Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Image of “Woman” in Turkish Political and Social Thought: On the Implications of Social Constructionism and Biological Essentialism

2010; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 11; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/14683849.2010.506735

1743-9663

Aylın Özman,

Islamic Studies and History

Abstract Abstract This article critically evaluates the writings of two well‐known intellectuals, Ismayıl Hakkı Baltacıoğlu (1886–1978) and Vâlâ Nureddin (Vâ‐Nû) (1901–1967), and seeks to assess the implications of social constructionism and biological essentialism for the formation of Republican woman’s identity as presented in the works of these authors respectively. The central aim of the article is to reveal and re‐appraise the patriarchal mentality underlying Turkish political and social thought by examining the connections between social constructionism and essentialism, as two main factors reinforcing gender inequality in the context of Turkish modernization and the nation‐building process. Firstly, it is argued that the works of both authors reflect the dominant gender structure in Turkey, grounded on the subordinate position of women. Despite their divergent positions, neither of the authors provides openings for gender equality. Baltacıoğlu advocates social constructionism emphasizing the socio‐cultural at the expense of the natural during the identity formation process while Nureddin supports a biologically essentialist world view based on the “allotted” nature of the female. Baltacıoğlu’s social constructionism leads to gender (in)equality based on “sameness,” within the contours of the public life whereas biological essentialism of Vâ‐Nû, signifies an ontological rejection of gender equality. Secondly, it is argued that both of the authors adopt a functionalist perspective emphasizing the reproductive function of women for men, family and nation and approach the issue of woman’s identity within framework of the tradition‐modernity continuum. Notes 1. Joan Scott, “Women’s History,” in Peter Burke (ed.) New Perspectives on Historical Writing (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993), pp. 49–55. On women and history, see also Joan Wallach Scott, Gender and the Politics of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), revised ed.; Gerda Lerner, The Majority Finds its Past (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981); S. Jay Kleinberg (ed.), Retrieving Women’s History. Changing Perceptions of the Role of Women in Politics and Society (Oxford: Berg/UNESCO, 1988). 2. See Fatmagül Berktay, “Yeni Kimlik Arayışı, Eski Cinsel Dualizm: Peyami Safa’nın Romanlarında Toplumsal Cinsiyet” [The Search for New Identity, Old Sexual Dualism: Gender in Peyami Safa’s Novels], in Zeynep Rona (ed.) Bilanço 1923–1998 [Balance Sheet 1923–1998], Vol. 2 (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, 1999); Fatmagül Berktay, “Doğu ile Batı’nın Birleştiği Yer: Kadın İmgesinin Kurgulanışı” [The Ground Where East and West are Unified: Construction of Woman’s Image], in Fatmagül Berktay, Tarihin Cinsiyeti [Gendering History] (İstanbul: Metis 2003); Tanıl Bora, “Analar, Bacılar, Orospular: Türk Milliyetçi‐Muhafazakâr Söyleminde Kadın” [Mothers, Sisters, Bitches: Woman in Turkish Nationalist‐Conservative Discourse], in Ahmet Öncü and Orhan Tekelioğlu (eds.) Şerif Mardin’e Armağan [A Gift to Şerif Mardin] (İstanbul: İletişim, 2005); Aylin Özman, “Domesticated Souls: Vâlâ Nureddin (Vâ‐Nû) on Womanhood,” Turkish Studies, Vol. 8, No.1 (March 2007), pp. 137–150; Aylin Özman, “İsmayıl Hakkı Baltacıoğlu’nu yeniden okumak: ‘Cinsi lâtif’in ölümü ya da erkeliğe methiye” [Rereading İsmyıl Hakkı Baltacıoğlu: The Death of the “Gentle Sex” or Ode to Masculinity], Toplum ve Bilim [Society and Science], Vol. 107 (2006), pp. 190–216; Simten Coşar, “Women in Turkish Political Thought‐ Between Tradition and Modernity,” Feminist Review, Vol. 86 (2007), pp. 113–131. 3. See S. Ortner, “Is Female to Male as Nature to Culture?” Feminist Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1973), pp. 5–31. 4. As put forward by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann in their pioneering book, The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1967), social construction[ism] involves the efforts to integrate “objective facticity” and “subjective meaning,” which is grounded on the assumption that “Society is a human product. Society is an objective reality. [Wo]man is a social product.” Although it is possible to asses the works of Baltacıoğlu as giving more weight to objective facticity, his emphasis on the relativity and social character of human thought and the processes external to individual in the formation of gender identities makes his intellectual stance relevant to social constructionism within the limits of this article. 5. For biographical details of Baltacıoğlu, see İsmayıl Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, Hayatım [My Life] (Istanbul: Dünya Yayıncılık, 1998). 6. For biographical information on Vâ‐Nû see Nazım Hikmet, Bursa Cezaevinden Vâ‐Nû’lara Mektuplar [Letters to Vâ‐Nûs from Bursa Prison] (İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1986); Müzehher Vâ‐Nû, Bir Dönemin Tanıklığı [Withnessing an Era] (İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınlar, 1997), 2nd ed.; Vâlâ Nureddin Vâ‐Nû, Bu Dünyadan Nazım Geçti [Nazım Has Passed Through This World] (İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1975) 3rd ed.; Zekeriya Sertel, Mavi Gözlü Dev [The Blue Eyed Giant] (İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1977). 7. For detailed information on the historical evolution and intellectual posture of Yeni Adam, see Tuna Baltacıoğlu, Yeni Adam Günleri [The Days of New Man] (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1998). 8. Vâ‐Nû and Nazım Hikmet attended the Communist University of the East (Kommunisticeskijduring Universitet Trudjascichsja Vostoka) in USSR together during the 1920s and their friendship continued throughout their lifetime. 9. Tarık Zafer Tunaya, Devrim Hareketleri içinde Atatürk ve Atatürkçülük [Atatürk and Atatürkism in the Revolution Movements] (Istanbul: Turhan Kitabevi, 1963/1981), pp. 143–147. 10. Berktay, Tarihin Cinsiyeti, p. 105. 11. Coşar, “Women in Turkish Political Thought,” p. 118. 12. Deniz Kandiyoti, “Ataerkil Örüntüler: Türk Toplumunda Erkek Egemenliğinin Çözümlenmesine Yönelik Notlar” [Patterns of Patriarchy: Notes for an Analysis of Male Domination in Turkish Society], in Şirin Tekeli (ed.), 1980’ler Türkiye’sinde Kadın Bakış Açısından Kadınlar [Women From Woman’s Viewpoint in 1980s Turkey] (İstanbul: İletişim, 1995), pp. 367–382. 13. Valentine M. Moghadam, “Introduction and Overview: Gender dynamics of nationalism revolution and Islamization,” in Valentine M. Moghadam (ed.), Gender and National Identity: Woman and Politics in Muslim Societies (London: United Nations, 1994), pp. 3–4. 14. Nira Yuval‐Davis, Cinsiyet ve Millet [Gender and Nation], Ayşin Bektaş (trans.) (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003), p. 55. 15. Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demeçleri II [The Speeches and Statements of Atatürk II] [Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1952], p. 153. 16. Berktay, “Yeni Kimlik Arayışı, Eski Cinsel Dualizm: Peyami Safa’nın Romanlarında Toplumsal Cinsiyet,” p. 267. 17. Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demeçleri II, p. 151 18. Ibid., p. 150. 19. Deniz Kandiyoti, “Modernin Cinsiyeti: Türk Modernleşmesi Araştırmalarında Eksik Boyutlar” [Gendering the Modern: The Missing Dimensions of Research on Turkish Modernization], in Sibel Bozdoğan and Reşad Kasaba (eds.), Türkiye’de Modernleşme ve Ulusal Kimlik [Modernization and National Identity in Turkey] (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1999), 2nd ed., pp.113–114. 20. Kandiyoti, Deniz, Cariyeler Bacılar Yurttaşlar Kimlikler ve Toplumsal Dönüşümler [Concubines Sisters Citizens Identities and Social Transformations] (İstanbul: Metis, 1997), pp. 76–77, 179. 21. Nilüfer Göle, The Forbidden Modern. Civilization and Veiling (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996). 22. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Müstahsil Kadın” [Productive Woman], Yeni Adam, August 26, 1937, p. 2. 23. İsmail Hakkı [Baltacıoğlu] , Mürebbilere [To The Trainers] (İstanbul: Sühulet Kütüphanesi: Semih Lütfü, 1932), p. 226. For similar assessments see İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu “Harbe Giden Kadınlar” [Women Going to War], Yeni Adam, September 10, 1936, p. 6; İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Kadın Birliklerinin Aleyhindeyim” [I am Against Woman’s Unions], Yeni Adam, May 2, 1935, p. 2. 24. [Baltacıoğlu], Mürebbilere, p. 226. 25. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Dişi Değil Arkadaş” [Not Female But Friend], Yeni Adam, September 16, 1937, p. 2. 26. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Gençler için En Büyük Tehlike. Kadını Saymamak Alçaklıktır” [The Greatest Danger for the Young. Disrespecting Woman is Contemptibleness], Yeni Adam, August 13, 1936, p. 4; İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Türk Rejimini Niçin Severim?” [Why I Like the Turkish Regime?], Yeni Adam, September 21, 1939, p. 2. 27. Baltacıoğlu “Müstahsil Kadın,” p. 2. 28. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, Sosyoloji [Sociology] (İstanbul: Sebat Yayınevi, 1939), p. 317. 29. Vâ‐Nû, “Anneler ve Genç Kızlara Öğütler” [Advice for the Mothers and Young Girls], Akşam, April 30, 1950. 30. See Vâ‐Nû, Ebenin Hatıratı [The Midwife’s Memoirs] (İstanbul: Kanaat Kütüphanesi, 1929). 31. Vâ‐Nû, “Türkleşmiş bayanlara teşekkür ederim” [I Thank the Ladies Who Became Turks], Akşam, December 27, 1940. 32. Vâ‐Nû, “Kadın hekim” [The Woman Doctor], Akşam, September 6, 1940. 33. For such an assessment see Vâ‐Nû, “Çalışan ve muvafık kısmeti çıkmayan kızlar” [The Working and Spinster Girls], Akşam, December 15, 1940. 34. Zehra Arat, “Kemalizm ve Türk Kadını” [Kemalism and the Turkish Woman], in Ayşe Berktay Hacımirzaoğlu (ed.) 75 Yılda Kadınlar ve Erkekler [Women and Men in 75 Years] (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, 1998), p. 57. 35. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu “50 Milyon Olalım” [Lets be 50 Million], Yeni Adam, February 6, 1941, p. 2. 36. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “50 Milyonluk Türkiye” [A Turkey of 50 Million], Yeni Adam, September 19, 1935, pp. 4–7; İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Nüfusa Doğru” [Towards Population], Yeni Adam, July 6, 1944, p. 2. 37. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Bizim Cumhuriyetimiz” [Our Republic], Yeni Adam, October 26, 1944, p. 2. 38. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “İnsan Azlığı Meselesi” [The Issue of Population Scarcity], Yeni Adam, April 27, 1944, p. 2. 39. Baltacıoğlu “50 Milyon Olalım,” p. 2. 40. Baltacıoğlu, Sosyoloji, p. 324. 41. Ibid. 42. Vâ‐Nû, “Annelere ve genç kızlara öğütler,” [Advice for mothers and young girls], Akşam, April 30, 1950. 43. Ibid. 44. Vâ‐Nû, “Ana terbiyesinin ıslahı kabil değil midir?” [Isn’t It Possible To Improve Mother’s Training], Akşam, December 1, 1940. 45. Vâ‐Nû, “Tahsilli kadınlarımız” [Our Educated Women], Havadis, May 30, 1958. 46. Ibid. 47. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu “Bu Günkü Kadın” [Woman of Today], Yeni Adam, February 17, 1944, p. 2. 48. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Cinsel Eğitim (24)” [Sexual Education (24)], Yeni Adam, August 1946, p. 8; İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Aile faciaları karşısında ne düşünüyoruz?” [What Do We Think About Family Tragedies], Yeni Adam, June 8, 1936, p. 2. 49. For Emile Durkheim’s views on solidarity within the private, see Emile Durkheim The Division of Labor in the Society, George Simpson (trans.) (New York: The Free Press, 1965) 3rd ed., pp. 56–61. 50. Baltacıoğlu, Sosyoloji, p. 322. 51. See, İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Evli Kadının Oniki Meziyeti” [Twelve Virtues of Married Woman], Yeni Adam, December 2, 1937, 205, p. 3. 52. Ismail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, Genç Kız [Young Girl] (İstanbul: Sebat Basımevi, (n.d.), p. 4, 9; İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Kadın İdeali” [Woman Ideal], Yeni Adam, Auğust 12, 1937, p. 2. 53. [İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu], “Evli kadının On İki Meziyeti”, [The Twelve Virtues of Married Woman], Yeni Adam, December 2, 1937, p. 3. 54. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, Halkın Evi [People’s House] (Ankara: Ulus Basımevi, 1950), pp. 7–12, 84–86; İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Kadro’ya Göre Yeni Adam, Yeni Adam’a Göre Kadro” [New Man According to Kadro, Kadro According to New Man], Yeni Adam, April 23, 1934, p. 11. 55. İsmet Parlak, Kemalist İdeolojide Eğitim: Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Tarih ve Yurt Bilgisi Ders Kitapları Üzerine Bir İnceleme [Education in Kemalist Ideology: An Analysis on the early Republican Era History and Civics Text Books] (Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi, 2005), p. 303. 56. Baltacıoğlu, Genç Kız, pp. 15–16. 57. Ibid., p. 16. 58. Vâ‐Nû, “Evlenmelerde arkadaşlık ölçüsü” [The Dimensions of Friendship in Marriages], Akşam, April 12, 1953. 59. Vâ‐Nû, “Ailelerin salâbetsizliğine birinci sebep” [The Primary Reason for the Weakness of Families], Akşam, October 31, 1940. 60. For example see, Vâ‐Nû, Mazinin Yükü Altında [Under the Burden of the Past] (İstanbul: İnkılâp Kitabevi, 1942); Vâ‐Nû, Hayatımın Erkeği [The Man of My Life] (İstanbul: İnkılâp Kitabevi, 1939); Vâ‐Nû, Onu Elimden Aldın [You Took Him Away From Me] (İstanbul: İnkılâp Kitabevi, 1943); Hatice Süreyya [Vâ‐Nû], Bir İhanetin Cezası [The Punishment of a Betrayal] (İstanbul: Arif Bolat Kitabevi, 1944). 61. Vâ‐Nû Beyaz Güller [White Roses] (İstanbul: Ak Kitabevi, 1962). 62. İlber Ortaylı “The Family in the Ottoman Society,” in Türköz Erder (ed.), Family in the Turkish Society (Ankara: The Turkish Social Science Association: 1985), pp. 93–94. 63. Vâ‐Nû, “El İşi Yapan Kadın” [Woman Engaged with Neddlework], Akşam, September 4, 1940. 64. Vâ‐Nû, “Annelere ve genç kızlara öğütler”. 65. Baltacıoğlu, “Harbe Giden Kadınlar,” p. 6. 66. Baltacıoğlu, “Bu Günkü Kadın,” p. 2; İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Kadın ve Erkek Davası” [The Woman and the Man Issue], Yeni Adam, October 1, 1936, p. 4. 67. Duygu Köksal, “Yeni Adam ve Yeni Kadın: 1930’lar ve 40’larda Kadın, Cinsiyet ve Ulus” [The New Man and The New Woman: Woman, Gender and Nation During the 1930s and 1940s], Toplumsal Tarih, 51, 9 (1998), pp. 31–35. 68. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Gençler İçin En Büyük Tehlikeler,” [The Greatest Dangers for the Youth], Yeni Adam, August 13, 1936, p. 4. 69. Baltacıoğlu, “Bu Günkü Kadın,” p. 2. 70. Ibid. 71. Ibid. 72. İsmail Hakkı Baltacıoğlu, “Silahlı Kadın” [The Armed Woman], Yeni Adam, November 26, 1936, p. 2. 73. Metin Yeğenoğlu, Gendering the Individual and the Population: Patriarchal Production of Gendered Subjectivities in Political Thought in the Early Republican Turkey, unpublished master’s thesis submitted to the Graduate School of Social Sciences of Middle East Technical University, Ankara (2006), p. 155. 74. Ayşe Durakbaşa, “Cumhuriyet Döneminde Kemalist Kadın Kimliğinin Oluşumu” [The Formation of Kemalist Woman’s Identity in the Republican Era], Tarih ve Toplum [History and Society], Vol. 9, No.51 (March 1988), p. 171. 75. Ibid. 76. Doğan Duman and Pınar Doğan, “Kültürel Bir Değişim Aracı Olarak Güzellik Yarışmaları” [Beauty Contests as a Cultural Means for Change], Toplumsal Tarih [Social History], Vol. 42, No.7 (1997), pp. 20–26. 77. Vâ‐Nû usually resorts to this profile while describing the features of the “beautiful” women characters in his romances. See, Vâ‐Nû, Mazinin Yükü Altında, pp. 15, 19; Vâ‐Nû Leke. Aşk, Macera ve Fen Romanı [The Stain: A Novel of Love, Adventure and Science] (İstanbul: Sühulet Kütüphanesi, 1933), p. 6. 78. Vâ‐Nû, “Kadın ayakları” [Woman’s Feet], Havadis, May 28, 1958. 79. Emphasis is mine. 80. Vâ‐Nû, “Kadın ayakları.” 81. Vâ‐Nû, Leke. Aşk, Macera ve Fen Romanı, p. 6. 82. Vâ‐Nû, “Kızlarımızın yüksek vasıfları” [The High Qualities of our Daughters], Akşam, March 16, 1953. 83. Duman and Doğan, “Kültürel Bir Değişim Aracı Olarak Güzellik Yarışmaları,” p. 22. 84. Vâ‐Nû, “Saldırgan kadınlar” [Aggressive Women], Akşam, January 29, 1950. 85. Susan Moller Okin, Women in Western Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1979), pp.10–11.