Nazife Şişman

PUBLIC SPHERE in TURKEY and the SOCIO-POLITICS OF HEADSCARF BAN*

By Nazife Şişman

 

Religion, i.e. Islam has been the main issue which aroused discussion through out Turkey’s Westernization period. Our ancestors who have started to fail in battle fields, that is after living an experience of loss in the military and then in the political arena, started to ask whether there was a relationship between their ‘failure’ and their religion. ‘Is Islam against progress?’ continues to be one of the most vital questions, even today. Republican regime of 1923 has given an answer to this question on a governmental level. And it is believed that by excluding religion from governmental institutions and also from public life the problem would be solved. This solution has given priority to the images and appearances of modernity rather than the modernity itself.

I-

If we want to reach clear thoughts, then we have to know why the existing situation makes our minds confused and incoherent. In order to reach clear thoughts and analyze the existent situation in a clear and definite manner, then we have to look at the issue firstly in a historical perspective.

Muslim World, when it had come face to face with the challenge of Western civilization, experienced a very deep shock. We can easily tie the current problems to this encounter.

Firstly, the modernization period in the Muslim World is connected with military loss and colonization. The important point here is that Muslims had felt and now is continuing to feel this failure in the military area as a failure in cultural and social matters also.

Secondly, orientalism and missionary activities have an important role in the formation of a new thought among Muslim reformer intellectuals. Orientalism and missionary activities have played their role in parallel ways and in connection with each other.

Because of the military loss and colonization, the reformist intellectuals and governors in the Muslim world had been caught by the idea of backwardness as compared to Europe. This idea was in fact a feeling. Some of the scholars, argue that the “enemy” for them was not the foreign occupiers, in the colonized lands that is to say, but it was the feeling of backwardness. This feeling of backwardness had a shaping and formative effect on the thoughts of the governors and the reformists. The reformists have seen the situation of their country in the context of the following words:

The Muslim world is in a general backwardness and decline. We have to manage the progress, we have to develop and put forward an active society. In order to do this we have to put aside the traditional foundations of thought and institutions of Islamic culture and history. And in accordance with this line of thinking, one of the conclusions which they have reached was about the women of their society. The situation of women emerged to be the most apparent element of their culture which had to be changed.

The reforms in the Muslim societies are the same lineage as the Western imperialism that originally appeared in the East as Christian missionary activity.  The “white man’s burden” (Rudyard Kipling) gradually expanded its horizons. Salvation was no longer touted as present in Christianity, but in progress. The ‘orientalist’ perspective fits nicely as Mohja Kahf has shown, into this triumphalistic approach to non-Western societies.[1]

Much of the orientalist literature reflects the view that the sole cause of Muslim women’s oppression is their religion. This narrative has formed a central part of Western discourse on Islam ever since the eighteenth century. The expository tenets of this narrative are (in Leila Ahmed’s words) “that Islam was innately and immutably oppressive to women, that the veil and segregation epitomized that oppression, and that these customs were the fundamental reasons for the general and comprehensive backwardness of Islamic societies” [2]

The social and cultural situation of women of their society seemed to the reformers as backward and barbaric. We have to keep in mind the fact that the situation of women and practices concerning women were labeled as ‘barbaric’ and ‘backward” by the orientalists at first. Then this became the language of the reformers. Within this process, veil has retained a cargo of signification ever since the nineteenth century.

The need for a general, cultural and social transformation was the central issue in reformists’ writings. The arguments regarding women were embedded within this thesis that a general transformation is needed: changing customs regarding women and changing their costume, abolishing the veil in particular were key in the reformists’ thesis in bringing about the desired general social transformations.

Civilization and progress namely ‘medeniyet’ and ‘terakki’ were the key terms in their discussions. A hierarchy of civilizations was adopted by both the colonial authorities and the Muslim reformists and in this hierarchy the Muslim civilization is represented as semi-civilized compared to that of the West.

The parameter which enters into discussion when we talk about Muslims’ view on women is the notion of modernization. As Leila Abu Lughod puts, the parameter which determines the discussions and practices related to the women’s rights in the Muslim world is the East-West relationship. It is this relationship which draws the context of the discussion. The discussions concerning the social status or the education of women are expressed in terms which are borrowed from the West. It is noteworthy that these are either thoughts supported by the Westerners or they are discourses that are formed as apologetic answers to the colonial definitions of the Muslim world.

II-

Barbaric, un-friendly and opressive, underdeveloped, in regression, uneducated, victimized, passive… All of us are familiar with these adjectives which have been used for the Muslim world. And almost all of the Muslim intellectuals have internalized these conclusions. However few of them pay attention to the fact that the topics of these critiques and considerations were posed in orientalist works for the first time. And after that they became the language of the Muslim intellectuals. As all of you know, the orientalist Works have had a function of political and ideological oppression and they have been attempts to transform the cultural memory and social life which Islam has composed in the Muslim world.

Here we can ask the following question: Isn’t there any reality and truth in these critiques and confirmations? Are not the Muslim women live through those mentioned negative conditions? It is apparent that these recognitions and identifications have a REALITY of their own. However we can say that they do not reflect the TRUTH. Since these are the evaluations that have been exposed disregarding the political background, i.e. they disregard the hegemonic relationship between the Muslim world and the orientalist who evaluates. And these are the same evaluations and arguments which are internalized by the Muslims themselves and which are the source of so many problems Muslims have faced and had difficulty in solving.

As a result of the above process, the social and cultural situation of women of their society seemed to the reformers as backward and barbaric. We have to keep in mind the fact that the situation of women and practices concerning women were labeled as ‘barbaric’ and ‘backward” by the orientalists at first. Then this became the language of the reformers.

The need for a general, cultural and social transformation was the central issue in reformists’ writings. The arguments regarding women were embedded within this thesis that a general transformation is needed: changing customs regarding women and changing their costume, abolishing the veil in particular were key in the reformists’ thesis in bringing about the desired general social transformations.

Not only the western eye accepted veil or covering as a manifest sign and the building element of Muslim women, i.e. ‘the other’; but also the veil or covering has played the same function for the reformers of Muslim countries. As we have referred above, westernization/modernization in Turkey has taken place through the appearances and manifest signs of modernity. And the veiled, head covered Muslim women have been ‘the other’ of modernity which should be extinguished. From then on, women have become the barometer of ‘civilization’ which the reformist elite aimed to reach. Within this process, veil has retained a cargo of signification ever since the nineteenth century.

III.

In Turkey public sphere is not held as a common domain which should be discussed and defined, rather it is held as a domain in which modernity reveals itself. For this reason, public sphere itself is a filter and a touchstone by which everything is defined and either permitted or banned. In other words the definition of public sphere, by its own, determines which demands and choices will not be allowed to that sphere. Within this context, public sphere is accepted as “a sacred temple of modernity”.

And because of the afore-mentioned symbolic meaning, through out the Republican period this filter has defined head cover as an element which should not enter into the public sphere. Since public sphere has a hierarchical structure and its definition is based on banning things which are accepted as not-modern. Because of this women with head cover who try to enter into the public sphere are perceived as a challenge to the foundations of the republican regime.

In order to understand why veiling has constituted such a big discussion area, first of all we have to take into consideration how the notions of modernity have been produced in the Muslim world in general and in Turkey in particular. Since Turkey’s experience of modernity was an experience of Westernization, headscarf is held as an appearance which always reminds that we are failed to catch the Western style of life. And because of this, the modernizing elite always considered the headscarf as a reason of being ‘backward’ and as the symbol of old regime –the Ottoman State which the new regime disinherited.

Hence in the rhetoric of modernization the emerging concepts such as emancipation of women, ‘new women’, ‘modern women’ are conceptualized in an opposition to the traditional women who are covered. So through out Turkey’s modernization period head cover is perceived as a low status symbol. It has always recalled either backwardness, or the symbol of ‘irtica’, i.e. going back to the old days, to the Ottoman-Islamic days.

The political athmosphere which were created by the emergence of political Islam in 80s added a new dimension to these discussions. Head scarf has started to be seen as the symbol of fundamentalism and an opressive regime based on Sheria law. Iranian Revolution, the Islamist party’s winning the elections in Algeria, Taliban regime in Afganistan and at the end the September 11 has supported this symbolism and this symbolism is being strengthened everyday.

The photographs of Iranian women with guns, Afgan women who are forced to wear burqa and the Palestinian young girls who kill themselves by a bomb… All of these have had a supporting effect on that type of perception. And the veil or headscarf has become the symbol of cruelty, despotism and ‘terror’ in the end. Both in Turkey and in European countries this symbolization is used as the legitimacy of rejecting the demands of women for public sphere with their headscarf.

In Turkey, headscarf can be legitimized within the context of ‘freedom of faith and religion” according to the definition of Republican state. But, since the public sphere is determined as a secular place in which no religious symbols can exist, in a more clear expression, since it is accepted as a sacred place in which the modern life style reveals itself, and as a sacred temple of modernity then this so called freedom is not allowed in the public sphere. Which places are public? The definitions are arbitrary. Universities, courts, the parliament, government offices, sometimes hospitals. There is even no discussion on whether it is up to the state to determine.

Why is the appearance of religious symbols in the public sphere conceived as a threat to the republican regime and to secularism? It is because the secularism is defined in a manner to give priority to the western lifestyle.

If this freedom is not for the public life, then where will it be allowed? Of course in the private sphere. Some authorities even claim this as an argument ironically. They say that “who interferes when women cover themselves in the private sphere?” As if they do not know covering is for the public life. In the background of this type of argumentation, lies the fact that religion is held as an issue which should be kept within the private sphere. Secularist thought in Turkey depends on this presumption. Ibadat (prayer practices) and muamelat (religious concerns on social affairs) of religion is not allowed in the public sphere. For example if you are a government officer, you cannot leave your office for praying. Working hours are not organized in accordance with the prayer times. On the contrary it is a crime when you demand a certain time or a certain place for praying in government offices. Then the article in the constitution which is expressed as “the freedom of faith and religion” depends on a definition of religion as a faith only. So if a woman demands to cover her head because of a religious duty, then she is outside the context of this article of constitution in terms of freedom.

The definition of public sphere in Turkish Republic is not much different than the classical public sphere of western modernity. This approach is based on a definition of ‘citizen’ who puts off all his or her ethnic, religious and gender identities when he enters into public sphere.  Since the headcover is a religious symbol, and a denoter of a certain identity, it has no place in the public sphere.

The discussion in France is about the definition of republic and the ‘equality’ of citizenship. Since Turkey has the same approach to the problem, for example a teacher’s wearing headscarf is considered as a violation of equal citizenship. Such a teacher always carries the possibility of influencing her students in terms of her identity and religion.

When somebody makes apparent his or her belief by a symbol in the public sphere, in this case when a woman by wearing a head scarf makes apparent that she is a practicing Muslim, then this is held as a violation of ‘equal citizenship’.

From the 1990’s on, parallel to discussions on multi culturalism, women in Turkey started to voice their arguments basing on difference, tolerance to the marginal lyfe styles, women rights etc. instead of basing on “the freedom of faith and religion”. The important thing which I want you to pay attention is that a religious duty can only be voiced if it is spoken in the secular language of ‘choice’ and ‘lyfe style’. What does this mean? You are able to demand some thing as a human right, as a sexual right, as tolerance to different sexual orientations etc.

However you can not demand to go to university with headcover basing your argument on religious rights. You have to base your argument on something else, since there is no such a thing as religious rights. Yes it is true that no body interferes between you and your heart in terms of belief. However when you want to practice the obligations of your religion then you hop up to a problematic area.

Covering as a religious duty which is prescribed by the religion itself, can not be discussed by a reference to religion. Since the secularism is the meta language, one is not able to voice his/her rights stemming from his/her own religious faith or his/her own special moral values.

Then what happens? A Muslim woman feels herself in a position to legitimize her practice referring to individuality, to emancipation, to tolerance to different life styles which are the accepted references of late modernity. You can not say anything like ‘I believe in God, and this is my duty to my Lord’. This is non-sense in international human rights context.

Though universality of Western values and the definition of human rights are discussed and locality, cultural differences comes to the floor, the ultimate frame of reference is secular. The ethics in general and the ethics of human rights in particular have a secular language.

Is it a human right or a women right? Since only women wear hicab or in the Turkish practice head scarf. Is this a relevant question? Since most of the women rights activists see a negative relationship between covering and women’s emancipation.

Then I propose that we should think a lit a bit more profoundly in such matters.

First of all the ones who take the secular language as a frame of reference have to give up their conformist approach of assuming that they are in an ‘emancipating’ and ‘liberating’ attitude and they should start to think about whether their attitude has an oppressive dimension.

On the other side, the religious ones, while trying to express their demands of a religious life and to legitimize it in a comprehensive manner, should be in an awareness of not carrying their demands on a ground in contradiction with their religion.

 

*Paper presented to the “Islam and Human Rights Fellowship Project Final Review Conference” İstanbul, Turkey, May 16-21, 2004.  The Fellowship project is being directed by Emory University in USA.

 

 

[1] Mohja Kahf, Western Representations of the Muslim Woman: From Termagant to Odalisque. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999.

[2] Leila Ahmed, Women and Gender in Islam. Michigan: Yale University Press, 1992, s. 152.

 

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir