Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:47:37.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dialogue in polarized societies: women’s encounters with multiple others

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2021

Ayşe Betül Çelik  and
Zeynep Gülru Göker
Ayşe Betül Çelik
Affiliation:
Sabancı University, Orhanlı, Tuzla İstanbul, Turkey34956; bcelik@sabanciuniv.edu
Zeynep Gülru Göker
Affiliation:
Sabancı University, Gender and Women’s Studies Center of Excellence, Orhanlı, Tuzla, İstanbul, Turkey34956; gulru.goker@sabanciuniv.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on the analysis of a meeting with nineteen women from civil society with diverse backgrounds, invited to discuss what has gone wrong in Turkey’s Kurdish peace process and what women can do for peace in a highly polarized atmosphere, this article explores women’s dialogue in a conflict situation. With insights from deliberative and agonistic perspectives, the article shows that in a multiple-identity conflict, topical shifts in dialogue are accompanied by shifting alliances. The search for mutual definitions on conflictual issues renders the deliberation of sensitive issues difficult, so women circumvent polarizing discourses through indirect and covert language. However, the discussion of gender-based experiences with direct, contestational language helps women underline shared issues and address resentments. Dialogue’s transformative potential also depends on the existence of trust and an intersectionality perspective for which further dialogic initiatives should develop strategies.

Keywords

Turkey’s multiple-identity conflictdialoguegenderdeliberative democracyagonistic democracy
Type
Article
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 64 , May 2021 , pp. 31 - 54
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arat, Yeşim. “Islamist Women and Feminist Concerns in Contemporary Turkey: Prospects for Women’s Rights and Solidarity.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 37, no. 3 (2016): 125–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardakçı, Mehmet. “The Alevi Opening of the AKP Government in Turkey: Walking a Tightrope Between Democracy and Identity.” Turkish Studies 16, no. 3 (2015): 349–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvais, Edana. “The Gender Gap in Political Discussion Group Attendance.” Politics & Gender 16, no. 2 (2019): 315–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. “The Generalized and the Concrete Other: The Kohlberg–Gilligan Controversy and Feminist Theory.” In Feminism as Critique: On the Politics of Gender, Feminist Perspectives, ed. Benhabib, Seyla and Cornell, Drucilla, 77–95. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. “Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, ed. Benhabib, Seyla, 67–94. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Bilali, Rezarta, Çelik, Ayşe Betül, and Ok, Ekin. “Psychological Asymmetry in Minority–Majority Relations at Different Stages of Ethnic Conflict.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014): 253–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochel, Catherine, and Jacqui, Briggs. “Do Women Make a Difference?” Politics 20, no. 2 (2000): 63–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James. “Survey Article: The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 6, no. 4 (1998): 400–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bora, Aksu, and Asena, Günal. 90’larda Türkiye’de Feminizm [Feminism in Turkey in the 90s]. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2002.Google Scholar
Byrne, Siobhan. “Troubled Engagement in Ethnicized Conflict.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 16, no. 1 (2014): 106–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed. Bohman, James and Rehg, William, 67–93. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Çağatay, Selin. “Women’s Coalitions beyond the Laicism–Islamism Divide in Turkey: Towards an Inclusive Struggle for Gender Equality?” Social Inclusion 6, no. 4 (2018): 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çelebi, Elif, Verkuyten, Maykel, Köse, Talha, and Maliepaard, Mieke. “Out-Group Trust and Conflict Understandings: The Perspective of Turks and Kurds in Turkey.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 40 (2014): 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çelik, Ayşe Betül, and Evren, Balta. “Explaining the Micro Dynamics of the Populist Cleavage in the ‘New Turkey’.” Mediterranean Politics 25, no. 2 (2018): 160–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çelik, Ayşe Betül, Bilali, Rezarta, and Iqbal, Yeshim. “Patterns of ‘Othering’ in Turkey: A Study of Ethnic, Ideological, and Sectarian Polarisation.” South European Society and Politics 22, no. 2 (2017): 217–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Samuel Allen, and Terrel, Foster Carver. Judith Butler and Political Theory: Troubling Politics. London: Routledge, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockburn, Cynthia. The Space between Us: Negotiating Gender and National Identities in Conflict. London: Zed Books, 1998.Google Scholar
Connolly, William E. The Ethos of Pluralization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Coole, Diana. “Gender, Gesture and Garments: Encountering Embodied Interlocutors.” In Dialogue, Politics and Gender, ed. Browne, Jude, 173–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz, Mary G. “Current Controversies in Feminist Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 6, no. 1 (2003): 399–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, John S. “Deliberative Democracy in Divided Societies.” Political Theory 33, no. 2 (2005): 218–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ercan, Selen A. “From Polarisation to Pluralisation: A Deliberative Approach to Illiberal Cultures.” International Political Science Review 38, no. 1 (2016): 114–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedom House. “Freedom in the World: Turkey.” https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey/freedom-world/2020. Accessed December 16, 2020.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Gönlügür, Emre, and Devrim, Sezer. “Therapeutic Forgetting, Agonistic Remembrance: Conflicting Memories of Izmir’s Kültürpark and Contested Narratives in Contemporary Turkey.” Memory Studies, May 29, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1,177/1750698020921432.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. “Interview with Habermas.” In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, ed. André Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Warren, Mark, 871–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Hadjipavlou, Maria. “No Permission to Cross: Cypriot Women’s Dialogue across the Divide.” Gender, Place & Culture 13, no. 4 (2006): 329–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoggett, Paul, and Simon, Thompson. “Towards a Democracy of the Emotions.” Constellations 9, no. 1 (2002): 106–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honig, Bonnie. Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Keneş, Hatice Çoban. Yeni Irkçılığın “Kirli” Ötekileri: Kürtler, Aleviler, Ermeniler [“Dirty” Others of New Racism: Kurds, Alevis and Armenians]. Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları, 2014.Google Scholar
KONDA. Toplumda, Siyasette Kutuplaşma. İstanbul: Konda, 2010.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal, Mouffe. Hegemony Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985.Google Scholar
Luskin, Robert C., Ian, O’Flynn, Fishkin, James S., and David, Russell. “Deliberating across Deep Divides.” Political Studies 62, no. 1 (2012): 116–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, Lida, Beltran, Cristina, Threadcraft, Shatema, White, Stephen K., Leonard, Miriam, and Honig, Bonnie. “The ‘Agonistic Turn’: Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics in New Contexts.” Contemporary Political Theory 18 ( 2019): 640–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, Morrell. “Listening and Deliberation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, ed. Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Warren, Mark, 237–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Mihai, Mihaela. “Theorizing Agonistic Emotions.” Parallax 20, no. 2 (2014): 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. The Democratic Paradox. London and New York: Verso, 2000.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. The Return of the Political. London and New York: Verso, 2005.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana Carole. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onar, Nora Fisher and Hande, Paker. “Towards Cosmopolitan Citizenship? Women’s Rights in Divided Turkey.” Theory and Society 41, no. 4 (2012): 375–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özkul, Derya. “Alevi ‘Openings’ and Politicisation of the ‘Alevi Issue’ during the AKP Rule.” Turkish Studies 16, no. 1 (2015): 80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öztürk, Ahmet Erdi. “An Alternative Reading of Religion and Authoritarianism: The New Logic between Religion and State in the AKP’s New Turkey.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 19, no. 3 (2019): 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, Elisabeth. “Risks and Responsibilities: Creating Dialogical Spaces in Northern Ireland.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 2, no. 2 (2000): 163–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powers, Janet M. “Women and Peace Dialogue in the Middle East.” Peace Review 15, no. 1 (2003): 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, Harold H. “Sustained Dialogue in Managing Intractable Conflict.” Negotiation Journal 19 (2003): 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaap, Andrew. Law and Agonistic Politics. Burlington: Ashgate, 2009.Google Scholar
Simga, Hulya, and Goker, Gulru Z.. “Whither Feminist Alliance? Secular Feminists and Islamist Women in Turkey.” Asian Journal of Women’s Studies 23, no. 3 (2017): 273–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. “The Law of Group Polarization.” Journal of Political Philosophy 10, no. 2 (2002): 175–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toprak, Binnaz, Bozan, İrfan, Morgül, Tan, and Şener, Nedim. Research Report on Neighbourhood Pressure. İstanbul: Açık Toplum Vakfı, 2009.Google Scholar
Turam, Berna. “Turkish Women Divided by Politics.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 10, no. 4 (2008): 475–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tønder, Lars, and Lasse, Thomassen. Radical Democracy: Politics between Abundance and Lack, Reappraising the Political. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Villa, Dana R. Politics, Philosophy, Terror: Essays on the Thought of Hannah Arendt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E. “What Should and Should Not Be Said: Deliberating Sensitive Issues.” Journal of Social Philosophy 37, no. 2 (2006): 163–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Janell. “Feminism as Agonistic Sorority: An Interview with Bonnie Honig.” The Minnesota Review 2013, no. 81 (2013): 102–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, ed. Benhabib, Seyla, 120–35. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar