TY  - JOUR
T1  - STRUGGLES OF SECURITY AND SECULARISM IN TÜRKİYE AND ITS IMPACT ON GENDER ISSUES
TT  - STRUGGLES OF SECURITY AND SECULARISM IN TÜRKİYE AND ITS IMPACT ON GENDER ISSUES
AU  - Atalay Chıu, Ece Selma
PY  - 2019
DA  - January
JF  - Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi
JO  - IJEPHSS
PB  - Onur OĞUZ
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 2636-8137
SP  - 27
EP  - 45
VL  - 2
IS  - 1
LA  - en
AB  - The process of securitization reflects thedominant security understanding and the forces that play on this securityunderstanding in a country. In Türkiye, this process of securitization isexperienced in close relation to militarization. With four militaryinterventions since the republic was established, two of which were full-scalecoups d’état. Türkiye has gone through an intensified process of militarizationthat has affected the process of securitization. These processes areconstructed, but claimed to be “natural” for the securitization to worksmoothly. This construction is based on a genderedunderstanding and discourse especially with the way that the security agenda isconstituted, which helps for consolidation of the dominant securityunderstanding. With the effect of militarization on the process ofsecuritization, the security agenda is formed with the state as the solereferent object, and this results in the individual security being taken forgranted. Furthermore, the state can also be a source of threat for individualsecurity within this relationship of securitization and militarization. Themilitarized understanding of security and the close relationship between theprocesses of securitization and militarization results in a hierarchicalattitude towards events and developments where individual security in generaland the security of women, in particular, are neglected. This paper analyzesthe relationship between the processes of securitization and militarization andshows their gendered construction in Türkiye.
KW  - security
KW  - securitization
KW  - military
KW  - militarization
KW  - gender
N2  - The process of securitization reflects thedominant security understanding, the forces that play on this securityunderstanding in a country. In Turkey the process of securitization isexperienced in close relation to militarization. Turkey has gone through anintensified process of militarization that has affected the process ofsecuritization. These processes are constructed, but claimed to be “natural”for the securitization to work smoothly. This construction is based on agendered understanding and discourse especially with the way that the securityagenda is constituted, that helps for consolidation of the dominant securityunderstanding. With the effect of militarization on the process ofsecuritization, security agenda is formed with the state as the sole referentobject, and this results in the individual security being taken forgranted. The state can also be a sourceof threat for individual security within this relationship of securitizationand militarization. The militarized understanding of security and the closerelationship between the processes of securitization and militarization resultsin a hierarchical attitude towards events, developments where individualsecurity in general and the security of women, in particular, are neglected.This paper analyzes the relationship between the securitization andmilitarization and shows their gendered construction in Turkey.
CR  - Referans1 Arat Yesim, 1989, The Patriarchal Paradox, London and Toronto: Associated University Press.
CR  - Referans2 Birand, Mehmet A., 1986, The General's Coup in Türkiye: An Inside Story of 12 September 1980, London: Brassey's Defence Publishers.
CR  - Referans3 Harris S. George, 1988, “The Role of the Military in Türkiye in the 1980s: Guardians or Decision Makers?” In State, Democracy, and the Military: Turkey in the 1980s (177–200).
CR  - Referans4 Özbay Ferhunde, 1991,   Women in modern Turkish society, 89-111, Zed Books, 1st edition, 1991.
CR  - Referans5 Peterson V. Spike 1998,Gender & History ISSN 0953-5233,Feminism and International Relations gender & history Vol.10 No.3 November (581-589)
CR  - Referans6 Tickner J.Ann 2001, “Gender, the Military, and War,” Stanford University, April 2001.
CR  - Referans7 Tyler May Elaine 1988, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era ,New York, Basic Books.
CR  - Referans8 Wæver Ole, 1995, “Securitization and Desecuritization”, In Ronnie D. Lipschutz, ed., On Security, New York, Columbia University Press, 46-87.
CR  - Referans9 William Hale 1994, Turkish Politics and Military, London and New York: Routledge.
CR  - Referans10 Türkiye Istatistik Kurumu (2018), Number of representatives and representation rate in the Assembly by the election year and sex (1935 -2011), http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1061
CR  - Referans11 Türkiye Istatistik Kurumu (2018), Representation rate of women deputies in Turkish Parliament, (1935-2011) http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreTabloArama.do
UR  - https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ijephss/issue//453344
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/626212
ER  -