Locally Confined Territorial Stigmatization: The Case of “Gypsy” Stigma

Öz

Wacquant (2008) argues that the city has become the scene of novel patterns of segregating and stigmatizing ethnic or class groups on a territorial basis in developed countries in the post-industrial era. Drawing on the insights he offers, this study examined the existence of a similar mechanism of urban territorial stigmatization in Turkey, yet as a “developing country.” It compared the cases of territorial stigmatization in two urban quarters of İstanbul: Nişantaşı Teneke and Rumelikavağı Kayadere. A secondary analysis of the available data about these quarters collected by the authors during their recent field studies and also during some archive research, albeit to a more limited degree, revealed that the “Gypsy” stigma attached to them has largely determined their formation and trajectory in interaction with their socio-historical contingencies. It also showed that unlike the cases reported by Wacquant (2008) as regards to developed countries, these stigmatized urban districts in Turkey are not simply the outcome of the process of deindustrialization that accompanies neoliberalism but that their history goes back to the late 19^th century. Accordingly, the authors introduced a more nuanced sub-term to handle the aforementioned socio-spatial phenomenon: locally confined territorial stigmatization.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• marginalization,discrimination,segregation,Territorial stigmatization,“Gypsy” stigma,segregation

Yerel Düzeyle Sınırlı Mekânsal Damgalama: “Çingene” Damgası Örneği

Öz

Wacquant’a göre (2008) post-endüstriyel dönemde gelişmiş ülkelerin kentlerinde, etnik ya da sınıfsal grupların mekânsal temelde ayrıştırılmaları ve damgalanmalarının yeni örüntüleri ortaya çıkmıştır. Onun öngörülerinden hareketle, bu çalışmada bu kez “gelişmekte olan bir ülke” olarak Türkiye’de kentsel mekânsal damgalama olgusu ile benzerlik gösteren bir mekanizmanın varlığı inceleme konusu yapılmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında İstanbul’un iki mahallesindeki mekânsal damgalama örnekleri karşılaştırılmıştır: Nişantaşı Teneke ve Rumelikavağı Kayadere. Yazarların yakın dönemlerde gerçekleştirdikleri saha çalışmalarında ve daha kısıtlı bir düzeyde olsa da bazı arşiv araştırmalarında mahalleler hakkında topladıkları verilerin ikincil analizi, bu mahallelerin “Çingenelik”le damgalanmasının, oluşumlarını ve yörüngelerini sosyo-tarihsel olumsallıklarıyla etkileşim içinde büyük ölçüde belirlemiş olduğunu açığa çıkarmıştır. Aynı zamanda çalışmada ortaya konulan bulgular, Wacquant’ın (2008) ele aldığı gelişmiş ülkelerdeki örneklerden farklı olarak, Türkiye’deki bu damgalanmış kentsel yerleşim alanlarının basitçe neoliberalizme eşlik eden sanayisizleşme sürecinin bir sonucu olarak ortaya çıkmadıklarını ve bu mahallelerin tarihinin geç 19. yüzyıla uzandığını göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak yazarlar, söz konusu sosyo-mekânsal fenomenin ele alınabileceği daha nüanslı bir alt-terim önermişlerdir: yerel düzeyle sınırlı mekânsal damgalama.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• marjinalleşme,ayrımcılık,ayrışma,Mekânsal damgalama,“Çingene” damgası

Kaynakça

1. List of sources Archival Sources BOA, DH, MKT, 632.19.1.2.30.
2. BOA, DH, MKT, 137.31.8.1.25.
3. BOA, İŞE, 2.30.1.13.
4. BOA, ŞD, 609.40.4.1.17.
5. BOA, ŞD, 695.29.8.3.3.
6. BOA, ŞD, 2749.40.1.20.
7. BOA, Y, PRK, KOM, 4.20.5.1.15.
8. Secondary Sources Akkan, B. E., Deniz, M. B. & Ertan, M. (2017). The Romanization of poverty: spatial stigmatization of Roma neighborhoods in Turkey. Romani Studies. 27(1), 73-93.

9. Akkan, B. E., Deniz, M. B. & Ertan, M. (2011). Poverty and social exclusion of Roma in Turkey. İstanbul: Edirne Roma Association, Bogazici University Social Policy Forum, Anadolu Kültür.
10. Akkaya, Ö. (2011). Çingeneler: Başka bir dünyanın insanları. Global Media Journal Turkish Edition. 1(2), 121-136. Accessed on June 6, 2018 from http://globalmediajournaltr.yeditepe.edu.tr/makaleler/GMJ_2._sayi_Bahar_2011/pdf/Akkaya.pdf
11. Anon (2008). Eşitsiz vatandaşlık: Türkiye Çingenelerinin karşılaştığı hak ih-lalleri. In E. Uzpeder, S. Danova / Roussinova, S. Özçelik & S. Gökçen (Eds.), Biz buradayız: Türkiye’de Romanlar, ayrımcı uygulamalar ve hak mücadelesi (pp. 53 - 108). İstanbul: Helsinki Citizens Assembly, Europe-an Roma Rights Center, EDROM.
12. Arslan, S. (2008). Balkan Savaşları sonrası Rumeli’den Türk göçleri ve Osmanlı Devleti’nde iskânları (Unpublished MA thesis), Trakya University Insti-tute of Social Sciences, Edirne.
13. Balcı, İ. (2006). Sarıyer: Aşiyan’dan Kısırkaya’ya. İstanbul: İlkbiz Yayınevi.
14. Balcı, İ. (1999). Simas’tan Sarıyer’e. İstanbul: Günlük Ticaret Matbaası.
15. Batur, A. (1999). Akaretler. In N. Akbayar (Ed.), Beşiktaş past and present (pp. 119-121). İstanbul: Beşiktaş Belediyesi.
16. Bozkurt, T. (2006). Poşalar örneğinde etnisite ve toplumsal cinsiyet ilişkisi. In C. Suvari, A. Yıldırım, T. Bozkurt & M. İlker (Eds.), Artakanlar (pp. 283-355). İstanbul: E.
17. Buğra, A. & Keyder, Ç. (2003). New poverty and changing welfare regime of Turkey: Report prepared for the United Nations Development Program. Ankara: UNDP.
18. Caferoğlu, A. (1954). Pallacı, Tahtacı ve Çepni dillerine dair. Türkiyat Mecmuası. 11, 41-56.
19. Caferoğlu, A. (1950). Eskişehir ağızları üzerine bir deneme. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi. 4(1-2), 15-33.
20. Caferoğlu, A. (1946). Kırşehir vilayetinin bugünkü etnik teşekkülüne dair notlar. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi. 2(1-2), 79-96.
21. Cames, R. (2013). Government by expulsion: The Roma camp, citizenship, and the state. Paper presented at Resourceful Cities Research Commit-tee, Sociology of Urban and Regional Development, International Socio-logical Association, Berlin, August 29-31, 2013. Accessed on November 10, 2018 from https://www.academia.edu/5618161/Government_by_Expulsion_The_Roma_Camp_Citizenship_and_the_State
22. Castells, M. & Portes, A. (1991). World underneath: The origins, dynamics, and effects of informal economy. In A. Portes, M. Castells & L. A. Benton (Eds.), The informal economy studies in advanced and less developed countries (pp. 11-40). Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.
23. Chen, M. A. (2012). The informal economy: Definitions, theories and policies. Cam-bridge: WIEGO.
24. De Goeje, M. J. (1886). A contribution to the history of the Gypsies. In D. MacRitchie (Ed.), Accounts of the Gypsies of India (pp. 1-60). London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.
25. Ergin, O. N. (1995). Mecelle-i umur-ı belediyye. İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı.
26. Erkan, S. (2011). Köçek tipinin uluslararası kökeni üzerine bir deneme. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Türkoloji Dergisi. 18(1), 223-240.
27. Fleeming, M. H, Roman, J. & Farrell, G. (2000). The shadow economy. Journal of International Affairs Editorial Board. 53(2), 387-409.
28. Filcak, R. & Steger, T. (2014). Ghettos in Slovakia. The environmental exclusion of the Roma minority. Analyse & Kritik. 2, 1-22.
29. Gezgin, E. (2016). Damgalanan mekânda yaşam: Bir kentin “ötekisi” olmak. Ankara: Phoenix.
30. Ginio, E. (2004). Neither Muslim nor Zimmis: The Gypsies (Roma) in the Ottoman state. Romani Studies. 14(2), 117-144.
31. Gmelch, S. B. (1986). Groups that don’t want in: Gypsies and other artisan trader, and entertainer minorities. Annual Review of Anthropology. 15, 307-330.
32. Gmelch, S. B. (1982). Gypsies in British cities: Problems and government response. Urban Anthropology. 11(3/4), 347-376.
33. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. New York: Simon and Schuster.
34. Grellman, H. M. G. (1787). Dissertation on the Gypsies being an historical enquiry concerning the manner of life, economy, customs, and conditions of these people in Europe, and their origin. London: G. BIGG.
35. Güran, T. (1997). Osmanlı Devleti’nin ilk istatistik yıllığı 1897. Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü.
36. Gürboğa, N. (2016). Türk-Yunan nüfus mübadelesi ve devletin mübadil Romanlara ilişkin söylem ve politikaları. Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 9(1), 109-140.
37. Hancock, I. (2003). On Romany origins and identity-questions for discussion. In A. Marsh & E. Strand (Eds.), Gypsies and the problem of identities: Con-textual, constructed and contested (pp. 69-93). İstanbul: Swedish Research Institute in İstanbul.
38. İpek, N. (1999). Rumeli’den Anadolu’ya Türk göçleri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
39. Jabbur, J. S. (1995). The Bedouins and the desert: Aspects of nomadic life in the Arab East. New York: State University of New York Press.
40. Johanson, L. (2001). Discoveries on the Turkic linguistic map. Stockholm: Svenska Forskningsinstitutet i İstanbul.
41. Karay, R. H. (19941965). Sonuncu kadeh. İstanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi.
42. Karpat, K. (2002). Studies on Ottoman social and political history. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill.
43. Karpat. K. (2003). Ottoman population 1830-1914: Demographic and social charac-teristics. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.
44. Katalin, G. (2015). The informal economy: Conceptual background and theoretical framework. In The Proceedings of the International Conference on Lit-erature, Discourse and Multicultural Dialogue (pp. 57-71). Tirgu Mureş: Arhipelag XXI Press.
45. Kazgan, G. (1999). Kuştepe araştırması. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi.
46. Kearns, Kevin. C. (1977). Irish tinkers: An itinerant population in transition. Annals of Association of American Geographers. 67(4), 538-548.
47. Kligman, G. (2001). On the social construction of “otherness:” Identifying “the Roma” in post-socialist communities. Review of Sociology. 7(2), 61-78.
48. Ladstätter, O. & Andreas T. (1994). Die Abdal (Äynu) in Xinjiang. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
49. Lucassen, L. (1991). The power of definition. Stigmatization, minoritization and ethnicity illustrated by the history of Gypsies in the Netherlands. Journal of Social Science. 27, 80-91.
50. Lucassen, L., Willem, W. & Cottaar, A. (1998). Gypsies and other itinerant groups: A socio-historical approach. London: Macmillan Press.
51. Lucassen, L. (1998). The clink of the hammer was heard from daybreak till dawn: Gypsy occupations in Western Europe. In L. Lucassen, W. Wil-lem & A. Cottaar (Eds.), Gypsies and other itinerant groups: A socio-historical approach (pp. 153-173). London: Macmillan Press.
52. Marinaro, I. C. (2017). The informal faces of the (neo-)ghetto: state confinement, formalization and multidimensional informalities in Italy’s Ro-ma camps. International Sociology. 32(4), 545-562.
53. Marushiakova, E. & Popov, V. (2016). Gypsies in Central Asia and Caucasus. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
54. Marushiakova, E. & Popov, V. (2011). Between exoticization and marginalization: Current problems of Gypsy studies. BEHEMOTH A Journal on Civi-lization. 4(1), 86-105.
55. Matras, Y. (2015). The Romani Gypsies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
56. Matras, Y. (2004). The role of language in mystifying and demystifying Gypsy identity. In N. Saul & S. Tebbutt (Eds.), The mixed language debate: Theo-retical and empirical advances (pp. 1-20). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
57. Matras, Y. (2004a). Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. Matras, Y. (1999). The state of present-day Romani in Jerusalem. Mediterranean Language Review. 11, 1-58.
59. Okely, J. (2014). Recycled (mis)representations: Gypsies, travelers or Roma treated as objects, rarely subjects. People, Place and Policy. 8(1), 65-85.
60. Okely, J. (20021983). The traveler-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. Pamuk, Ş. (2005). Osmanlı ekonomisinde bağımlılık ve büyüme 1820-1913. İstan-bul: Tarih Vakfı.
62. Powell, R. & Lever, J. (2017). Europe’s perennial “outsiders:” A processual approach to Roma stigmatization and ghettoization. Current Sociology. 65(5), 680-699.
63. Powell, R. (2013). Loïc Wacquant’s “ghetto” and ethnic minority segregation the UK: The neglected case of Gypsy-travelers. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 37(1), 115-34.
64. Powell, R. (2008). Understanding the stigmatization of Gypsies: Power and the dialectics of (dis)identification. Housing, Theory, and Society. 25(2), 87-109.
65. Rao, A. (2009). Peripatetic peoples and lifestyles in South Asia. In B. Brower, & B. R. Johnston (Eds.), Disappearing peoples? Indigenous groups and ethnic minorities in South and Central Asia (pp. 53-72). California: Left Coast Press.
66. Rao, A. (1987). The concept of peripatetics: an introduction. In A. Rao (Ed.), The other nomads: Peripatetic minorities in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 1-32). Köln: Böhlau.
67. Roux, J. P. (1987). The Tahtaci of Anatolia. In A. Rao (Ed.), The other nomads: Peripatetic minorities in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 229-246). Köln: Böhlau.
68. Salo, M. (1987). The Gypsy niche in North America: some ecological perspectives on the exploitation of social environments. In A. Rao (Ed.), The other nomads: Peripatetic minorities in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 89-110). Köln, Viyana: Böhlau.
69. Salo, M. (1986). Peripatetic adaptation in historical perspective. Nomadic Peo-ples. 21/22, 7-36.
70. Salo, M. (1982). Roma niches: Economic and social organization in urban new England. Urban Anthropology. 11(3/4), 273-313.
71. Scala, A. (2014). The mixed language of Armenian Bosha (Lomavren) and its inflectional morphology: Some considerations in light of Armenian dia-lectal variation. Annali del Dipartimento di Studi Letterari, Linguistici e Comparati Sezione Linguistica. 3, 233-250.
72. Selçuk, H. (2013). Tuna boyunda bir Osmanlı kenti: Vidin. Konya: Çizgi.
73. Sinigerska, I., Chandler, D., Vaghjiani, V., Hassanova, I., Gooding, R., Morrone, A., Kremensky, I. & Kalaydjieva, L. (2006). Founder mutation causing infantile gm1-gangliosidosis in the Gypsy population. Molecular Genet-ics and Metabolism. 88, 93-95.
74. Soulis, G. C. (1961). The Gypsies in the Byzantine Empire and the Balkans in the late middle ages. Dumbarton Oaks Paper. 15, 141-165.
75. Stejskalova, M. (2013). Can we speak of ghetto in Czech cities? Slovo. 25(2), 3-17.
76. Surdu, M. & Kovats, M. (2015). Roma identity as an expert-political construc-tion. Social Inclusion. 3(5), 5-18.
77. The General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadaster (2018). Parsel sorgulama. Accessed on November 28, 2018 from https://parselsorgu.tkgm.gov.tr
78. Vincze, E. (2013). Socio-spatial marginality of Roma as a form of intersectional injustice. Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai Sociologia. 58(LVIII), 217-243.
79. Wacquant, L., Slater, T. & Pereira, V. B. (2014). Territorial stigmatization in action. Environment and Planning A. 46(6), 1270-1280.
80. Wacquant, L. (2013). Class, ethnicity and state in the making of marginality: revisiting territories of urban relegation. Accessed on October 15, 2014 from http://loicwacquant.net/assets/Papers/REVISITINGURBANOUTCASTS-Danish-article-version.pdf
81. Wacquant, L. (2012). A janus-faced institution of ethno-racial closure: A socio-logical specification of the ghetto. In R. Hutchison & B. D. Haynes (Eds.), The ghetto: Contemporary global issues and controversies (pp. 1-32). Colorado: Westview Press.
82. Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban outcasts. Cambridge: Polity.
83. Wacquant, L. (2007). Territorial stigmatization in the age of advanced mar-ginality. Thesis Eleven. 91, 16-22.
84. Walach, V. (2015). Advanced marginalization or ghettoization? An analysis of a Czech socially excluded neighborhood in terms of inhabitants’ repre-sentations. In K. Nedbalkova, K. S. Janku, S. Ficova, J. Novotna & D. P. Mark (Eds.), Doing research, making science: The memory of Roma workers (pp. 141-188). Brno: Centre for the Study of Democracy and Culture.
85. Widmann, P. (2007). The campaign against the restless: Criminal biology and the stigmatization of the Gypsies, 1890-1960. In R. Stauber & R. Vago (Eds.), The Roma a minority in Europe: Historical, political and social perspectives (pp. 19-30). Budapest: Central European University Press.
86. Willems, W. & Lucassen, L. (2000). Gypsies in the diaspora? The pitfalls of a biblical concept. Histoire Sociale / Social History. 6, 251-269.
87. Willem, W. (1998). Ethnicity as a death-trap: The history of Gypsy studies. In L. Lucassen, W. Willems & A. Cottaar (Eds.), Gypsies and other itinerant groups: A socio-historical approach (pp. 17-34). London: Macmillan Press.
88. Williams, P., Lerch, O. & Lerch, M. (1982). The invisibility of the Kalderash of Paris: Some aspects of the economic activity and settlement patterns of the Kalderash Rom of the Paris suburbs. Urban Anthropology. 11(3/4), 315-346.
89. Yalman, A. R. (1977 1931). Cenupta Türkmen oymakları I-II. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
90. Yıldırım, F. (2012). Abdal gizli dili: İnceleme-sözlük. Adana: Karahan Kitabevi.
91. Yılgür, E. (2018a). Son dönem Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda devlet ve Çingeneler: Vergi, askerlik ve adlandırma meseleleri. MSGSÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2(18), 267-303.
92. Yılgür, E. (2018b). Teneke mahallesi in the late Ottoman capital: A socio-spatial ground for the co-inhabitation of Roma immigrants and local poor. Romani Studies. 28(2), 157-194.
93. Yılgür, E. (2017). Türkiye’de peripatetik topluluklar: Jenerik terimler ve öz-etnik kategorizasyon biçimleri. Nişantaşı Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 5(1), 1-25.
94. Yılgür, E. (2016a). Roman tütün işçileri. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
95. Yılgür, E. (2016b). Lofça Muhacirler Mahallesi: Kentsel mekânın yeniden üretimi ekseninde peripatetik toplumsal organizasyon biçimleri. Modus Operandi. 4, 177-210.
96. Yılgür, E. (2013). Nişantaşı Teneke Mahallesi: Mekânsal dönüşümün algısal ve sosyolojik arka planı. MSGSÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 8, 31-47.
97. Yılgür, E. (2012). Nişantaşı Teneke Mahallesi: Teneke mahalle yoksulluğundan orta sınıf yerleşimine. İstanbul: İletişim.
98. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University.
99. Zürcher, E. J. (2004). Turkey: A modern history. New York: I.B. Tauris & Co.