, Istanbul, Metis, 2012, p. 47.

Retour vers la note de texte 5552

36

Cf. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York, Routledge, 1999;

 

Gayle Rubin, Deviations, Durham, Duke University Press, 2011;

 

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, Berkeley, California University Press, 1990.

Retour vers la note de texte 5554

37

Gordon Waitt, Kevin Markwell, Gay Tourism: Culture and Context, Binghamton, New York, Haworth Press, 2006, p. 217.

Retour vers la note de texte 5555

38

Nancy Duncan, “Renegotiating gender and sexuality in public and private spaces”, in Nancy Duncan (dir.), BodySpace: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality, London, Routledge, 1996, p. 148.

Retour vers la note de texte 5556

39

Jodie Taylor, “Festivalizing Sexualities: Discourses of “Pride”, Counter-discourses of “Shame””, in Andy Benett (dir.), The Festivalization of Culture, Farnham, Ashgate, 2014, p. 32.

Retour vers la note de texte 5557

40

Engin Sustam, “Kamusal Politiğin Yeniden Yazımı: 90'lı Yıllar İtibariyle Kürd Kültürel Çalışmaları ve Yeni Politik Dil”, Toplum ve Kuram, n° 9, 2014, p. 254.

Retour vers la note de texte 5553

41

Richard Sennett, Respect in a World of Inequality, New York, W.W. Norman & Company, 2003, p. 3.

Retour vers la note de texte 5558

42

Ayşe Gül Altınay, “Direnenlerin Pedagojisi: Gezi Okulundan Öğrendiklerim”, [online], Bianet, 2013, (3/1/2019).

Retour vers la note de texte 5560

45

Aslı Zengin, "What is Queer about Gezi?", Fieldsights – Hot Spots, Cultural Anthropology Online, 2013, (03/12/2019).

Retour vers la note de texte 5561

46

These three slogans contain the vocabulary of Lubunca, the LGBTI slang in Turkey, which cannot be exactly translated in English.

Retour vers la note de texte 5562

47

The leftist slogan « Shoulder to shoulder against fascism » is reformulated so that the expression « shoulder to shoulder », implying fraternity, is replaced by the reference to a sexual position « legs on shoulders ».

Retour vers la note de texte 5575

48

Jacqueline di Bartolomeo, “A Resistance Full of Joy: How the LGBT in Gezi Park changed Lives”, Istanbulstories

Retour vers la note de texte 5563

49

Salih Can Açıksöz and Zeynep Korkman, “Tayyip’in Erk’ekliği ve Direnişin Dili”, [online], Bianet, 2013, (3/1/2019).

Retour vers la note de texte 5564

50

Levent Pişkin, “Sevişerek Direnmeyi Haykırdık”, [online], Bianet, 2014, (3/1/2019).

Retour vers la note de texte 5565

51

Levent Pişkin, “Biz İbneliği Çok İyi Biliriz”, [online], Bianet, 2013, (3/1/2019).

Retour vers la note de texte 5566

52

Cf. Michel Wieviorka, La Différence, Paris, Les Éditions Balland, 2001, p. 106. 

Retour vers la note de texte 5569

53

Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Capitalisme et Schizophrénie 2 : Mille Plateaux, Paris, Minuit, 1980, p. 134-135.

Retour vers la note de texte 5570

54

Onur Yuruyusune Polis Saldirisi”, [online], Bianet, 6/28/2015, (2/19/2019).

Retour vers la note de texte 5571

55

Lubunca is the slang of the LGBTI community in Turkey. Existing since the Ottoman period, it contains terms from Romanian, Greek, Arabic, Armenian and French. For further information about Lubunca: Selin Berghan, Lubunya. Transseksüel Kimlik ve Beden, Istanbul, Metis, 2007.

Retour vers la note de texte 5572

56

Nilüfer Göle, « Démocratie de la place publique : l’anatomie du mouvement Gezi », Socio, vol. 3, 2014, p. 363, (translation by the author).

Salih Can Açıksöz, Zeynep Korkman, “Tayyip’in Erk’ekliği ve Direnişin Dili”, [online], Bianet, 2013. 

Ayşe Gül Altınay, “Direnenlerin Pedagojisi: Gezi Okulundan Öğrendiklerim”, [online], Bianet, 2013. 

Rüstem E. Altınay, “Reconstructing the transgendered self as a muslim, nationalist, upper class woman: The case of Bülent Ersoy”, Woman Studies Quarterly, vol. 36, n° 3, 2008, p. 210-229.

Umut Tümay Arslan, “Sublime yet ridiculous: Turkishness and the cinematic image of Zeki Müren”, New Perspectives on Turkey, n° 5, 2011, p. 190-191.

Feyzi Baban, “The Public Sphere and the Question of Identity in Turkey” in Fuat E. Keyman (dir.), Remaking Turkey: Globalization, Alternative, Modernities and Democracy, Plymouth, Lexington Books, 2007, p. 75-103

Jacqueline di Bartolomeo, “A Resistance Full of Joy: How the LGBT in Gezi Park changed Lives”, Istanbulstories, 2013.

Selin Berghan, Lubunya. Transseksüel Kimlik ve Beden, Istanbul, Metis, 2007.

Lauren Gail Berlant, “Intimacy: A special issue”, Critical Inquiry, vol. 24, n° 2, 1998, p. 281-288.

Judith Butler, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay In Phenomenology And Feminist Theory”, Theatre Journal, n° 4, 1988, p. 519‑531.

Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Capitalisme et Schizophrénie 2 : Mille Plateaux, Paris, Minuit, 1980.

Nancy Duncan, “Renegotiating gender and sexuality in public and private spaces” in Nancy Duncan (dir.), BodySpace: Destablising Geographies of Gender and Sexuality, London, Routledge, 1996, p. 127‑146.

Tuna Erdem, “Hizadan Çıkmaya, Yoldan Sapmaya ve Çıkıntı Olmaya Dair: Kimlik Değil, Cinsellik!, Tektip Cinsellik Değil, Cinsel Çeşitlilik!” in Cüneyt Çakırlar, Serkan Delice (dir.), Cinsellik Muamması: Türkiye’de Queer Kültür ve Muhalefet, Istanbul, Metis, 2012, p. 37‑71.

Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy”, Social Text, vol. 25, n° 6, 1990, p. 56-80.

Joshua Gamson, “Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma”, Social Problems, vol. 42, 1995, p. 390‑407.

Ernest Gellner, Muslim Society, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Erving Goffman, Stigmate : Les usages sociaux des handicaps, Paris, Editions de Minuit, 1975.

Nilüfer Göle, “Islamic Visibilities and Public Sphere”, in Nilüfer Göle, Ludwig Ammann (dir.), Islam in Public: Turkey, Iran and Europe, Istanbul, Istanbul Bilgi University Press, 2006, p. 3‑44

Nilüfer Göle, İslam’ın Yeni Kamusal Yüzleri, Istanbul, Metis, 2010. 

Nilüfer Göle, « Démocratie de la place publique : l’anatomie du mouvement Gezi », Socio, vol. 3, 2014, p. 351‑365.

Nurdan Gürbilek, Vitrinde Yaşamak, İstanbul, Metis Yayınları, 2011.

Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1989.

Elif Ince, “LGBTİ: Kaldırımın Altından Gökkuşağı Çıkıyor”, [online], Bianet, 2014.

Albert Ogien, Sandra Laugier, Le principe démocratie. Enquête sur les nouvelles formes du politique, Paris, La Découverte, 2014.

Levent Pişkin, “Sevişerek Direnmeyi Haykırdık”, [online], Bianet, 2014.

Levent Pişkin, “Biz İbneliği Çok İyi Biliriz”, [online], Bianet, 2013.

Gayle Rubin, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the politics of Sexuality” in Henry Abelove (dir.), The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, New York, Routledge, 1993, p. 144‑178.

Gayle Rubin, Deviations, Durham, Duke University Press, 2011.

Sertaç Sehlikoğlu, “The Daring Mahrem: Changing Dynamics of Public Sexuality in Turkey”, in Gül Özyeğin (dir.), Gender and Sexuality in Muslim Cultures, Farnham, Ashgate, 2015, p. 235‑253.

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, Berkeley, California University Press, 1990.

Eser Selen, “The Stage: A space for queer subjectification in contemporary Turkey”, Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, vol. 19, n° 6, 2012, p. 730‑739.

Richard Sennett, Respect in a World of Inequality, New York, W.W. Norman & Company, 2003.

Engin Sustam, “Kamusal Politiğin Yeniden Yazımı: 90'lı Yıllar İtibariyle Kürd Kültürel Çalışmaları ve Yeni Politik Dil”, Toplum ve Kuram, n° 9, 2014, p. 233‑263.

İdil E Şahan, L’émergence d’un espace public LGBT en Turquie : une analyse de la revue Kaos GL, PhD. Diss., L’Université de Grenoble, 2006.

Yıldız Tar, “Gezi’de En çok Kendi Evlerimizi Yıktık”, [online], Kaos GL, 2014.

Jodie Taylor, “Festivalizing Sexualities: Discourses of “Pride”, Counter-discourses of “Shame”, in Andy Benett (dir.), The Festivalization of Culture, Farnham, Ashgate, 2014, p. 27‑48.

Charles Tilly, « Les origines du répertoire de l’action contemporaine en France et en grande  Bretagne », Vingtième Siècle, n° 4, 1984, p. 89‑108.

Charles Tilly, “Contentious Repertoires in Great Britain, 1758‑1834”, Repertoires and Cycles of Collective Action, Mark Traugott Editor, London and Durham, Duke University Press, 1995, p. 15‑43.

Alain Touraine, « La formation du sujet », in François Dubet, Michel Wieviorka (dir.), Penser le sujet. Autour d’Alain Touraine, Paris, Fayard, 1995, p. 21‑47.

Gordon Waitt, Kevin Markwell, Gay Tourism: Culture and Context, Binghamton, New York, Haworth Press, 2006. 

Michel Wieviorka, La Différence, Paris, Les Editions Balland, 2001.

Deniz Yıldız, “Türkiye tarihinde eşcincelliğin izinde eşcincsel-lik hareketinin tarihinden satır başları-1: 80ler”, Kaos GL, n° 37, March-April 2007, p. 48-51.

Aslı Zengin, "What is Queer about Gezi?", [online], 2013.

Eşcinsellerle ahbaplık kurmadım” (interview with Bülent Ersoy), [online], Kaos GL, 2009.

Une collection de contenus sélectionnée sur Politika

Femmes, genre et sciences sociales

Les entretiens et l'article présentés ici proposent une pluralité de méthodes pour l'étude du genre en sciences sociales, via des disciplines et des contextes différents (le travail, la politique, la guerre). Ils ont pour point commun leur effort exemplaire de réflexivité. Ils mettent en évidence le fait que l'étude du genre est une condition prioritaire de compréhension de l'ensemble des processus sociaux et historiques étudiés par les sciences sociales du politique.

Une collection de contenus sélectionnée sur Politika

La Turquie de l'Empire ottoman à nos jours

La Turquie, depuis le tournant autoritaire du président turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan, est au cœur des enjeux nationaux et internationaux. Les notices relatives à la Turquie présentées ici interrogent le rapport au pouvoir au sein de cet espace et ce, dans la longue durée. Ces dernières font la part belle aux acteurs sociaux tels que l’État, les notables locaux, etc., via l’exploration et l’analyse du processus de modernisation dans l’Empire ottoman et en Turquie ainsi que des ressorts de la domination étatique.

Une collection de contenus sélectionnée sur Politika

Faire des sciences sociales

Guidés par quelques intuitions et armés de leur réflexivité, les chercheurs en sciences sociales construisent leurs objets, élaborent des dispositifs d'enquête, interprètent les données de terrain. La démarche scientifique est ainsi une contribution à l'interprétation du monde.