This paper compares two academic articles examining social and spatial segregation in modern Istanbul, Turkey. Drawing on Bediz Yilmaz's study of the poverty-stricken neighborhood of Tarlabasi and Ayfur Bartu Candan and Biray Kolluoglu's analysis of both the public housing project Bezirganbahce and the affluent gated community of Gokturk, the paper explores how mainstream Turkish society excludes urban poor and ethnic minorities — particularly Kurdish migrants — through economic, political, social, and spatial mechanisms. It further examines how marginalized communities respond by developing their own fluid subcultures, and how culture itself proves adaptable even under conditions of extreme deprivation and discrimination.
The paper demonstrates effective source synthesis. Rather than summarizing each article in isolation, the writer identifies thematic overlaps (exclusionary practices, subculture formation, Kurdish migration) and meaningful differences (involuntary versus voluntary segregation), showing how two independent sources can reinforce and complicate a shared argument about cultural fluidity.
The paper opens with a brief framing of culture as a complex concept, then devotes a section to each article before drawing comparisons. The first article analysis (Yilmaz) establishes the core argument about subculture emerging from forced exclusion. The second (Candan & Kolluoglu) extends this by adding the dimension of intra-group tension and voluntary affluent segregation. The conclusion synthesizes both sources around the shared theme of exclusion producing cultural resilience.
There are many facets of discourse when it comes to discussing matters of culture. What culture is and how it defines our lives remains an ongoing discussion, and varies dramatically across different locations. Understanding the similarities and differences between various presentations of cultural discussion can help us appreciate how complex and abstract an idea it truly is.
The first article examined here is titled "Entrapped in Multidimensional Exclusion: The Perpetuation of Poverty Among Conflict-Induced Migrants in an Istanbul Neighborhood" by Bediz Yilmaz, published in the 2008 edition of New Perspectives on Turkey. It is essentially an examination of the practice of cultural and social exclusion. The article takes a closer look at Tarlabasi, a neighborhood in Istanbul (Yilmaz, 2008). Though it sits close to more affluent neighborhoods, Tarlabasi is deliberately segregated in order to contain its so-called undesirables and prevent them from entering 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). In essence, the mainstream majority of Turkish society has segregated what it deems undesirable elements into a single physical space. This allows the rest of Turkish society to avoid contact with the urban poor, thereby allowing them to construct an image of their own culture that is devoid of a major portion of their own society.
The author reveals a culture that has created social exclusion and deliberately established particular neighborhoods to isolate various groups from the larger society. There are several exclusionary dimensions at work, including economic, social, political, and spatial elements. The neighborhood deals with significant cultural differences stemming from large populations of immigrants with ethnic and cultural backgrounds distinct from mainstream Turks — "namely, the conflict-induced Kurdish migrants who have settled in the neighborhood of Tarlabasi" (Yilmaz, 2008, p. 26). The result is the degradation of a socioeconomic class through the exclusionary practices of the dominant majority society.
Through this segregation, mainstream Turkish society isolates itself from what it perceives as cultureless and taboo. Yilmaz demonstrates that the majority of Turkish society regards culture as something belonging to the more affluent classes — a luxury that the urban poor are presumed to be without. Consequently, mainstream society treats lower-class neighborhoods like Tarlabasi as innately devoid of culture (Yilmaz, 2008).
However, in its isolated segregation, Tarlabasi has created its own subculture featuring elements that the majority society often deems taboo, yet which are a necessity within the neighborhood itself. This community has developed a fluid, underground culture that the mainstream would typically label criminal or deviant, but which is essential for survival under such conditions of poverty. Through this discussion, Yilmaz illustrates the fluidity of culture and its ability to evolve and morph under changing circumstances. Culture, in this view, is an adaptable element of modern societies — one that will flourish even under the most extreme conditions.
Overall, the two articles share very similar outlooks regarding how mainstream culture views lower socioeconomic statuses, and how members of those statuses respond by creating their own subcultures within the larger group. Both articles demonstrate that exclusionary practices are clearly in place and have been effective at isolating particular groups from mainstream Turkish society. Yet both also show that even when marginalized, subgroups will create their own culture — even if it violates social norms — precisely because they exist so far outside them.
Candan, Ayfur Bartu & Kolluoglu, Biray. (2008). Emerging spaces of neoliberalism: A gated town and a public housing project in Istanbul. New Perspectives on Turkey, 39(2008), 4–46.
Yilmaz, Bediz. (2008). Entrapped in multidimensional exclusion: The perpetuation of poverty among conflict-induced migrants in an Istanbul neighborhood. New Perspectives on Turkey, 38(2008), 205–234.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.