Culture There Are so Many

¶ … Culture

There are so many facets of discourse when it comes to discussion matters of culture. What culture is and how it defines our lives is still an ongoing discussion, and varies dramatically in terms of different locations. Understanding similarities and differences between different presentations of cultural discussions can then help us understand how complex and abstract of an idea it is in the first place.

The first article to be examined here is titled "Entrapped in Multidimensional Exclusion: The Perpetuation of Poverty Among Conflict-Induced Migrants in an Istanbul Neighborhood" by Bediz Yilmaz in the 2008 edition of New Perspectives on Turkey. It is essentially an examination of the practice of cultural exclusion. The article takes a closer look at Tarlabasi, a neighborhood in Istanbul (Yilmaz 2008). It is so close to more affluent neighborhoods, yet so much more segregated in order to contain its undesirables from seeping into the mainstream society. Yilmaz states that "Tarlabasi generates fear, and the more it is stigmatized as such, the more its inhabitants are trapped in the vicious circle of social exclusion, the less choice they have, other than being involved in fear-generating activities," (Yilmaz 2008 p 26). Essentially, the mainstream majority of Turkish culture has segregated what it deems as undesirable elements in a single physical space. This allows the rest of Turkish society to avoid having contact with the urban poor, therefore allowing them to construct their image of their own culture that is devoid of a major portion of their own society. Here, the author shows a culture which has created social exclusion and special set up of particular neighborhoods to isolate the various groups within the larger society. There are a number of exclusionary dimensions, including: economic, social, political, and spatial elements. The neighborhood deals with huge cultural differences based on large populations of immigrants with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds than mainstream Turks; "namely, the conflict-induced Kurdish migrants who have settled in the neighborhood of Tarlabasi" (Yilmaz 2008 p 26). The degradation of a socioeconomic class based on exclusionary practices of the larger majority society.

Through this segregation, mainstream Turkish society is isolating itself from what it sees as cultureless and taboo. Overall, Yilmaz shows that the majority of Turkish society sees culture as a more up-scale thing. In this, culture is a luxury that only more affluent Turks are supposed to be able to enjoy, leaving urban poor neighborhoods to suppose to be devoid of culture entirely. Therefore, the majority of society thinks that lower class neighborhoods, like the one discussed in the article, are innately devoid of culture (Yilmaz 2008). However, in its isolated segregation, Tarlabasi has created its own subculture that features a number of elements often seen as taboo by the majority society, but is a necessity in the neighborhood itself. This neighborhood has developed its own fluid underground culture that often features what the mainstream society would deem as criminal or taboo, but is necessary in such a poor neighborhood to survive. Through this discussion, it is clear that Yilmaz is showing the fluidity of culture and its ability to evolve and morph under changing circumstances. Therefore, culture is a fluid and adaptable element to modern societies, and will flourish in even the most extreme circumstances.

The second article is written by Ayfur Bartu Candan and Biray Kolluoglu (2008) also regarding social segregation practices in modern day Turkey. It is entitled "Emerging Spaces of Neoliberalism: A Gated Town and a Public Housing Project and was also featured in the journal New Perspectives on Turkey. The article is very similar to the first examined here, as it also explores particular locations within modern Turkey, including the more affluent Gokturk and the lower socioeconomic neighborhood of Bezirganbahce (Candan & Kolluoglu 2008). The authors show the extremities between the upper and lower classes within modern Turkey. This research focuses on the public housing neighborhood of Bezirganbahce. Like the first, this article shows how Turkish society "marks the areas populated by the urban poor as dangerous, a breeding ground for illegal activities, and areas of social decay or social ill," (Candan & Kolluoglu 2008 p 38). Those lower ranking social classes and ethnic subgroups are often excluded from the daily existence of mainstream Turkish culture and forced to life a marginalized life in a segregated area that isolates lower socioeconomic classes from the rest of society. The urban poor that reside in the neighborhood are excluded from an external source, and thus left to fend for themselves. In this marginalized space, the residents of this neighborhood have actually created a culture that is all their own outside of the boundaries of typical Turkish life. Like as shown in Yilmaz (2008), this neighborhood is seen as having to resort to "precarious practices of subsistence and survival," (Candan & Kolluoglu 2008 p 6). Therefore, a subculture has spawned within this isolated area, despite the more affluent rings of Turkish society believing that there is no possibility for culture to exist and grow within the neighborhood. Once again, this lower socioeconomic neighborhood is filled mostly with immigrants, most often of Kurdish descent. This type of segregation is much more reminiscent of Yilmaz (2008). It is often spurred by perceived ethnic differences and thus subsequent racial divides. Yet, Candan & Kolluoglu (2008) present a more in-depth view into how these Kurdish migrants react to this forced isolation. The article reveals that even in their shared isolation, there is still racially charged tension between the Bezirganbahce Turks and the Kurds (Candan & Kolluoglu 2008). Externally superimposed racial views still exist, despite the fact that these two groups share the same physical space and thus the experiences with being isolated from the rest of Turkish society. This also shows similarities between Yilmaz's fluid definitions of culture, but shows how it can be a negative and discriminatory even within these marginalized groups who are so close in physical proximity.