Click to read the article in Turkish/Kurdish
It is almost impossible to imagine a life outside the experiences of oppressive masculinities in Turkey. There is not a single moment we are not subjected to it, or we don't encounter it, or we don't manifest it with violence, because we bring this style everywhere we go and reproduce it in every relationship we enter.
We can easily recognize it in every environment we are present; on the bus, at the bus stop, on the street, when we think, work, learn or teach, we can see it in the looks of our fellow men, in their manners, in the way they throw down the gauntlet.
Negative experiences that emerge from our encounters with this style of masculinity don't refrain us from reproducing it. Our objections, if we have any, are usually muted, and occupy a very insignificant space in the face of the violent manifestations of masculinities in this country.
There is no doubt that the weakness of our objections provides the necessary conditions for this hegemonic form of masculinity to reproduce itself.
As a person who grew up in one of the rowdy and tough neighborhoods of İstanbul and spent a lot of time on the streets during the 90s, I believe that over time I acquired a better grasp of what this masculinity is not rather than what it is; this masculinity that we had to internalize and have internalized without giving it much thought.
At least, one learns over time that contrary to what the majority claims manhood is not about being "strong, chivalrous, enduring, brave" but is based on a pretension, on "seeming" to be all those things which is managed and handled by the society and mostly by men.
Moreover, this fact one of the fundamental rules of being a true man, and it is inculcated into him not on his own but within a group of men. This group of men, which is shaped under the administration of the one who has the most of whatever that group is founded on i.e. the most money, physical power, information, power, etc., does not merely serve as an approving authority of manhood but also as an exam bureau.
Back in those days, just like today, learning to be a man meant being prepared for the test at all times. I also saw that it is not easy to escape from these tests, which were usually held in groups, neither in childhood, nor in youth or even in adulthood.
Furthermore, I personally witnessed that in tough neighborhoods, where the rules are more transparent, the tests are based on proving qualities such as "being ready for a fight", "being intrepid", "landing killer punches"; meanwhile in the university, academia and the world of the middle class these tests are replicated in a much more refined manner, the essential difference being the proof of masculinity with more complex tools; here, the rough masculinity performances of "tough" neighborhoods turn into more charming masculinity performances that win general approval in the eyes of public.
Indeed the most important difference is that the powerful men of academia possess more tools of gilding their displays of manhood and making them acceptable as compared to the lads of "tough" neighborhoods; they are also able to render their performances of manhood more palatable and attractive in their classes, juries and presentations.
Generalizations are of course problematic, but based on my own experiences as a student and a teacher I can very easily say that compared to the male academics, who aim to create a body of student worshippers and are obsessed with maximizing their sphere of influence in administration and are prone to imposing their thoughts on others, the women academics are always more open to supporting and intellectually empowering their students.
Gender is one of the most important factors in Turkey determining whether or not the processes of teaching and learning are established around egalitarian relationships. Another important factor is the will to power and the rationale of passing the test which is internalized among men.
In Turkey there is a masculinity that is constantly being put to test, and a despotic and hegemonic masculinity that turns every test into an issue of violence in order to prove its power.
These tests manifest sometimes as in "be a man", sometimes "you call yourself a man?" and sometimes "what kind of a man are you?". Sometimes the tests are more concealed, more implicit, more indirect.
All these tests have a tone and style which is usually daring and lays the burden of proof on the person, and as someone who grows up in Turkey you cannot easily ignore their call. However, the aforementioned tests and crises do not attest to the weakness of manhood but are rather tools of its very own reconstruction.
Oppressive hegemonic masculinity being in crisis today in Turkey is wrongly interpreted as an indication of its impossibility and weakness. To the contrary, hegemonic masculinity in Turkey continually advances through tests, eliminates those who fail, selects the ones who prove themselves, and imposes itself on those subjected to it, and thus finds new ways of adapting itself to the conditions again and again.
These tests take place with a glance on the bus; while taking or giving orders in the barracks; in bed; in the evaluation of the reactions given in the face of difficulties.
Our willingness as men to enter these tests, and the fact that acting otherwise is viewed as a weakness, docility and compromise on manhood is key to the success and continuation of these tests.
This dominant style of manhood has an aspect that is shaped through its aggressive encounters with the other men whom it has positioned on the margins of or outside manhood; the more aggressive it is the more impossible it becomes to stay indifferent to it.
The tests are evaluated by the implementers of the relationships that constitute the masculinity in question and mostly by those who have previously come through these processes "with flying colors".
Of course there is no actual test center as such and these test don't demand authenticity in reality. Fundamentally these tests encourage the collective performance of a sort of fakeness pertaining to the male world with images of the "tough men" and "protective men", but we know that the performance of this fakeness doesn't decrease the extent of its violence but on the contrary further increases it.
This structure based on displays of manhood, shows of violence and tests actually proceeds by opening wounds of self-respect and provoking a will to power and demand for revenge among the men who are part of it or are subjected to it.
As a man who has taken many a test in military, at school, on the street, in traffic, in fights, politics and academia, it's impossible not to carry with you the destruction that it has caused. Compared to the injustice and suffering that women are subjected to, these wounds and destructions are surely nothing; but I am of the opinion that understanding this aspect of the matter is important in terms of grasping how this masculinity reproduces itself in the men's world.
Our objections are against the atrocity of the hegemonic masculinity which essentially targets women, but at the same time we should also be objecting to the way things get done in the men's world, to the manners of cooperation, complicity and reconciliation that it engenders and the violence it imposes.
For this very reason, the counter-attitude of men who intend and aim to oppose this style of manhood is very important in terms of both the reproduction and the suspension of this dominant despotic manhood.
Much as we have objections to it, this is an infectious, oppressive and suffocating masculinity that we internalize and reproduce sometimes in our objections and sometimes in our struggle with it.
We have to put a distance between ourselves and this masculinity which we are not and cannot be outside of by saying I'm outside of it, this masculinity which we don't really know any different from and which is anchored in desires and reinforced with reactive feelings such as rage, grudge and contempt.
The infectiousness that accompanies this form of masculinity is not particular to encounters on the street or the spheres of everyday life, business life or domestic life. It has a dimension anchored deeper in the very foundation of masculinity itself. We as its bearers have to think hard on how it acquired this dimension and the variable sources of despotic masculinity in this country.
I don't think the prevalence of this masculinity can be explained only by state, militarism, nationalism, gender inequality and will to power. As men who concern themselves about clashing with, objecting to, and distancing themselves from this form of masculinity, it is our obligation to oppose it and show—through our own life experiences—that other masculinities are also possible, but it is surely not enough.
The issue has an aspect much beyond our moral responsibilities because when moral confrontations stem merely from feelings of guilt they can easily turn into ordinary confessions and plain moral consistency questionings, and as such can readily reproduce the power relationships that they refute.
Instead of opening these experiences of manhood to the "other" and subjecting them to the displacement it causes and simply exposing the authority in our own behaviors, we need an approach and objection that seeks the ways of a transformation within the relationship, ways of becoming equal and empowered together.
In this regard, without entirely excluding the aforementioned ethical aspect, and in addition to highlighting and advocating a dimension that rests on the rights-based and egalitarian reorganization of the relationships between sexes, which fundamentally includes the institutionalization of and legal support for women and LGBTIQ rights, the men who object must also engage in an organized struggle and investigate the possibilities of such a struggle in every field they enter.
The increasing power of women and the women's movement is promising and instructive for us as well, but I think what will be determining in the emancipation of the objecting men will be how they produce the relationships, emotional-intellectual proclivities and structures that will perpetuate their own objections.
To achieve this, first of all we need to develop a more in depth understanding of the problematic sides of this sort of masculinity.
There are many studies and discussions that address this masculinity, which constructs itself on grudge and power, as an issue of authority. But I am of the opinion that we should discuss this type of masculinity not only as an issue of authority but also and fundamentally as an issue of slavery.
What is missed—or intentionally overlooked on account of its blessings—by the agents of this hegemonic masculinity is a form of slavery imposed upon the agents by the very "success" and "authority" that they achieve by passing the tests.
This is a type of manhood whose desires are easily shaped by the state, nation or militaristic longings to the extent that it establishes itself on a despotic experience of violence and masculinity, and becomes subordinated right when it aspires to power and has delusions of being in power, and is readily enslaved by and under the delusion of being in power.
This protective, attentive, providing, boundary setting, law enforcing, powerful and preserving male figure is latently accompanied by yet another image of manhood which is actually driven by blind desires, and is therefore extremely easily managed.
While these men as the capable children of sufferings who "successfully came through" the tests desire their "loved ones" in the way they learned in course of these tests, that is, bereft of love, unable to produce the emotions to build "a path from one heart to the other"; they exhibit a despotic power that is far from creating love and emits unhappiness throughout their lives.
There is no doubt that this type of hegemonic masculinity is one of the most important cruxes of a deeper and more comprehensive problem of freedom in this country. Whether this style of manhood will continue its dominance on these lands depends on our objections as well as what we are going to do with the objections directed at us.
In order to introduce experiences that will interrupt this dominant style of manhood, we must discover other intensities, other affections in the relationships which shape our identities, and lend an ear to the objection that has started to be raised strongly by the women, and find more organized ways of silently abandoning and combatting this masculinity.
For this, everywhere we come across it and primarily in our lives and all our living spaces that it has gradually turned into deserts, we have to bravely say "we object", and sincerely open ourselves to the objections raised against us; as the objectors, it is time for us to struggle against its domination and violence together. (ZY/ŞA/APA/TK/IG)
* Images: Kemal Gökhan Gürses
