Ok, where we left, yeap private-public space and individualism-collectivism (I/C) dualities.
I think the confusion, at least my part, started with the meaning you are giving to private-public space and its usefullness/ capacity in looking individual-society-state relations. At the first when you talked about these dualities, you first started with good of collective vs good of individuals, therefore, I linked these with public-private space concept, and brought I/C as counterargument, which mainly played around priorities in individual versus collective good. So, there is a switch that not corresponds to the initial proposed connection.
I agree with your main assumption that "private" space is characteristic of eastern world (e.g., turkey, indiana) while the "public" space is valued within western world (e.g., USA). However, I think the private-public space is an end product of I/C (I will further define these dualities in terms of horizontal and verical versions of IC), itself is also product of religion, state, economy, political system, geography, etc. Therefore, going back from private-public space through individual/society/state relations creates problems ( at least in my mind) because I/C relations not only create public/private spaces but also other values and tendencies and also ends of the name of last products: human relations. The processes might be called social change.
Before going into more in my not-very-clear thesis, I want to talk about private/public name calling issue. I can say I understand what you mean by those but I still problem naming that way (forgetting what it means) because my mind is still the relations of individual/groups/society relations (end product)not on "space" (that is why asked the defination of space otherwise i, myself, am not very keen of defining things but dividing things!!). Now I will force my own name calling (yes, I am term-fashists!).
I think when i hear private connotion, the first things comes my mind is individual. Coming from IC dualities, I insist that we do not have individual self but various (in)groups such as ethnic, religious, family, sects, hemserilik as basic unit in east/collectivist socities (of course, i am generalizing, it might be useful thinks more or less emphasiz on individual versus groups). In fact, you historical analysis of ottoman fits these conclusion perfectly. So, if there is no independent individual we cannot have "private spaces" in my fixed cognitive schema. If we call it as "in(group) space", my problems will be disapperied. I have general knowledge about the space concept but I do not know exactly how and where the concept originated. it might be origninated in west where individual is basic unit and when we transfer these concepts into other cultures, i am not sure if the concept keeps what it means. (e,g, when you transfer concept of "racists or authoritarianism"" in TC). It is just my opinion. If you look up current turkish societies, the main struggle take places among ingroups versus outgroups across job, marriage, politics, art, etc. The ingroupness and size of it can vary sometimes according to time, conditions, and the groups. .... and as you said the structures has been preventing monolithic society (sometimes wrongly called universal)and end up "yamali bogca", coban salads........

About public space in west.. In a similar logic, the question becomes important how to achieve "public" spaced/ monolithic society keeping in mind I/C.
You mentioned about Locke for collective good, yes, but i think J. Rousseau fit better for this (Social Contract), individual is free only by submitting to general/collective will. I think, to reach this process (at least USA), one needs to get rid of group/collective loyalties and putting individual ("private spaces")as the basic unit. Not groups but state (or governing elite) regulate (or form) the relations or public space though law and regulations. otherwise, people will never, never reach collective consiousness level but a few (in the past religon was the main regulator). Yes, I do have pessimistic views about human nature... For example, when i started graduate school in USA, the first things that I have given several guidebook about student/teacher relations, sexual harressment, racial stuff, etc. Following this a seminar by chair. I still remember some of his comments, you should make equal duration of eye contact with male/female ( i have not achieved yet this, the girls are hot during summer!), etc. But, in turkey, I had not instructed expect suggestion about do not get in politics.. So, i was free then...

I think if you look into the role of state as regulator, it will make more sense.. ( I will touch vey brief, i will come back to this later)
There are two camps of social change: conflic model versus ""negotiation" one. The communist/fashist idelogicies mainly see society as conflicting parts/groups and eleminate those unwanted fractions through force. The liberal(negotionation) ideology carry their demand some various way and sometimes subtle way. Sometimes they use power, or merging the unwanted into cental scene while staying in power.....
I believe, the state or governing elite in all regime wanted to create the monolithic/public space but the method they used is different. For example, communism have tried (at least in ideological sense)to get rid of all differences (religion, class structure, ethnicity, etc) in a given society. I think the end would be perfect example for public space but it did not happen (at least current time table). Power to people. in same sense, capitalism seems to give power to individual to create such society and instead of getting rid of diffirences and take some of them into system (after making suitable and taking out of the threat in it). What I called this illusion. For example, yes, they give "equal rights" to blacks and empowered them through craeting civil rights herous (KIng)but their relative economic or political or social status power have not changed much.. I think even TC state learned some of the new trick. For example, we had experienced the bloody events through newroz celebration. Then, the state suddenly decided the newroz is part of our turkish tradition and make it legall but the meaning of it changed...

Ok. I jump again (). I think along with state, the bourgeoise is very important role in this social change. These groups are main dynamic putting society together via playing role of bridge between the politic/military power and common people. I would like to get everbody's comments on 'what is wrong with our own bourgeoisie?
It seems to me that the state has created its own elite groups replayincing the minority ones (armanian, greeks, some of jews). The turkish bourgeoisie seem to internalized the state mentality along with western upper values, losing the bridge fuction but tools for state keeping the "tradition" alive. That is why they want to so much different from rest and idealizing west with fake mask. For example, they are high track with environmental issues, valuing history, animal rights crap but forgetting the main value of liberalisim: human. The role seems to left to "leftist" and "radical muslim" groups...
Would it be different if we had the ethnic minorities in our system?

Ok.. I know I was not so much in point. I generally have little time but when I have time I talk too much like starving soul..
PS. I will talk verical/horizontal I/C later..
peace, artun

True that the so-called upper-classes idealize the Western system in a rather false way. Though they have all one thing in common what keeps them and there values and believes together: money!
Unfortunately you are rather right that the 'political- and social elite' differ very much from the majority of the common people. Is this not more due to education? Quite right by suggesting that they concentrate more on topics what are for the majority not a priority and rather alien. But that is in any society, wherever situated. Unfortunately they got the freedom and time to do so and to ignore the real topics what may concern the common man. Whether liberalism is one of them is a big question. And please do not forget that it is not in the interest of the elite to do so. It may so for the so-called Leftist or Islamists but we could only be worried about their motives.
All the best!

Amir;
I agree that the situation is similar/same in most societies. After losing my proterya "heaven", I do not have strong negative feelings against bourgeoisie groups that I used to. Or, finding myself being (each day) as petty bourgeoisie, I have been trying to justify my ground (i gotto have at least peace with myself: find my inner bich and run away with it!).
But, my main problem is the economical/human conditions in third world countries such as turkiye and the stand of bourgeoisie. Yes, we cannot have equality in economic terms across societies, but individuals in an given society at least should have minumum conditions. I think, we are not that level in TC yet. That is why they get my nerve especially when they "devaluate" those unfortunate groups and putting themself at "higher"" places (ego trip).
anyway, nice to hear from you.
peace, artun

In reply to the part about Islamists and leftist in your posts(Amir and Artun), I think the Islamists are in a much better position than the leftists in Turkey. Although I do not see much difference between the end-projects of the Islamists and the Kemalists in the long run (they both want to create a monolithic society where only one type of individual will be allowed), but I value Islamists more in that they are actually criticizing the modern society for its present day problems and conflicts and showing the major weaknesses of the Kemalist ideology. For example, they criticize the idea of progress and development, and try to put in its place the idea of human in harmony with its environment. This and some other ones they bring are actually very valid discussions to think about. In this regard, the leftists are far behind Islamists in their ability to come up with valid subjects an arguments in regards to the present day problems of the modern society. If the Islamists can somehow soften their monolithic society project and allow for other groups to co-exist with them, they may easily become a very strong party in Turkey after all. I think the left is basically finished if they do not take on themselves soon the job of criticizing the modern society and offering a solution for it. Since Islamists have one weakness in this area (their solution is basically about replacing Kemalism with Islamism), the leftists still have a shot. However, I think the Islamists are going through another transformation just right now - so watch out. They may get rid of some of the obstacles and come up with a really working ideology. Well, more on this later.

t.

Maybe because I'm Armenian, maybe because I'm Christian, but true Islam contradicts what you call Kemalism (what I call Turkification).
They seem like two contradictions in theory.

True, Kemalism is basically anti-religious and anti-Islam. But, they both want you to wear one kind of dress, the kind they find appropriate, and in this they are similar. They both do not recognize the right of what is different to exist side by side with them. They are both totalitarian and monolithic. In fact, Islam of today is different from what Islam of the last period of the Ottoman Period represented.

t.

each other in how the dress was supposed to be. That is, it was a fight about who was going to be the tailor; the only tailor. One has a green dress, the other a red one. But, the way the dress is cut is the same in both of them. And, it is only one type of dress that they want people to wear: their own, not anyone else's.

t.

Artun thanks for your reply. .
In order to reach a higher platform in development of a society a lot of hardship and blood may flow under the bridge. Europe as it is today did not become like that just overnight.
Perhaps Timucin is right that for the Turkish society the islamist have the best papers. Although I do not agree that modernising should be automatically classified as something bad. Personally I am against any form of traditions if it disturbs progress. We ought not to confuse Turkish islamist with name wise counterparts across the Mahgreb or Middle East. By no means.
Unfortunately it is true that both ideologies like to uniform the society. I reckon that it is up to the modern Turks to develop Ataturk’s philosophy to liberalise it and bring it to a higher platform.
Yes Artun, unfortunately the Turkish society is sandwiched between two different cultures and perceptions of the spiritual as well as the earthly world. Only people like you could make an effort to change that. And I know your feelings with respect to the bourgeoisie. By the by, a typical perhaps out dated Marxist term?!
But believe it or not, when we all become older the more likely it is to end up like that. Cheerio and all the best for now.

this duality of progress versus tradition. I look around me, at my hometown, at constantly increasing demands for more consumption and materialism, and I am not so sure if progress is that good after all.

And Kemalists, I have my doubts about them, too. I am not so sure if they will be able to change themselves to fit better the new demands by the Turkish society. Most of them are still repeating the same old song.

well, we will have to discuss these subjects more in detail.

take care

t.

but I got to go.

I do not think I have enough time today to answer your post in depth. I realize I might have caused some confusion, but at the time, I was not not-confused, either. These are concepts that have appeared just recently, I mean, in past twenty years. I believe it makes more sense to attack these issues through use of ‘spaces’ terminology, since this is more about the groups and their contexts. I might have appeared as creating and using dualities. When I say private versus public I am not actually trying to put one against another, or create categories of private versus public, and consequently, eastern versus western, societies. I am not for such dualities. I think it is wrong to approach these subjects in this way.

After I got into the argument of private versus public, I started reading a book called ‘rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey’. It is a good book. I recommend it. They talk a lot about these issues and of course, the public versus private. I will probably be making some quotations from this book in my reply to you. But before I go, I would like to make a couple points.

About the difference between Locke and Rousseau, both of these guys were for the attainment of a better working society, and in fact, for a type of society that we are accustomed to now. They were reacting against the medieval mentality, against an essentially different type of society. In fact, they were probably acting more against the idea of mere collectivity supposedly an outcome of some divine design. They were both trying to involve the people in the society, and for this aim, they offered different methods. ‘Social Contract’ is more about the authority of the common will in creating this society, and Locke is more about the authority of the individual for the same task. Neither of them was trying to create an ideology of the individual that opposed the idea of the society. Almost no human being is able to create and practice a true ideology of individualism that opposes the idea of society anyway. We simply cannot exist as true individuals. In the French solution, the idea was society through order established according to the common will, and in the English solution, it was the same idea, the establishment of a new kind of society, but through chaotic interactions of the individuals, not through common will. By the way, Turkish reformers, the Young Turks and Kemalists chose the French option, partially because it fit more with their concept of State and perhaps with the ‘ummet’ mentality of Islam at the time.

So, the aim was a better society in both cases, not a better individual. Yet one of the methods, the English solution, in creating this better society was about creating the better individual first. The French solution was, on the other hand, about regulation and creation of the common will, and then the better individual in accordance with this common will. The individualism versus collectivism business appears here in the different methodologies created for the same task.

My second point is about communism, or what was actually socialism, or really proletarian dictatorship in theory, but something strange in practices. Communism tried to eliminate the religious and class differences, but it did not touch the ethnic and language differences as much they were in capitalist states. In this regard, communism respected the private spaces, to the explanation of which I will come back later in my next post, and was somehow a reaction towards the idea of the modern conception of public space, or public space, assuming that such a thing did not exist as a desire in the pre-modern era. For example, if there were either the United States or Turkey with their fully modernist ideologies at the time in the year of 1917, all the different languages and ethnicities in the Soviet Union would have been eliminated. The United States did not recognize the idea of difference up until the present era, and especially in 1917, although the Soviet Union was also not very honest about the whole issue all the time. For example, we have Italian Americans, or Finnish descendants, or German Americans and groups like this in this country. The situation in the Soviet Union was different. Perhaps not all, but most groups, kept their identities intact, not as Russian something but as what they actually are. In the United States, contrary to what people may think today, personal names were changed, languages and religions were suppressed, the Asians were made to hate their eyes and the darker guys wanted to become whiter. Unfortunately, most people are not aware of these details of the history of this country in its task to create one monolithic public state.

Anyway, I got to go. Sorry, for this sudden interruption. I will continue.

t.

timucin;
I will wait for your more detailed response(s) but I just want to clarify somethings.
I might have been seen somehow as high in dualities, but I am and not. I am aware of problems associated with dualities. But, I think we need them in order to accomplish a conceptual bridge and able to compare (or transfer) things. The core of problems generally arises about findings such dualities or categories that are not too narrow or too general. We should have different tools when we are focusing issues which vary in scope. For example, when we compare USA vs Turkiye, we might use I/C or public/private space. But, then, putting 70 million (and 250) people into one basket. Does a women living in Istanbul or Ankara holding a university degree (let say enginering)is as same (or similar) a women living Sirnak and being second wife of an old men? just becasue they live in TC. No. Or, all women living in sirnak have a similar world-view?. As the saying goes an individual is a world itself (!) (going down to parth of relativism). I think we should aware of these sort of problems but we have to have these tools to conceptualize things and use the tool when we talk about a spefic issue... Other important part having culturaly valid dualities (emic/etic) not forced ones....OK.
Yes, you last example of british/french style of forming society fits my agenda. i was trying to bring these by introducing the role of state/elite in shaping things up...
The private/public space realy got my attention. Lately, i have been focusing on more norms-individual attitude-behavior relations in academic way. The general (western) view is that there is high value consensus in less democratic/totalitarian (more east) while low values consensus in democratic society (west),which i am not agree totally. The private/public space concept help me put the mess in my though process into more concentrate way (The power of dualities) for my counterargument. In this end, I will start reading E. Fromm, Men for Himself. We might end up writing a paper together! (of course, I gotto put them empirical/psych way).
peace, artun

I got confused with the high value - low value stuff. What are you talking about?

About dualities and categories, I am not much in love with either of them, although with dualities I am more able to deal with for the reasons you stated in your paper. I do not believe in opposing stuff against each other in form of dualities. For example, in my public/private I am not actually opposing, although both spaces at times may be in conflict with each other. I am simply saying that we have at least two social/psychological spaces we need to deal with, and in our case, we might have a third one as well - the state. Anyway, I will talk about this subject very soon. In the mean time, can you touch upon briefly on this high value and low value business, so I can have some idea of what you are tlaking about?

t.

Value consensus is generally refered as concurrence among members of a society concerning their values. How much agreement among individual member of a society concerning the importance of they consider (the importance or unimportance )of an given values. If there is generally accepted (consensus) norms or values across a society which might be labelled as high value consensus society ad vise versa. ( of course, again we face problem of dualities, there is nothing like 100% percent agreement, but when the majority such as, 70/85% of population)
For example, the importance of virginity in turkish society is valued across larger segment of society.

It is related to public-private spaces. People become "modern" by incorporating the values implicit in the institution of industrialized societies into their personal value sytems and ending up a common values leading "larger" public spaces. However, agaist the idea that there is a high consensus concerning values in totalitarian society.
I am more interested how much an individual are free to act according to his/her will/belief system across different cultures (it is implicit in my argument that there is free will). If one reside in high value consensus society (and the value system is (rein)forced), there is litle space left for the individual act independently.
In this line, i am considiring what type of values formed as high agreement and bind its member across different societies. We might observe these dynamics in individual versus society (family, religion, state, commersialism). The important task to figure out which values become the one and govern the behavior of individual.

(before this post, it is sort of necessary to read my explanation of private and public spaces, if you are not already clear on my appraoch in this area)


I now understand the low and high value consensus argument clearly. To me, comparison should actually be between modern and pre-modern, that is, mostly medievalist, societies. The one that is done between democratic and totalitarian or semi-totalitarian societies is not so helpful in understanding this low/high value business, and is basically a political approach serving the desires to justify the idea of democracy.

Most societies in today’s world are modern, be it totalitarian or democratic, with different approaches to the problem and requirement of establishing public space. Value consensus business is actually closely and directly related to this public space issue.

To start with, if there is no properly working public space we cannot talk about consensus either. What makes most people happy in democratic societies is that there is a public space, and therefore, the chance to participate in the process of administering the society, in making its laws, and in actually becoming citizens. The totalitarian and state societies, to which most of the so-called Eastern countries belong with some exceptions, do suppress either coming into existence or proper working of a public space in their respective countries. So, we cannot really talk about consensus but systems imposed upon the people from the top, usually from the state structure, in these kinds of societies. Therefore, comparing these two kind of societies, the so-called western and eastern societies, based on this consensus business in regards to the values shared by the individuals is meaningless. The task of comparing low and high consensus societies can actually work only for Western countries, the more or less democratic societies. For example, one can compare the United States or Japan with the European countries, but not, for example, Turkey with the United States until we succeed in creating a properly working public space.

The issue of individualism versus collectivism in fact comes to existence only for these societies where there exist fully functional public spaces. And, in my opinion, the idea and movement of individualism comes into existence in high consensus societies for the simple fact that because they are high value consensus societies (where there is greater consensus in regards to a certain set of values at the expense of innovation in values) that reactions such as individualism appear in order to break free out of such high consensus societies. The United States has actually been such a society throughout its history – a high value society. This is at least my way of testing to determine which ones are high value societies and which are not. Why would in a low consensus society, that is, where there is more room to maneuver as far as values are concerned, there arise such reactions? The crucial dilemma of the modern societies is that more democratic they become, more efficient and dominant their public spaces become over private spaces, that is, more the sameness is emphasized at the expense of the right of the different to exist side by side with other differents, the more high value these societies become and more we see reactions for the right of the different to exist in such societies – individualism is simply one example of such reactions. But, by definition, the modern societies must evolve towards greater degrees of domination by their public spaces and thus create such reactions. The more efficient the public space is in its interactions within the society it represents, the more modern that society becomes. But, the more modern it becomes, the more high consensus it becomes, and therefore it becomes more prone to such reactions for the right of the differents.

The situation in the so-called Eastern societies is different in that their reactions are mostly about getting rid of the totalitarian structures in the way of setting up their own public spaces. They actually do not deal with value systems that much, since in such countries there is the phenomenon of existing in two different spheres at the same time. The tops down procedures of these totalitarian structures are usually not able to reach deep down to the depths of the society. All the members of these societies need to do is to develop the ability to switch from one system of values to another. When they enter the day-to-day interactions of the state sphere, the totalitarian sphere, they simply pretend, and when they get out of this sphere and enter their private ones, they go back to their usual system of values. For example, this is also the case for minorities in such societies or also in those democratic western societies: the members of such groups develop such an ability to go from one sphere to another without causing major reactions by the other members. This duality, and the existence of multiple number of private spaces that the State sphere is usually unable to reach and control, enable the members of these societies enjoy a sort of freedom that is not enjoyed in those modern western societies. Another aspect in these totalitarian societies that help this situation is the fact that the state structures are actually not very much set on destroying these private spaces. They only want to eliminate these groups from the power struggle, and letting these groups survive in their diminished roles actually helps the state to go on with its monopoly of the power in the society. In Turkey, such private spaces are in existence with their own set of value systems. For example, one can easily go from a secular existence to a religious existence in Turkey, or form a westernized one to a more traditional. They do even have their own geographical locations and every member of the society is aware of these locations where different sets of value systems work. Some locations are however kind of postmodern spaces in Turkey, such as Beyoglu, or more like, the Istiklal caddesi. In this neighborhood, one can easily see various members from different private spaces coexisting together in their day-to-day interactions until they get back to their own spaces and homes. However, going into different neighborhoods in Istanbul will require one to change even one’s appearance. Although the laws in Turkey gives the right to anyone to enter any of these private spaces the way he/she likes, the actual practice is different; the actual practice is based on the recognition of the right of these spaces to practice their own set of value systems in their own locations.

The latest problem in Turkey is that one of these private spaces, the religious space, has taken on it the task of challenging the power of the state mechanism, and has actually come up with the agenda of creating a public space in accordance with its own set of value system. It wants to replace the state space, which is basically Kemalist in its premises, with that of a pseudo-public space based on Islamist premises in regards to how the members of the society should live their lives.

Very recently, in the fragmentation of the Islamist movement in Turkey, we are seeing emergence of new approaches among the Islamist movement that are being based on doing away with challenging the hegemony of the State and the semi and pseudo public space this state structure represents. Islamists started considering the option of conducting their struggle within the premises of the Kemalist ideology. This is of course a very interesting development, one that may have a chance in coming closest to formulating a better public space for Turkey, since the Islamist ideology actually also represents the one ideology or the set of value system around which the highest consensus can be realistically achieved in Turkey.

Such a possibility has even made the radical nationalistic (milliyetci) movement push towards considering mixing up their ideology with religious tones. And, the recent closing down of the latest religious party in Turkey has given the nationalistic movement the perfect opportunity to gain some of the members of the religious movement to its side and thus change the present political balance in the assembly. With a few more members for the nationalistic movement, we may easily see Mr. Bahceli as the prime minister of the country. For this reason, I am actually supporting the new formations within the Islamist movement so that such thing does not happen.

Well, this is enough politics. I hate politics anyway.

t.

Timucin, I think the differences on surface appeared in our views mainly due to our focus points when dealing with individual-groups-society-state relations.
I got the sense that your public/private space concepts are more related to laws (consitition and its reflection on society), and therefore, your focus more on state versus society. (of course, it is my interpreation of your writing). On the other hand, my focus on more social relations,ingroup-outgroup dynamic, and individuals in any given society. Your appoach might be considered as "political approach" while mine is a sociological/psychological one.
My bringing the concept of individualism/collectivism or value consensus is not for the purpose of counterargument to your views or concept but more or less looking at things different glass to have more "detailed" discussion of the relations. I do not think that none of the concept has been brought up in the ongoing discussion has explanotory power to put the relations into meaningfull pieces or wholes.

For example, when you talk about ottoman regime that there were several private spaces which has its own laws and regulation. I think, the key argument is here having different laws/courts. (in fact, it is kind of false to expect the ottoman would had a citizenship/or nation state regime becasue the concepts later appread, late 18. century, in human history). If we just forget or keep constant the monolithic laws aspect of puclic space (just for fun), I can say that USA is made of several private spaces not public spaces as you suggested. You give example of religious/secular (state) sphere and geological location at this end in TC. You can find similar spheres in USA. Several examples: If you look up neigborhood arrangment, you will see racial segregation: white /black/ mexican/ asian spaces. In fact, when a black bought a house in white area, the whites leave that are (of course, they tried to keep their own by all "legal" means). ( the native american is another one) Of course, there are as you called post-modern areas, mainly low-income areas, where some mixing happening. The racial groups even form their own private churches, TVs, universities/colleges (e.g., brown vs harvard). ANothe good example, religious establishment. You can find different religous sect owning college/universities/hospital/civic organization, etc. eventough the state is secular. If you go to state schools, you will have no religous education. But, the religious establishment teach both secular and religious stuff. The things get compicated when you think home scholing. One of my muslim fried has been attenting such religous university, you know what she has to attend bible study almost every day (she has scholorship from the college). I can give you many examples but you get what I am saying.
But, I think, the magic lays on laws and state policies that we see "public space" in those societies, therefore, less power strugle among those groups to take over the state, regulator. Mainly bacause, the law/policies/constitution is not desingned according to private spaces or some segment of society (at least on paper) but "universal" or general terms which comes from Enlighment ideas of europe. (e.g., all men are created equals, religous freedom, not just protestants are free, privacy of individuals, etc). So, the state do not take a stand against groups (of course, different subtle capitalist way of doing is a different issue). In fact, the state is main role to protect such private spaces through some regulations. For example, I mentioned about racial segregation in housing, there is no law for black or other groups cannot live here or there. In fact, if you can prove it, you can sue the real estate guy in terms of equal housing regulation. So, when you speak the importance of public space is USA, you are right but when you look society arrangement/real life you will see very diverse/pluralistic society....

Where the I/C's role in this picture, to follow any individual to monothic/general laws/or main policies of state (at least not fight agaist), individual should not have strong/salient group identitities/loyalties. Otherwise, the one will experiences conflict between own group versus state. So, the collectivism is the obstucle to form such monothic society. (i use collectivism not as prosocial or community oriented meanings but group loyalties). At the first place, i said that the state in USA potect private spaces (group differences) but now I am saying that the group loyalties (private spaces) should be replaced by individual ones. They seem to contradic but I think not because the state is again not based on one dominat group (as laws) such as race, religion but citizenship concept. Being american, does not mean being english, french, white, black or protestant, catholoc, muslim. So, when one experiences any sort of discrimanation in real life, they get "even" through laws (discrimantion cases), therefore, the individual discrimation case mainly remains as individaul case not turning into group-conflicts. I have a good example for this (what happened when the system does not work). There was a destructive black riot in LA in 1990s. The source of unrest came from white police were beating a poor black guy to death and these scene cought on camera/and broadcasted. The important thing is the riot did not start immediately after when the scene became public but after the police who involved these wrongdoing found not guilty and quitted in USA court and bump the riot started. SO, when the state lost its objectivity (laws), it became police for white, and the black took stand agaisnt for this. The normalization started when the police case opened again, the white chief police replaced with a black one...........
When we looked the situation in TC in a similar approach (I will talk later in more details), the laws/consititution/state policies does not reflect the a monolithic/general one that embraced the all private spaces in society. Like the laws which you even not proposed to change. (e.g., ataturk's principles, being turkish only language, etc). More importantly, even the laws that seem to have quality of a general pespectives (based on some ideal not specific groups)has been applied arbitrary ways. For example, according to laws, you cannot use other language in education but english almost becoming the most popular language but you cannot use kurdish in the same end. There are so many examples (when the state forbid private universities, you had bilkent almost 10 years, etc.). In similar way, the laws/regulation is many times based one private spaces. For example, we can say our official religion is sunni/hanefi sect of islam because the state only accept, teach, and give money for these group but others such as alevi even though we are a secular state! There is no kurds but "turks", etc..
Therefore, the state do not allow private spaces (as you mentioned many times) according to laws but taking a stand in the power struggle. So, the groups not only fight among them but also against state destroying public space. That is why, the consitition has changed, I think, four times in 70 year period but the USA consititition staying untouched for over 200 years. That is also why some scholar arguing turkiyeli concept instead of turkish.
I am not agree that the state in TC has not trying to influence private spaces so leaving them along as long as they behave in state sphere. They have been trying for that end very hard (public space) but not succesfull in this business. The ataturk's reforms in fact was for that end (head, alphabet, carsaf). An outsider might be buffled when to figure out that the state itself in charge of religous affairs, educating iman in state institues by tax money, and put religious courses in high school and still foreruner of secular policies. The purpose is not provide religous services to public but control and transform religous according to state views to create cici (nice) islam or turkish islam!! SOmetimes, the "fetva" of some ilayet (religous) professor creates surprise/and dissatifaction among athesist or secular writer (bu kadar da olmaz gibisinden). As you said, ofcourse, these policies has not reached accross the segment of societies creating dualities. (the interesting things is the alevi groups in TC, the state has not touched and ignored these groups but they turn into the such segment that the closest one to state sphere and the potential candiate for the western style public concept idea, I will come to this later).
One of the important obstucle in front of puplic space in the sense of your defination is the collectivism in TC because the state refused to accept private spaces (group differences)- the reality of society but has forced her norrow public space- the reality of state and leading society coming with their own "public" spaces. (I called public because it governed so large segment of society but not in sense of western one). So, the group loyalties becomes the way of surviving.

Equilibrum concept in sociology may help the explain the different sort of public space in TC. Societies sometimes goes through some crisis (war, revaluation, etc) but this tooks place short time and the society agains establishis the balance. In this line, the public space in TC could be considered as the space where the state (laws) not exists but tradition and values govern the society. (I known i am screting your concept again and again!!). So, instead of laws like in west, the tradition becomes the regulator of such public space. That is why I am not agree with your statement that one cannot talk about value consensus where no working public space is place. Yes, you can. The value consensus has created through public spaces in which the "logical- universal"laws ( based on universal human rights declaration) in "west" but a diiferent value consensus through tradition not laws in East (TC). But, the consensus on different set of values: individual rights/law abiding vs values based on morality... I will come back much deatiled about the business of value consensus to clear the possible confusion,,,)
In deed, your example of bribery is perfect example for this. when the system and laws in not charge, the bribery takes places, sort of tradition, to open every door not laws. (it is a good public space!, everybody agrees on; taker and giver, and the way of giving). I remember giving bribe on almost all occasitions even to pay my tax in order to not wait in line!


peace, artun

I would like to make one quick comment.

I think I have given the impression that I am talking about true private spaces in Turkey. Well, this is wrong. I have also talked about the powerlessness of these private spaces in Turkey, and this is the key point. Private space needs autonomous power period. Just because there are some gay groups, African Americans or native Americans in the States, or church groups and businesses does not mean that there are private spaces in America. The existence of these groups in this country is actually due to increasing postmodern critiques of this modern society. The advanced modern countries are actually on the verge of starting a new transformation. You are confusing these with what a modern society actually is.

For example, can gays get married in this country, except in Hawaii I think? No. If they had their own autonous power structure in which this kind of marriage was recognized, then we would be talking about a private space. For example, the Waco incident in Texas a few years ago was an attempt to establish a private space by refusing the laws and ways of living that were imposed on them by the public space of the States. What happened? They got destroyed. And, in the media, we were given a different picture of this whole episode. No power no private space. All those religious groups must work within the limits set up by the monolithic public space of this country. Similar situation exists with the Native Americans. I will come back to these issues again probably. I am writing in hurry right now.

I am not really talking about private spaces in Turkey, either. I apologize for giving the impression that I was. However, in Turkey, the remnants of the past private spaces of the Ottoman Empire has not been eradicated completely (that is why the State is so scared anyway), and there are some remnant practices among the population in this respect. For example, the religious marriage, although not recognized by the State, still has considerable force in Turkey and is practiced. My ex-wife's first marriage was of this sort, and as soon as she found out that she did not have to recognize this marriage she ran away. The guy was too old anyway. So, although it is not a true private space practice, the remnants are still there and somehow alive. But, I am not talking about true private spaces in Turkey. They can exist in no modern society. And, that is what the postmodern critique is all about: it criticizes the universality of the modern society and its inability to recognize the local.

This was a very quick post about some points, not meant to be an overall response to your post. It looks like we have a lot of things to discuss. Wonderful. By the way, I had not taken your previous post as a counterargument to my argument. I do not see this discussion as a fight between to irreconcilable points. We are simply in the process of trying to build up something.

take care

t.

PS I got no time to check for spelling errors, sorry.

My concept of private space has nothing to do with the space of the individual. It is a space of a group of people in relation to other such groups. For example, the Ottoman Empire was made up of a collection of such private spaces: Muslim, Orthodox, Armenian Catholic, and Armenian, Jewish. These spaces in the educational, financial and religious matters had complete autonomy. There was no space over these spaces setting up rules for all of these private spaces. They were all subjects of the Islamic Ottoman Empire, but this did not mean that they had to abide by Seriat, the Islamic law. So, in this arrangement, although there was a vertical hierarchy, the foremost was the recognition of the difference. The sameness, bringing all the members of the empire into one space where the same rules applied to everyone was not an issue for the Ottoman Empire.

Not every group has its own private space however. For example, a tribe may have its own space, but in my approach this is only possible if it has its own autonomous power structure. The Armenian community, for instance, had such autonomy, but the same was not the case for the Turkmen tribes. They were part of the Islamic community of the Ottoman Empire, and therefore, were to abide by the rules of the power structure of this community, this space. This was, from the perspective of the Muslims, was a public space. But, we need to look at the whole thing from the perspective of the main power center, the political entity that was the Ottoman Empire. And, when we look at the whole matter from this perspective we will see that there was no public space in the Ottoman Empire until the 19th century, during which the first attempts to create public space, the attempts to eliminate all these private spaces represented by the communities in the Ottoman Empire, started appearing. In fact, the history of the Late Ottoman period is the history of the struggle to set up one public space and eliminate the private spaces that the Empire was made up of. The inability to solve this problem, or bring the struggle to a happy ending, finally resulted in the emergence of the Turkish nationalism and establishment of the Turkish nation-state.

Individualism does not represent a space by itself. Individuals in modern societies still need to abide by the laws of the society and/or public space they are part of. The individuals in the modern society do not have their own power structure through which they can decide what is right and wrong for them. For this reason, they cannot be considered to have their own private spaces. Even if some individuals in modern societies would like to get together and form their own group and therefore their own private space, this is still not the kind of space that in which the rules of the public space are not valid. In any modern society, the rules of the society, the public space or the state space, whichever is the case, is paramount. The Ottoman Empire, on the other hand, was different. Each community had its own rules they had to go by. There were no paramount Ottoman rules. This was a society where the right of the different to exist freely with other differents under the same political entity was recognized, although there was a vertical hierarchy where the Islamist community/space was on the top.

So, the trick in my public/private argument is to look in the issues of power and the recognition of difference. If the different is recognized through giving it the right to form its own space by setting up its own power structure then we are dealing with a private space within a political entity with or without its own public space. In state or totalitarian spaces, one can actually see the remnants of the recognition of the difference, but what is actually observed in such societies is not true private groups with their own spaces, but pseudo ones with very much diminished or entirely eliminated power structures of their own. Turkey is one such country, and that is why we are now having groups challenging the present state structure. The Turkish state opted at the turn of the century not for creating a public space, but a simple collectivity of these just-made-powerless remnants of the old Ottoman communities. And, the Ataturk reforms, or revolutions as it is called in Turkey, were about de-powering these communities, or perhaps the last of the communities that was left – the Muslims- in order to set up the modern nation-state, but not necessarily the modern public space. Through popular policies this collectivity is given some kind of life, pseudo-existence, but it is actually dependent on its state for everything, even in its mentality. We should not confuse this collectivity with a true public space, because this collectivity is devoid of any kind of power in affecting the policies in the society. Creation of civic institutions and true citizens is the way to empowering such collectivity and turning it into a true public space. But, as most of us can remember, the major attack of 12 September Military coup was towards the right to organize through civic institutions.

The individualism, which is, in my opinion, the wrongly channeled desire to create the recognition of the different in the modern society, comes after the creation of the true public space, and here we enter the realm of the postmodern critique of the modern society.

t.