Advertisement

It is Too Dangerous to be an Individual in Turkey

  • Jakob Lindgaard
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Communication for Social Change book series (PSCSC)

Abstract

This chapter argues that key traits of the social networks that drove the 2013 Gezi demonstrations faced a tall order not so much in relation to the heavy-handed response imposed by then PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, but vis-à-vis the reach and influence of the traditional networks that permeate Turkish society. Turkish society is shot through with both highly diverse and highly salient subnational group identities. Coupled with a concomitant tradition of a highly partisan executive state power, this has led to the advent of strong traditional networks that can vouch for the basic security, socio-economic prosperity, and recognition of identity of its network members. The highly individualized connective action of the Gezi social networks were unable to do just that. Or so the chapter argues.

Keywords

Networks Individualism Identity Kemalism Nationalism Connective action 

References

  1. Akyol, T. 2016. Stolen Youth. Hürriyet Daily News, August 12. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/stolen-youth-.aspx?pageID=238andnID=102760andNewsCatID=458.
  2. Bekdil, B. 2016. Stolen Youth is Not Only About Gülen and ISIL. Hürriyet Daily News, 26 August 2. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/stolen-youth-is-not-only-about-gulen-or-isil-.aspx?PageID=238andNID=103233andNewsCatID=398.
  3. Bennett, W.L., and A. Segerberg. 2012. The Logic of Connective Action—Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Information, Communication and Society 15 (5): 739–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, W.L., and A. Segerberg. 2013. The Logic of Connective Action—Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, W.L., A. Segerberg, and S. Walker. 2014. Organization in the Crowd: Peer Production in Large-Scaled Networked Protests. Information, Communication and Society 17 (2): 232–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozarslan, H. 2006. Kemalism, Westernization and Anti-Liberalism. In Turkey Beyond Nationalism: Towards Post-Nationalist Identities, ed. Hans-Lukas Kieser: 28–34. London: I.B. Taurus.Google Scholar
  7. Çağaptay, S. 2006. Islam, Secularism, and Nationalism in Modern Turkey—Who is a Turk? Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Delhey, J., and K. Newton. 2005. Predicting Cross-National Levels of Social Trust: Global Pattern or Nordic Exceptionalism? In European Sociological Review 21: 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delibaş, K. 2015. The Rise of Political Islam in Turkey—Urban Poverty, Grassroots Activism and Islamic Fundamentalism. London: I.B.Taurus.Google Scholar
  10. Keyman, E. Fuat, and S. Gumscu. 2014. Democracy, Identity, and Foreign Policy in Turkey—Hegemony Through Transformation. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lindgaard, J. 2014. Interviews 2013–14. Interviews with 15 participants in and supporters of the Gezi events/movement. Conducted either verbally or in writing during or within a year of the Summer 2013 Gezi demonstrations.Google Scholar
  12. Lindgaard, J. 2015. Interviews 2015. 8 responses to follow-up interviews with 2013–14 interviewees. Conducted online mostly in writing with eight of the respondents to the 2013–14 interviews.Google Scholar
  13. Mardin, Ş. 1973. Center–Periphery Relations: A Key to Turkish Politics? Daedalus 102 (1): 169–190.Google Scholar
  14. Putnam, R. 2007. E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century—The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies 30, no. 2 (2007): 137–174.Google Scholar
  15. Özyürek, E. 2006. Nostalgia for the Modern—State Secularism and Everyday Politics in Turkey. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. White, J. 2013. Muslim Nationalism and the New Turks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. White, J. 2015. The Turkish Complex. In: The American Interest, vol. 10, no. 4. http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/02/02/the-turkish-complex/.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Danish Institute for International StudiesCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations