A Critical Discussion on Turkish Students’ Thoughts about Syrians over Nation-State Teachings

Abstract

This study is mainly based on chats with secondary and high school students. The implicit points in their daily complaints about their Syrian peers in neighborhoods were turned into a problematic for a qualitative survey. The students living in the regions in which generally Syrian immigrants are located account for the research group. The results were based on the analysis of the students’ letters they wrote to their Syrian peers in the spring of 2018: 150 letters saluting the young Syrians with “Dear my Syrian Friend” are exposed to a discourse analysis. The theoretical structure drawing classical and contemporary Marxist approaches together argues that the relationship between nationstate ideology and education creates a kind of political socialization in response to the ideal value of “fully-democratic education”. The salutations and nationalist statements that the students wrote reveal that not any mechanism of acceptance works. The students accuse the Syrians, particularly young men, of being unfaithful to their own country foremost, and of weakening the economy of the country where they took refuge by being a cheap labor force, behaving inappropriately towards the traditional and moral values, becoming a threat to Turkish language, having high fertility, taking over common spaces and behaving loosely.

Keywords

• International migration,Syrian Immigrants,education,nation-state

Ulus-Devlet Öğretileri üzerinden Türk Öğrencilerin Suriyeli Göçmenler Hakkındaki Düşünceleri Üzerine Eleştirel bir Tartışma

Abstract

Bu çalışma, ilk olarak, ortaokul ve lise öğrencileri ile yapılan muhabbetlerden ibaretti. Mahallelerdeki Suriyeliler hakkındaki günlük şikâyetlerinin altındaki örtük noktalar bir kalitatif araştırma sorusuna dönüştü. Genellikle Suriyeli göçmenlerin yerleşmiş olduğu bölgelerde yaşayan öğrenciler, araştırma grubunu oluşturmaktadırlar. Sonuçlar, 2018 Bahar aylarında, öğrencilerin Suriyeli akranlarına yazdıkları mektupların analizine dayanmaktadır: Genç Suriyelileri “Sevgili Suriyeli arkadaşım” şeklinde selamlayan 150 mektup, söylem analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Klasik ve çağdaş Marksist yaklaşımları birlikte dikkate alan teorik yapı, ulus-devlet ideolojisi ve eğitim arasındaki ilişkinin, “tam-demokratik eğitim” idealine karşılık, nasıl bir çeşit politik sosyalleşme yarattığını tartışmaktadır. Öğrencilerin yazdıkları selamlamalar ve milliyetçi ifadeler herhangi bir kabul mekanizmasının işlemediğini gösteriyorlar. Öğrenciler, Suriyelileri, özellikle genç erkekleri, en başta kendi ülkelerine sadakatsizlikle, sonra sığındıkları ülkenin ekonomisini ucuz iş gücü ile zayıflatmak, Türk geleneksel ve ahlaki değerlerine uygunsuz davranışlarda bulunmak, Türk diline tehdit oluşturmak, yüksek doğurganlığa sahip olmak, ortak yaşam alanlarını ele geçirmek ve rahat davranmakla suçlamaktadırlar.

Keywords

• Uluslararası göç,Suriyeli göçmenler,eğitim,ulus-devlet

References

1. Allman, P. (1988) “Gramsci, Freire and Illich: Their contributions to education for socialism”. In Tom Lovett, (ed) Radical approaches to adult education: a reader.London: Routledge.
2. Althusser, L. (2003). İdeoloji ve devletin ideolojik aygıtları. (A. Tümertekin, Trans.). İstanbul: İthaki Yayınları.
3. Anderson B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso Books.
4. Arslan, A. (2017). Modern dünyada Müslümanlar. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
5. Ball, S. J., (2013). Foucault, power and education. London: Routledge.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. A social critique of the judgement of taste. (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
7. Bourdieu, P. (2012). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Civelek, H. Y. (2015). Ethnicity, language, education: Confrontation of mother tongue and government’s language within ethnic households. Journal of Sociological Studies/Sosyoloji Konferansları. 51, 2015–1.
8. Çakmak, D., (2009). Pro-Islamic public education in Turkey: The Imam Hatip schools. Middle Eastern Studies. 45(5), 825–846.

9. Erneling, C. E. (2010). Towards discursive education, philosophy, technology and modern education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition, London: Sage.
11. Entwistle, H. (1979). Antonio Gramsci: Conservative schooling for radical politics. London: Routledge.
12. Ferreira, Jr. A., & Bittar M. (2008). Education from the Marxist perspective: an approach based on Marx and Gramsci. Interface 4 (no.se, Botucatu). http://www.scielo.br/pdf/icse/v12n26/en_a14.pdf.
13. Freire, P (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Freire (1998). Teachers as cultural workers-Letters to those who dare teach, Boulder, CO, USA: West View Press.
14. Frisby, C. L. (2013). Meeting the psychoeducational needs of minority students. Evidence –based guidelines for school psychologists and other school personnel. New Jersey: Wiley Publications.
15. Gibson, R. (1986). Critical theory and education. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
16. Gellner, E. (1964). Thought and change. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
17. Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
18. Giroux, H.A (1999). The mouse that roared. Disney and the end of innocence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
19. Giroux, H.A. (2011) On critical pedagogy, N. Y. & London: Continuum/Bloomsbury.
20. Gramsci, A. (1977). Antonio Gramsci, Selections from political writings (1910-1920). Hoare & Matthews, J. (Eds.). New York: International Publishers.
21. Gramsci, A. (1978). Selections from political writings (1921-1926). Hoare, Q. (Ed.). New York: International Publishers.
22. Gramsci, A. (1999). Prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith (Eds. & Trans.). London: ElecBook.
23. Hall, S. (2002), Gramsci and us. In J. Martin (Ed.) Antonio Gramsci: Critical assessments of leading political philosophers. London and New York: Roudledge. 227–238.
24. Hall, S. (2008). Kültürel çalışmalar ve teorik mirası. In S. Çelenk & A. E. Arslan, (Trans.) S. Çelenk (Comp.), İletişim çalışmalarında kırılmalar ve uzlaşmalar. Ankara: De Ki yayınları.
25. Hutchinson, J. (2008). Milliyetçilik, globalizm ve medeniyetler çatışması. In U. Özkırımlı (ed.) 21. Yüzyılda milliyetçilik. (pp.77–101). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
26. Ince, B. (2012). Citizenship and identity in Turkey: From Atatürk’s republic to the present day. London. New York: I.B. Tauris. İnal, K. (2008). Eğitim ve ideoloji. İstanbul: Kalkedon Yayınları.
27. Jacob F., & Luedtke A. (2018). Introduction. In F. Jacob and A. Luedtke (Eds.). Migration and the crisis of the modern nation state? (pp. v-xiv). Delaware: Vernon Press.
28. Keely, B. C. (1996). How nation states create and respond to refugee flows. The International Migration Review. 30(4), 1046–1066.
29. Kellas, J. G., (1991). The politics of nationalism and ethnicity. London: Macmillan.
30. Kirişçi, K. (2014). Misafirliğin ötesine geçerken: Türkiye’nin “Suriyeli mülteciler” sınavı, Ankara: Booking Enstitüsü & Uluslararası Stratejik Araştırmalar Kurumu (USAK), Haziran.
31. Laclau E. (2006). Why constructing a people is a main task of radical politics? Critical inquiry. 32(4), 644–680.
32. Laclau E. (2014). Antagonism, subjectivity and politics. In The retorical foundations of society, (pp. 101-125). London: Verso.
33. Laclau E, & Mouffe C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy. Towards a radical democratic politics. New York: Verso.
34. Laclau, E., & Worsham, L. & Olson, G. A. (1999). Hegemony and the future of democracy: Ernesto Laclau’s political philosophy. In G. A. Olson & L. Worsham (Eds.), Race, rhetoric, and the postcolonial (pp. 129–64). Albany: State University of New York Press.
35. Mottola-Poole, C. (2016). The United States: Learning about Native American. In R. Guyver. (Ed.) Teaching history and the changing nation-state.transnational and intranational perspectives (pp. 141–158). NY:Bloomsbery
36. Olivier, B. (2017). Bourdieu, Rancière, Inequality and Education, Koers-Bulletin for Christian Scholarship 82(1). https://doi.org/10.19108/KOERS.82.1.2315
37. Ranciére, J. (2007). Siyasalın Kıyısında. (A. U. Kılıç, Trans.). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
38. Schwarz, I. (2011) Educational governence in Turkey? A centralized national education system under the influence of civil society and international organizations. London School of Economics and Political Science. Selected Dissertational Papers. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/research/ContemporaryTurkishStudies/Working %20Papers.aspx Smith, A. D. (1986). The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford: Blackwell.
39. Smith, Anthony D. (1991). National identity. London: Penguin.
40. Snir, I. (2017) Education and articulation: Laclau and Mouffe’s radical democracy in school. Ethics and education. 12(3), 351–363.
41. Thomassen, L. (2016). Hegemony, populism and democracy: Laclau and Mouffe today. Revista Española de Ciencia Política. Núm. 40. Marzo, pp. 161–176. http://doi.org/10.1080/17449642,2017,1356680.
42. Ramos Jr. V., (1982). The concepts of ideology, hegemony, and organic intellectuals in Gramsci’s Marxism. Theoretical Review, 27. March-April. Retrieved from : https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/periodicals/ theoretical-review/1982301.htm.
43. Wheelis, A.B. (1958). The quest for identity. New York: Norton.
44. Verkuyten, M. (2006). The social psychology of ethnic identity: European monographs in social psychology. Hove & N.Y: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.