Advertisement

GeoJournal

pp 1–13 | Cite as

‘Our city is our identity!’: a field study on Kurdish local government experiences in Diyarbakır

  • O. Özgür GüvenEmail author
Article
  • 60 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, I analysed the neoliberal and socio-spatial transformations occurring in Diyarbakır, the largest Kurdish city of Turkey. Rather than discussing the involvement of various national and international actors in those transformation processes, I tried to focus on the attitudes of the local social and political dynamics that create strong discursive counter-arguments against these processes. The study aims to demonstrate that dissident libertarian and egalitarian local groups can also become the supporters of and the actors in the neoliberal space strategies. In this regard, I examined the transformation of space in Diyarbakır considering the tense and opposed relationship between neoliberal strategies and the local political formations mobilized by the demands for collective identity. Data acquired from the field study on the local governance experience in Diyarbakır demonstrate that populist calls based on cultural existence became the focal point of local government. The slogan of “Our city is our identity!” functions as a meta-narrative that articulates the different class identities into neoliberal urban reality and becomes a discursive centre which normalizes the exclusive occupations over space.

Keywords

Neoliberal urbanization Kurdish movement Space Cultural identity Diyarbakır 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. Thanks to their support, I have been at SOAS as a visiting scholar. Furthermore, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Adam Hanieh for his solidarity during my stay at SOAS.

Funding

The funding was provided by Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştirma Kurumu (Grant No. 2219).

References

  1. Altuntaş, B. (2009). Türkiye’de 1980’li ve 1990’lı yıllarda yaşanan zorunlu göç ve toplumsal sonuçları [Forced migration in Turkey during 1980s and 1990s and its social outcomes]. Journal of Toplum ve Kuram,1, 103–118.Google Scholar
  2. Bedirhanoğlu, P. (2009). Türkiye’de Neoliberal Otoriter Devletin AKP’li Yüzü [Neoliberal authoritarian state’s face in the form of AKP in Turkey]. In İ. Uzgel & B. Duru (Eds.), AKP Kitabı [Book on AKP] (pp. 39–64). Ankara: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  3. Bookchin, M. (1982). The ecology of freedom. Polo Alto: Cheshire Books.Google Scholar
  4. Boratav, K. (2002). Türkiye İktisat Tarihi 1908–2002 [History of Turkey’s economy 1908–2002]. Ankara: İmge.Google Scholar
  5. Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’. Antipode,34(3), 349–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey. (2017). Electronic Data Delivery System. Retrieved from https://evds2.tcmb.gov.tr/. Accessed 15 Apr 2017.
  7. Connolly, W. (1995). The ethos of pluralization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  8. Danış, D., & Kuyucu, T. (2013). Neoliberalizmin orta ölçekli kentlerde yansımaları [The reflections of neoliberalism on medium-scaled cities]. In T. Köroğlu (Ed.), Kentsel ve Bölgesel Araştırmalar Ağı [The network of urban and regional researches] (pp. 107–117). Ankara: ODTÜ.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, M. (2006). Planet of slums. Brooklyn: Verso.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diyarbakır Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (2015). Uzak Zamanların Yakın Tanığı: Diyarbakır [The witness of ancient times: Diyarbakir]. Diyarbakır: DTSO.Google Scholar
  11. Diyarbakır Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (2016). Member list query. DTSO. Retrieved from www.dtso.org.tr/2014/index.php/2011-11-12-17-32-20/uye-listesi-sorgulama. Accessed 15 Apr 2017.
  12. Diyarın Sesi. (2013). Büyükşehir sosyal konutları hak sahiplerine verdi [Metropolitan municipality hands over the social-house dwellings to right owners]. Retrieved from www.diyarinsesi.org/haber/buyuksehir-sosyal-konutlari-hak-sahiplerine-verdi-42334.htm. Accessed 15 Apr 2017.
  13. Diyarın Sesi. (2015). Diyarbakır’ı dünya kenti haline getireceğiz [We are going to turn Diyarbakır into a global city]. Retrieved from www.diyarinsesi.org/haber/diyarbakiri-dunya-kenti-haline-getirecegiz-61836.ht. Accessed 15 Apr 2017.
  14. En Son Haber. (2011). Osman Baydemir: Yapacaksak biz yapacağız [Osman Baydemir: If there is something to be done, we will do it]. Retrieved from www.ensonhaber.com/osman-baydemir-yapacaksak-biz-yapacagiz-2011-10-06.html. Accessed 15 Apr 2017.
  15. Escobar, A. (2001). Culture sits in places: Reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Political Geography,20, 139–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraser, N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘post-socialist’ age. New Left Review,212, 68–93.Google Scholar
  17. Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New Left Review,3, 107–120.Google Scholar
  18. Gambetti, Z. (2009). Politics of place/space: The spatial dynamics of the Kurdish and Zapatista movements. New Perspectives on Turkey,41, 43–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gazete Duvar. (2017). ‘Kayyım partisi’ çığ gibi büyüyor: 82 belediye! [The trustee party snowballs: 82 municipalities]. Retrieved from www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/gundem/2017/03/04/kayyim-partisi-cig-gibi-buyuyor-82-belediye. Accessed 15 Apr 2017.
  20. Geray, C. (2009). AKP ve Konut: Toplumsal Konut Yöneltisi Açısından TOKİ Uygulamaları [AKP and housing: TOKİ practices in relation with social housing]. In İ. Uzgel & B. Duru (Eds.), AKP Kitabı [Book on AKP] (pp. 747–754). Ankara: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  21. Geremol. (2014). Gençler net: Kentsel talana geçit yok! [The Youth is clear: No pasaran to urban pillage]. Retrieved from www.geremol.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/gencler-net-kentsel-talana-gecit-yok/. Accessed 15 Apr 2017.
  22. Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology,26, 463–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gülhan, S. (2011). Devlet müteahhitlerinden gayrimenkul geliştiricilerine, Türkiye’de kentsel rant ve bir meta olarak konut üreticiliği; konuta hücum [From state contractors to realty entrepreneurs: Housing production as an urban rent and meta in Turkey; housing rush]. Birikim,270, 27–33.Google Scholar
  24. Habertürk. (2016). Sur, Toledo gibi olacak [Sur is going to be Toledo]. Habertürk Newspaper, February, 01.Google Scholar
  25. Hale, C. R. (2002). Does multiculturalism menace? Governance, cultural rights and the politics of identity in Guatemala. Journal of Latin American Studies,34, 485–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler B,71(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harvey, D. (2000). Space of hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Harvey, D. (2003). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Jongerden, J. (2016). Colonialism, self-determination and independence: The new PKK paradigm. In M. Gunter (Ed.), Kurdish Issues (pp. 106–121). London: Mazda Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Katz, C. (2001). On the grounds of globalization: A topography for feminist political engagement. Globalization and Gender,26(4), 1213–1234.Google Scholar
  31. Keyder, Ç. (1990). Türkiye’de Devlet ve Sınıflar [State and Classes in Turkey]. İstanbul: İletişim.Google Scholar
  32. Kohn, M. (2003). Radical space: Building the house of the people. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  34. Lefebvre, H. (2007). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Leverink, J. (2015). Murray Bookchin and the Kurdish resistance. Roarmag. Retrieved from www.roarmag.org/essays/bookchin-kurdish-struggle-ocalan-rojava/. Accessed 15 Apr 2017.
  36. Öcalan, A. (2011). Democratic confederalism. London: Transmedia Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Peace and Democracy Party. (2014). Ecological democratic local governance declaration. Retrieved from www.yuksekovahaber.com.tr/yazdir/haber/haber/bdpnin-yerel-secim-beyannamesi-121497.htm. Accessed 15 Apr 2017.
  38. Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2007). Conceptualizing neoliberalism, thinking thatcherism. In H. Leitner, J. Peck, & E. S. Sheppard (Eds.), Contesting neoliberalism (pp. 26–50). New York: Gulford Press.Google Scholar
  39. PKK. (1984). Kuruluş Bildirisi [The manifesto]. Cologne: Serxwebûn Press.Google Scholar
  40. Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry. (2005). 5393 Sayılı Belediye Kanunu [5393 No. Municipality Law]. Official Gazette, July, 13.Google Scholar
  41. Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry. (2013). Belediyelerin Arsa, Konut ve İşyeri Üretimi, Tahsisi, Kiralaması ve Satışına Dair Genel Yönetmelik [General regulation on construction, granting, renting and sale of land, housings and workplaces by municipalities]. Official Gazette, October, 03.Google Scholar
  42. Şengül, H. T. (2000). Devlet ve kent mekanı [State and urban space]. İktisat,404, 45–56.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, N. (2008). Uneven development: Nature, capital, and the production of scale. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, N. (2013). Gentrification, the frontier and the restructuring of urban space. In N. Smith & P. Williams (Eds.), Gentrification of the city (pp. 15–34). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  46. Star (2015) TOKİ göreve! [TOKİ, get to work!]. Star Newspaper, December, 22.Google Scholar
  47. The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology. (2014). Turkey 81 provincial industry situation report, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  48. Turkish Natural Catastrophe Insurance Pool. (2016). Zorunlu Deprem Sigortası İstatistikleri [Statistics on Mandatory Earthquake Insurance]. Retrieved from www.dask.gov.tr/zorunlu-deprem-sigortasi-istatistikler-2.html. Accessed 15 Apr 2017.
  49. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2014). Seçilmiş Göstergelerle Diyarbakır 2013. Report [Selected Indicators on Diyarbakır 2013], Ankara: Turkish Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
  50. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2015). İşgücü İstatistikleri, 2014 [Labour Force Statistics 2014]. Turkish Statistical Institute Bulletin no. 18645, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  51. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2016a). İşgücü İstatistikleri, 2015 [Labour Force Statistics 2015]. Turkish Statistical Institute Bulletin no. 21567, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  52. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2016b). İstatistiklerle Aile, 2015 [Statistics about Family 2015]. Turkish Statistical Institute Bulletin no. 21523, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  53. Wilton, R. D., & Cranford, C. (2002). Toward an understanding of the spatiality of social movements: Labour organizing at a private university in Los Angeles. Social Problems,49(3), 374–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yeni Özgür Politika. (2016). Öcalan-Bookchin mektuplaşmaları [Correspondence between Öcalan and Bookchin]. Yeni Özgür Politika Newspaper, February 16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radio/Television/Film, Faculty of CommunicationGaziantep UniversityGaziantepTurkey

Personalised recommendations