Public Space and Social Polarization. A case study of the New Wave Turkish Migrants with a comparative analysis of Berlin, İstanbul & Ankara

Abstract

Public space is by no means a place for complete unity or harmony. It is always open to contradiction and struggle. It is a space in which dwellers of the city find various ways to cope with living with one another. This could be in the form of negotiation, or confrontation. Or, it could be where they avoid others, where they maintain distance. Yet, there is always the expectation of all parties, to have one’s own place in that struggle. Turkey has experienced increased social polarization in recent years, and this is reflected in its public spaces. With the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality in politics being also found in everyday urban life, the gap between different lifestyles has greatened, hostility among people has intensified and urban space became a battlefield rather than a ground for commons. Hate and intolerance began to define what is public. In the meantime, a great number of high-skilled, young individuals, particularly from İstanbul and Ankara, began to leave the country to carve out a better future; and, one of the popular destinations was Berlin, Germany. This paper addresses this group of young migrants to make a comparative analysis on the definitions of public space and to rethink the social production of urban space. With thirty interviews and two focus groups, it aims to consider the reflections of social polarization on public space.

Residential segregation by educational status in Turkey, 2013: Examining the association with political preferences

“…Our results suggest that CHP voters' social distance from AKP followers is likely translating into spatial distance in the form of the separation of educational groups. This finding echoes the recent work that suggests that perceptions of neighbourhoods as desirable places to live are related to people's political preferences, values and social class (Kulkul, 2020).…”

“…Our results suggest that CHP voters' social distance from AKP followers is likely translating into spatial distance in the form of the separation of educational groups. This finding echoes the recent work that suggests that perceptions of neighbourhoods as desirable places to live are related to people's political preferences, values and social class(Kulkul, 2020).The spatial distancing of CHP and AKP followers likely impacts educational segregation in three ways. CHP followers are more educated and seek to live in places with more educated neighbours and also seek to send their children to regular state schools, which are located in different areas than Imam Hatip schools-religious schools and preferred by AKP followers-and have better educational outcomes than students attending Imam Hatip schools (Akpinar…”

“…We expect that CHP members' desires to maintain social distance from AKP adherents will shape their residential preferences and mobility through the structural sorting process. There is evidence that political polarisation likely plays a role in separating households by neighbourhoods in urban Turkey according to their lifestyle, culture and education (Erkip, 2010; Kulkul, 2020). For example, Kulkul (2020) points out that suburbanization in Ankara is not only attributable to social class mobility but also to political preferences.…”

“…There is evidence that political polarisation likely plays a role in separating households by neighbourhoods in urban Turkey according to their lifestyle, culture and education (Erkip, 2010; Kulkul, 2020). For example, Kulkul (2020) points out that suburbanization in Ankara is not only attributable to social class mobility but also to political preferences. Consistent with the main tenets of the social structural sorting perspective, there is a perception that neighbourhoods like “Cayyolu, Yasamkent, and Umitkoy are considered to be the dwellings of ‘secular,’ highly skilled, well‐educated, upper‐class middle‐class families” (Kulkul, 2020: 117).…”

“…For example, Kulkul (2020) points out that suburbanization in Ankara is not only attributable to social class mobility but also to political preferences. Consistent with the main tenets of the social structural sorting perspective, there is a perception that neighbourhoods like “Cayyolu, Yasamkent, and Umitkoy are considered to be the dwellings of ‘secular,’ highly skilled, well‐educated, upper‐class middle‐class families” (Kulkul, 2020: 117). In Tophane, an urban neighbourhood in Istanbul undergoing gentrification, it is likely that violent acts against residents displaying affection in public and drinking alcohol in local establishments by Islamists has exacerbated secularists' desires to maintain distance from them (Oz & Eder, 2018).…”