Increasing Gap between Formality and Informality

When we look at the modernization project of Turkey, its main problematique seems to be the gap between the formality and informality. While the institutions were being arranged according to formal rules of “new civilization”, in daily life people were living within their traditional habitus. Although this situation might not be a total source of contradiction, modernization in the sense of Westernization demanded the change in private sphere which also necessitated its formal arrangement. It was an attempt to change people‟s habitus without providing necessary base structure.

Hence, there emerged a gap between the formal rules demanded by the Republican elites and the informal rules coming from the tradition, the actual “second nature” of many people. This condition has been pronounced as the rupture between two different ways of life. Since Kemalist ideology strictly rejected the hybrid forms and intermediary spaces, disconnectedness became the defining quality of modernization process. However, through daily life, individuals had to deal with this contradiction and this had a profound impact on personality structure. This process of dealing manifested itself as the inevitable emergence of informal hybrids. As Çınar (2005:16) discusses the “hybrid adaptation tailored to the particularities of local sociopolitical practices” in Turkey. Hybrid adaptations (synthesis) have been produced through the

101 Although there are exception periods like Nazi Germany (decivilizing), the span has been decreasing (Elias, 1996:29).

interaction of formal and informal; through the struggle of strategies and tactics; and through the mediation of space.

As I discussed in the previous chapter, in order to overcome the duality of body and mind, Republican elites aimed at changing them both through changing habitus with reference to their definition of new civilization. A demand to change habitus is also a demand to change privacy, even inclusive of the personality structure. According to IĢın (1987b:15), in etiquette of the Republic, an exaggerated importance was attributed to complementary composition of body and mind/soul, aiming to provide an explicit extroversion. This consistency was expected especially in terms of laicite. In addition to his/her appearance, the individual‟s inner world was also expected to display secular manners, attitudes and gestures. In this sense, Western appearance was seen as the container of an idealist mind/soul that espoused the laicité of the Republic. Through the etiquette, Republican elites were aiming to change the moral pattern of daily life according to the model of secular society (IĢın, 1987b: 13-14). Bureaucrats were the first to adopt this pattern and they seemed to be molded into the desired form in a short period of time; therefore, formalization initiated in this social circle.

In fact, etiquette as a part of cultural capital was a tool to draw (exclusionary) boundaries between elites and people. Elias suggests that (1994, 1996) these formal rules have the function of symbolling a social membership and social distance. As discussed above, one of the main functions of formalization of etiquette is to distinguish the higher standing group and to differentiate people of higher and lower

strata (1996:72). Separate from the aim of Westernization, Western way of life also functioned to create the sense of distinction for the elites of the Republic.

…for the newly emerging Turkish elites who lacked the economic capital to distinguish themselves from the masses, etiquette served as a means of cultural segregation. For this reason etiquette, which was considered to be one of the most apparent signs of modernization, was found strong support among the Republican elites since it contributed to determining their social status (Mahir, 2005:15)

Starting from the early years of the Republic these rules were applied as the signs of distinction, especially in the environment of “modern gemeinschaft”.

Through formalization, the daily life was controlled by these external constraints within the community. In the spread of etiquette rules throughout the society, soldiers, bureaucrats, and teachers were the agents of the process¹⁰². For a bureaucrat, family life was not independent from working life because of the formal character of the personal life (IĢın, 1987b: 15). Within this environment, all families were acquainted with each other and they were organizing all activities together. As I will elaborate in chapter VII, the life in YeniĢehir was turning around a small community in which everybody knew each other. Public life of the city consisted of balls, parties, visiting days, and activities done as groups, like visiting villages. All of these practices were carrying the formality of the Republican ideals. IĢın (1987b) underlines the morality attributed to these activities within this life of the city. All the activities were seen as a mission to disseminate the ideals of the Republic. Even

within the family, this morality was lived together by the family members. Especially bureaucrat families were the pioneers of the dissemination of Western etiquette.

As noted before, Jews in the city and the people coming from Ġstanbul who were “open to civilization” in the city also acted as people‟s guides. (ġ.Cantek, 2003:149). Moreover, as I will discuss in the section of “city life”, the elegant places of the city were the schools of the new etiquette. While discussing the history of civility, Elias (1993:63) says being civilized gradually became more and more bound up with manners of seeing. “In order to be really “courteous” by the standards of civilité, one is to some extent obliged to observe, to look about oneself and pay attention to people and their motives”. Observing themselves and others brought molding: molding themselves and others. By attending to public spaces of the new civilization such as an “elegant” pub, restaurant, or a ball, being civilized/urbane was learnt by observing how to dance, drink and act towards the opposite sex. However, this type of “education” was open to people who also have access to these public spaces.

In the early Republican period books were written and translated to teach etiquette rules. Some of them were: “Etiquette: the Latest and the Most Advanced Social Manners” by Gottfried Andreas, “Protocol and Etiquette” by Lütfi Simavi, Illustrated Perfect Etiquette by Abdullah Cevdet (1927), “Conversations on Etiquette” by Saffeti Ziya (1927), “New Etiquette for the Man of the New Life” by

102 According to Esenbel (2000:21-22), the case of Turkish modernization is not just a local alternative and a unique/peculiar example. In order to be a part of contemporary /modern times, most of the population of the Europe had to learn to import the culture disseminating from city centers like Rome, Paris and London accepted as a “high” culture. They had to learn to adopt that culture to their local and individual environment

Muhittin Dalkılıç (1932) “Health, Education and Dress” by Dr. Zeki Zeren (1940).

The magazines of the period like Muhit and Aile Dostu also contributed to the education of people in terms of etiquette rules (Mahir, 2005:19). In these writings, there were discussions of family life, activities at home, visiting, ceremonies, balls;

rules of being a guest at dinner parties, street manners, table manners, etc. The issues were given in detail like how to kiss the hand of a woman and how to talk with a woman. The issue of communications between men and women was an important topic. In these books there were also certain subjects that had no counterpart in Turkish society like visiting church or eating pork at the breakfast (IĢın, 1987b, Meriç, 2000:64-72, 240).

As I discussed in the previous chapter, construction of the inner world/morality through private sphere was the radical aspect of the modernization project. Modern family life was the main medium for this intervention. Activities taking place in the family constitutes an important part of etiquette rules. Banquets, visiting days, meetings were especially important to show the capability of displaying social utopia by family (IĢın, 1987b: 15). Yielding to meal times and coming together around a table are official aspects of new etiquette and are introduced by the Republic. The regulation of the time was also important: times to sleep, time to wake up and be at work, times of breakfast, lunch and dinner were all determined. “Daily activities were regulated according to rules and the new generation was to learn modernity by their application” (Mahir, 2005:19-20). The celebrations of birthdays or wedding anniversaries reflecting a secular culture also became widespread in the Republican period. No such traditions existed in the Ottoman culture; one and only

ritual related with human being was the commemorating of death anniversaries as a necessity of religion (IĢın, 1987b: 15).

The application of these rules to everyday life in detail is the proof of being civilized and urbanite -at least- through appearances. In order to overcome the duality of body and mind, in Lefebvre‟s terms, content is reduced to container in the application of these formal codes of behaviour. The most efficient and rapid way to create a modern/civilized individual was to create his/her guise according to the standards of Western society.¹⁰³ Etiquette rules were the complementary part of the visual transformation especially through clothing and way of behavior. With the introduction of hat law in 1925, men‟s clothing that was worthy of the nation was explained by Mustafa Kemal: “boots or shoes on our feet, slim trousers on our legs, shirt and tie, jacket and waistcoat, and of course, to complete these, a cover with a brim on our heads, this head covering is called a hat” (quoted from Bozdoğan, 2001:58-59). The details of the clothing were discussed in length in etiquette books of the period. Especially the parts seen as accessories -not having practical usage like hat, glove and umbrella- were specifically necessitated to explain in detail. ¹⁰⁴

While criticizing the period from the eye of a character in his novel, Ankara, Karaosmanoğlu (2003:106) says that for some people “after the change in way of clothing, national affair turned into the affair of being “monden” (high society):

dressing, dancing, entertaining, in brief living like a European was as important as winning a victory”. The path to success in a civilizational shift was through a

103 For the discussion of “the constitutive power of clothing” see Çınar (2005:55-59).

104 For the contents of these books see Meriç (2000)

struggle to change civilization from “alaturka” to “alafranga”. Although Karaosmanoğlu criticizes it, etiquette drew impermeable boundaries between the ordinary people and the Republican elite who developed different life-styles and remained estranged to each other. As noted above, these formal rules have been effective tools for elites to distinguish themselves from others and to construct their superiority over others in order to strengthen social hierarchies. Therefore, etiquette, by formalizing the daily life, not only cut the ties with the Ottoman traditions, but also isolated the elites from the people they sought to rule (Mahir, 2005:18). There emerged an increasing gap between formal and informal practices that increased the gap between elites and people in terms of manners.

In this process, although bureaucrats and civil servants were first to adapt etiquette, as it is noted it was not an easy process to change habitus. Therefore it was possible to encounter informal/traditional habits among these social settings as well.

When narrating the memory of her mother who came to Ankara due to her husband‟s work, Nezihe Araz (cited in ġ.Cantek, 2003:250) mentions that she was very disappointed since she could not see a single gentleman in Ankara. Her father in law took her to a government office to show the gentlemen of Ankara. She was still disappointed since it was not convincing for her “to call men wearing wool socks gentlemen”. Although informal/traditional rules were still regulating the life of many people, through education, etiquette was expected to disseminate to the society, starting from the bureaucrats and civil servants. As I will also discuss in the part of city life, the realization of formalization was tried to be achieved by mechanisms like education, exclusions, internalization of foreign gaze and embarrassment. These have been effective tools in the construction of urbanity.