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...

For this, the research explores the more affluent region of Gokturk and its voluntary seclusion that is demanded of the middle and upper classes out of fear of the criminal associations of the lower classes. This is essentially aimed at keeping affluent neighborhoods untouched by less desirable classes of Turkish society in modern day Istanbul. Essentially, Gokturk is almost as isolated as Bezirganbahce; yet, the residents embrace and even perpetuate this voluntary isolation. Many of the more affluent members of this community do not want to allow lower ranking members of Turkish society into their ranks, and so put up exclusionary devices, mostly monetary, in order to keep the neighborhood to a very particular demographic. This is an interesting twist on the idea of a culture flourishing outside of the typical.
Overall, the two articles have very similar outlooks when it comes to viewing how mainstream culture views lower socioeconomic statuses, and how members of those statuses react by creating their own subculture within the larger group. Both articles show how there are clearly exclusionary practices in place, and that these elements have been successful at isolating particular groups from the mainstream Turkish society. Yet, both articles also show how even when marginalized, subgroups will create their own culture, even if it is in violation of the norm because they exist so far from it.