Content

Ahmet Mazlum, Is it a Tampon Institution in the Urbanization Process? Township Associations in:

Hatice Karakus Öztürk (Ed.)

The Modernizing Process in Turkey, page 163 - 184

Sociological Views

1. Edition 2018, ISBN print: 978-3-8487-4750-4, ISBN online: 978-3-8452-9115-4, https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845291154-163

Series: Politics, Society and Culture in Turkey | Politik, Gesellschaft und Kultur in der Türkei, vol. 3

Bibliographic information
Citation download Share
Is it a Tampon Institution in the Urbanization Process? Township Associations Ahmet Mazlum* Introduction Turkey has a number of characteristics of its own in terms of both urbanization and migration process that it experiences and problems caused by these processes. The phenomenon of rural-to-urban migration, urban-tourban migration and urbanization is a process experienced in different dimensions and qualities in developing/underdeveloped countries. However, the problems and consequences that arise have serious differences in terms of being peculiar to the countries. Migration and urbanization process in Turkey has revealed some specific and unforeseen consequences in this sense. These have brought about paradoxical processes such as traditionalmodern, differentiation-integration, conflict-harmony and so on. The existence of Township Associations and the results they have brought about are the leading consequences that have been caused by these processes and widely discussed in our country. This study will focus on Township Associations and the positive and negative consequences of them after urbanization and migration phenomena are addressed with their general characteristics. They have accomplished to become a centre of interest and debate in academic circles due to the economic, cultural and political functions they have undertaken over time, as well as having a number of facilitating or challenging characteristics especially in the process of urbanization. 1 * Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Sociology, mazlum61@gmail.com 163 Conceptual and Theoretical Explanations The Phenomenon/Process of Migration The phenomenon of migration is a concept that is almost as old as human history. For humans who choose wetlands and fertile areas as their first settlement units, nomadic lifestyle is seen as the first form of social organization in the era of hunting and gathering. Escaping from natural disasters, drought, hunger, climate changes and other civilizations’ attacks are historical examples of population displacements (Yalçın, 2004). Migration of mankind in the first period can be regarded as geographical displacement due to the mentioned reasons. The first known migration, according to the recorded history, is accepted as Sumerian immigration. As is known, history begins with writing. Those who discovered the writing first were the Sumerians who came to Mesopotamia as immigrants and transformed the village culture into an urban one. This nation that settled in southern Mesopotamia in 3500 BC discovered writing in about 3200 BC and this writing spread to all the countries of Asia Minor in the context of commercial and cultural relations (Memiş & Bülbül, 2014). After these historical reminders, it is important to remember that “humanity has not been living in the cities since the beginning; the city is a new living space that human beings did not find ready in the world, and shaped later in the direction of their own aims, in parallel with their own relations and politics. The city is a new level and order jointly created by human beings and social relations, as well as religious, political and economic developments and many other similar elements” (Alver 2012:9). However, the transition to settled life and the more prevalent migrations that came into existence with the emergence of cities created deeper meaning and consequences, which can no longer be confined to geographic displacement. In this context, immigration is multifaceted due to demographic/morphological, economic, political, psycho-social, anthropological and sociological implications it has. The fact that immigration has different qualities and that it carries the characteristics of the country in its own way removes the possibility of developing a universal approach in this regard. Although it is difficult to develop a universal model of migration, there are certain basic causes of migration in the world. If we generalize them; 2 2.1 Ahmet Mazlum 164 Reasons leading to the formation of migration: √ Economic factors (unemployment and poor living conditions resulting from poverty) √ Social factors (education, inadequacy of health services, customary pressure, blood feud etc.) √ Environmental factors (degradation of ecosystem, natural and environmental disasters) √ Security conditions (human rights violations, terrorism, armed conflicts, etc.). √ The availability of transportation and communication facilities (for today’s migrants). It is necessary to look at the definition(s) of migration whose reasons we try to put forth in general terms. As there is not a single reason and type of migration, it can be defined in many different dimensions. Here are a few different definitions. According to a definition, immigration is the displacement of one place in the country with the aims of settling or it is moving from a country to another with a view to settling there. With another definition, “Migration is a change of place, before everything else. People leave the region they are in and go to another region owing to various reasons. This may be for the purpose of settling permanently or temporarily. Or this relocation can be carried out at regular intervals every year. This is called seasonal migration. In this case, people are displaced in two or more places at certain times of the year. Groups with seasonal migration live together with more than one social and cultural structure... Another distinction regarding the migration is related to space and distance. While some migrations take place at very short distances, others take place towards far distances. For instance, it is a serious issue whether moving within the same city is considered to be migration or not. In this case, we may have gained a measure of migration if we measure social and cultural distances rather than physical distances alone. For example, moving from a shanty town or a miserable neighborhood in the city to a higher socioeconomic level can be regarded as migration with its cultural dimension. This may be considered valid mostly for large cities or metropolises. But immigration is a population movement before anything else” (Sağlam 2006: 34). The phenomenon of migration in our country and the urbanization based on it have occurred in the framework of the push-pull model in general. The pushing effect of living conditions in rural areas and the pulling Is it a Tampon Institution in the Urbanization Process? 165 effect of living standards in urban areas can be mentioned. The increasing population pressure in the countryside, inadequate and unequal soil structure, low agricultural productivity, natural disasters, blood feuds, the migration of the unemployed labor force to the city because of the mechanization in agriculture and especially the increasing terror and security reasons in recent years constitute ‘the pushing effects’ of the village. The factors that attract the population to the city are the income differences between rural and urban areas, the more contemporary and more easily accessible education and health facilities, the attractiveness of city and city life, the hope of finding a job, the expectation of a higher standard of living, the desire to benefit from social and cultural opportunities and transportation facilities. The speed of urbanization process in Turkey has increased very intensively with rural-urban migration caused by some other reasons besides the population growth rate such as mechanization in agriculture, increase in communication and transportation possibilities, the attraction of the city etc. especially in the 1950s and the attraction of the cities. In the first years of the Republic, the ratio of the urban population to the total population is 24.2% and the ratio of the village population is 75.8%. According to data of 1990, while 59.0% of the population is urban and 41% is village population (Bayhan 1997), the ratio of people living in provincial and district centres, according to data of 2017 of Turkish Statistical Institutions, is 92.5%. In light of these data, though it is possible to say that Turkey’s population evolved from rural to urban, within the framework of quantitative view, it is rather difficult to say that it transformed from an agrarian society into that of an industrial one. Conceptualization of the City in the Context of ‘Place’ and ‘Space’ There are some differences in defining the city between the western literature and the Turkish one. The main reason of this is that the city in the West and Turkey went through different historical and social development stages. However, the cultural meanings of the concepts of “urban” and “rural” in western thought/literature are problematic and contain significant contradictions. While some Western thinkers interpreted cities and urbanites as carriers of ‘progress’, ‘civilization’ and ‘enlightenment; extraordinary products of human creativity (Bookchin 2014:18), some interpreted as anomie, social deviation, moral degeneration and factors lead- 2.2 Ahmet Mazlum 166 ing to the destruction of society. In another perspective, cities are the places where “progress”, “disorder”, “social problems” and “liberation” can coexist (Holton 1999:11-12). These thoughts emerging in the West are based in part on the concept of ‘ideal type’ in Weberian style. However, most explanations lack historical depth and may prevent analysis of change (Thorns 2004: 24). Holton (1999: 14-15) describes this problematic analysis as follows; the political and moral qualities of citizenship, such as self-governing ability and the right of free people to participate in politics, have thus made the city, a unit limited to social and spatial aspects, a part of a cultural tradition that allows it to integrate with positive values. This clearly contributed to the contemporary conflict between urban and rural. Looking at the historical process, it is seen that the main factor underlying urbanization is the industrial revolution. The Industrial Revolution not only changed production relations, production processes, and economic structures but played a decisive role in the formation of modern civilization. This decisive and transforming role can also be seen in the formation of cities: in this context, the Industrial Revolution has led to “the transformation of the cities into the centers of production of secondary goods within the structural transformation. The use of technology and its associated modern agricultural inputs (such as irrigation, fertilization, and greenhouse) in agricultural production areas have increased productivity and has revealed untapped intensive unused workforce. The new energy sources and technology used in the production of secondary goods in urban areas have transferred this workforce to the cities with the job supply it creates... The population is concentrated in urban areas in the industrialbased economic development process. While London, the capital of England which was the sole industrial country of the 19th century, was the only city with a population over one million, in the second half of the 20th century, especially in Europe, certain cities of countries and regions became metropolises organizing both population and capital transfers due to the intensive migrations” (Tatlıdil 2003: 334 -335). The urban phenomenon, which is embodied by the Industrial Revolution, dates historically back to older times. However, the historical past of the city will not be addressed here. The subject will be confined to the describing the city and urbanization. The difference in literature related to the distinction between urban and rural was emphasized. However, this difference is not only due to the perception of Western sociologists. It is also possible to see these differences in the scientific circles in our coun- Is it a Tampon Institution in the Urbanization Process? 167 try. There is an emphasis on certain features or functions of the city on the basis of these differences in the conceptualization of the city. For example, Kıray defines the city as “the forms of settlement in which non-agricultural production is done and, more importantly, forms of settlement that have reached levels of size, heterogeneity and integration according to the specific technological levels in which control functions of the distribution of agricultural and non-agricultural production are gathered” (1998: 28) and emphasizes the diversity of population composition. Sencer (1979:8) defines the city as “a settlement with a population of over 10,000 people, a differentiated and organized physical, social and administrative unity, mostly concentrated in non-agricultural areas” and highlights non-agricultural activities and the style of administrative classification. While emphasizing similar features, Aslanoğlu (2000: 13) makes a different definition; “the fact that a city is a place where non-agricultural production is carried out, control functions are collected, there is a certain level of size, heterogeneity and integration” get to the foreground in this definition.” Sennett, on the other hand, describes the city from a very different perspective; “The more cities there are possibly the more different ways to detect what a city is. So a simple definition may sound appealing. The simplest one might be: The city is a humanitarian settlement, possibly where strangers come together. In order for this definition to be true, the settlement must have a large, heterogeneous population, the population must be concentrated, and this intense, heterogeneous mass of human interchange of markets should interact with each other” (2013: 62). Alptekin (2014:41), acting from the distinction of place and space, verbalizes the city with the following statements; “place” refers to non-urban societies, “space” refers to the environment of the people living in the cities, and ‘advanced space’ refers to the living area of people who have been reformed their space with comprehensive plans in the urban environment. The last situation has come to the agenda with urban transformation projects today. In terms of the “place”, there is no formalization at the first stage. However, urban space represents the formalized place, on the other hand, the places that were subjected to urban transformation in the urban space represent the places where advanced spatial formalization is carried out.” Contrary to popular opinion, Cansever defines city as “the place that shapes social life and the relations between human beings, where social Ahmet Mazlum 168 distances are most at stake, where relations are most concentrated (2010: 17). Mumford emphasizes the city’s complex functions and cultural contradictions, “The city is a complex of functions that are interrelated and constantly interacting with each other rather than a cluster of structures; it is not a concentration of power on its own, but it is also a polarization of culture as well (2007:108-109). The city is the place in which there are the division of labor and specialisation, and unlike rural communities in which the face to face communication have weakened and where homogeneity is eliminated and a heterogeneous social structure emerges (Kurt 2003: 16). According to Wirth, “For sociological purposes, a city is a relatively large, dense, and permanent settlement of heterogeneous individuals. Large numbers account for individual variability, the relative absence of intimate personal acquaintanceship, the segmentalization of human relations which are largely anonymous, superficial, and transitory, and associated characteristics” (1938:1). Saunders argues that the city is not only the place where a large number of people live but also that the city is a legal and political entity (quoted in Thorns 2004: 2), which is often the place where local government and economic activity and leisure and leisure activities are located. Castells states that the city is “‘the city’ is not a framework but a social practice in constant flux, the more it becomes an issue, the more it is a source of contradictions and the more its social manipulation is linked to the ensemble of social and political conflicts. A whole series of relationships thus grows up between the conflictual field, specifically linked to urban contradictions, and the conjuncture of social movements.” (1982:93). At this point, the city is described as a kind of organization of social movements and social practices. Aslanoğlu (1995:88) defines the city as “the places which grow by enclosing the rural areas, in which twenty for hours of the urban individuals are planned for their functions of dwellingworking-entertainment and production and consumption are materialized.” Looking at this framework, it is clear that it is necessary to emphasize a distinction in the sense of ‘place’ and ‘space’. The place is the pre-urban settlement area. In a sense, it can be expressed as areas inhabited by nonurban communities. ‘Space’ is fictional and planned. It is an area designed for both physical and social activities. This fictitious structure is not only made by urban transformation today, but it can be mentioned that any settlement designed as an urban area in the past has been spatialisation. Is it a Tampon Institution in the Urbanization Process? 169 Internal Migration and Urbanization in Turkey In Turkey, which has a dynamic demographic structure, the population is increasing rapidly on the one hand, and it experienced a high-speed ruralto-urban migration phenomenon on the other. The speed of this process, compared to the past, has reached a certain saturation in terms of migration from the countryside to the city and has slowed down. Urban-urban migration seems to continue for different reasons. Many big cities, especially Istanbul, get their share and the big cities are dragged towards the anomic/chaotic structure. In terms of urbanization in Turkey, especially in the 1950s is the breaking point. Turkey’s success in not taking part in the Second World War and the change of political power by going through multi-party political life constitutes the main framework of this break. Until this period, there were no major changes in Turkey’s the rate of rural and urban populations. However, since the 1950s, Turkey has pursued a much higher urbanization rate than that of other countries in the world. The ratio of the population living in the city to the general population in the world in 1800 was 7.9%, 17.2% in 1900, 27.2% in 1950 and 36.3% in 1970 (Kılınç 1993: 149). By 2014, this rate had reached 54%, and according to estimated calculations, it is expected that the population living in cities in 2050 will reach 66%. When we look at the urbanization rate in Turkey, we see that it is far above the world average. For example, according to the census results of 1927, 75.8% of the population lives in rural areas and 24.2% in urban areas. In 1950, 75% lived in rural areas and 25% lived in urban areas. The increase in the rate of urbanization from 1927 to 1950 is only 0.8%. In 1985, for the first time in Turkey, the urban population stood in front of the rural population. By 2000, the rural population declined to 35%, while the urban population was 65%. In 2017, the urban population including the district centers reached 92.5%. In the 1950s, a radical change in economic and political structure began to occur in Turkey. The Menderes government played a major role in this change, beginning to pass a more liberal economy than the mixed economic Model. The changes in the social structure created by the changes in the political and economic areas have played a decisive role in Turkey’s migration process and the resulting urbanization process. Migrant masses coming from the countryside to cities form the basic dynamics of urbanization and form the social and economic structure of 2.3 Ahmet Mazlum 170 the country. Urbanization process since the 1950s in our country has been stimulated by internal factors created by especially demographic reasons, changes in agricultural structure (low productivity, land fragmentation, etc.) pulling, pushing, communicative, political, legal and socio-psychological reasons. On the other hand, the external factors such as the international economic and political events, especially Marshall Relief, after the Second World War, and the effects of globalization on Turkey today have affected this process very closely and deeply. The pushing factors affecting urbanization in Turkey, the inadequacy of the economic structure in the countryside in general, the extremely heavy social living conditions, and forced migration to the city made this migration permanent. In the 1950s, the pushing effects such as the introduction of mechanization and the surplus labor that came to an idle position as a result of this, the structural changes in agriculture, the lack of soil, the fragmentation of existing inadequate soils by inheritance, the switch to market economy instead of the family economy, the scarcity of income per capita, lack of education, health and other infrastructure possibilities, blood feuds, and the killings of honour and terror have led to the mass levels of rural to urban migration. The reasons we can specify as pulling reasons in terms of urban life are the economic possibilities provided by urban life (more private and public business opportunities) social, cultural fields of attraction, better opportunities in education and health than in rural areas and a better life expectancy. Transmitting causes are not directly influencing the rural to urban migration, but they have the ability to increase the efficiency of pulling factors. The transmitters have influenced the decision of the inhabitants of the countryside to migrate by ensuring that rural residents have more direct knowledge of the city and are more easily accessible to the city. The most important of transmissive causes are the technological advances in the field of transportation and communication. To summarize these briefly; • the development and expansion of road transport and vehicles after 1950 (in addition to rail transport), • the development of roadway network quality and road quality, • cheapening carriage transportation vehicles (commercial and private) and travel fees, Is it a Tampon Institution in the Urbanization Process? 171 • the fact that air travel has become more prevalent and easier to obtain due to its expansion and cheapness, • the increase in fixed telephone facilities, satellite communication, • mobile phone, • the development of computer, tablet and internet technologies can be considered among the reasons. Today, communications technologies that have emerged as a result of globalization have helped even the most remote people to have instant information directly on the internet and to be aware of what is going on in the world. After listing the factors affecting migration, it is necessary to consider the internal migration process in Turkey. It is possible to divide the Migration in Turkey periods from 1950 to 2000 into three; • The first period of urbanization between 1927 and 1950, the “stagnant period” • The second period between the years 1950-1980, “dynamic period” • The third period covering the years 1980-2000 period can be described as the “uncontrolled and agnomical urbanization period” in which mass migration waves were experienced. In the first two periods, it can be said that urbanization emerged by the role of pulling and pushing factors in urbanization. In the third period, it is possible to say that besides the pulling, pushing and transmitting factors, other factors are also engaged. In the 1980s, Turkey’s separatist PKK terrorism emerged on ethnic grounds in the East and Southeast Region (later in a period it leaked to the cities) and led to the emergence of dramatic and massive migration in these regions. The safety of life and property concern of the citizens living in the area and the influence of the security forces from time to time have caused them to migrate from the countryside to the same city or another city on a mass scale. Notably, metropolitan cities such as Istanbul, Ankara, and İzmir, the cities of Antalya, Kocaeli, Bursa, Adana, and Mersin have been exposed to this intense migration. These cities were forced to face new problems such as infrastructure shortages, slums, unemployment, snatching, theft, and terror. Today, with the decline of social control and the increase of social distance, life in big cities has become extremely complicated, insecure and unbearable. Ahmet Mazlum 172 Township Associations/Societies The relationship forms and interaction networks developed in rural areas and in urban spaces have always been of interest to thinkers. They have tried to explain these relationships and interaction networks in general with dichotomic concepts. For example; different sociologists have developed models to analyse community structures and the forms of relationships produced by them by using dual/Multi-class classifications such as Community/Society by Tönneis, Ethnic Society/Demotic Society by Giddings, military Society/industrial society by Spencer and mechanical Solidarity/organic Solidarity by Durkheim. The traditional type of emotional solidarity relationship that Durkheim refers to as mechanical solidarity emphasizes the relations and interaction patterns that arise in rural areas. Every form of relationship changes depending on time and space and gains new forms and contents. However, this situation does not remove the difference based on urban-rural discrimination. As the countryside changes and transforms in itself, the city also changes and transforms itself, creating new networks of relationships and forms of interaction. While contemporary societies form formal networks of relationships on the basis of law and individual, informal relationship interactions continue to dominate emerging social structures with traditional structural features. Sociologists who have taken the separation of Tönnies have often taken the city as the opposite of rural/village and have built their analysis on it. The essence of this distinction is an “ideal type” in Weberian style. Communities, according to Tönnies, are homogeneous communities small in number consisting of the individuals undifferentiated in terms of race, ethnicity, and culture, and warm, sincere, internal intimate relations exist among these individuals. Societies, on the other hand, are large and heterogeneous communities that are differentiated in terms of race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, cultural values. In this dichotomic conceptualization of Tönnies, community points out the rural and society points out the urban (Bal 2006:27). The immigration and urbanization process in the West was shaped after the industrial revolution. The West has shaped the individual model that it wants to create both through the educational system (through the ideological instruments of the state), work relations and the legal norms, and has largely formed it. As a result, individuals in the West have been shaped as autonomous in the sense of identity, in contractual relations with the state, and the rational thinking capitalist individuals in social life. For 3 Is it a Tampon Institution in the Urbanization Process? 173 this reason, Western individuals began to experience alienation and feeling rootless in a much earlier process. The model of the capitalist western individual is seriously questioned today. This individual model who puts his own interests in the center and respects the rights of others in this direction has reached a significant level of material prosperity, but alone in the inner world, who does his work honestly, but is alienated to his work, who lives in the calculation and planning of every area of his, is the dominant subject of Western societies. In non-Western societies, informal relationship types are common though in different types and qualities. We can do the formal-informal separation not only in the Western and non-Western societies but also in terms of the individuals living in rural and urban areas within a country and the relationships they have developed. Urban spaces are dominated by formal relationships (with no western meaning), whereas rural areas are dominated by informal relationships based on kinship, relationship, and family ties. In the urban environment, individuals, who moved to urban areas after migration, have not found the possibility of maintaining primary relationships based on blood relations such as kinship, relationship, etc., which they have developed in rural areas where they lived before. The individual who began to live in modern urban spaces entered the process of re-identification through the status and role that the division of labor and specialization gained to itself. At the same time, this situation, which means resocialization, has allowed the individual to integrate with the society (valid for the individuals living in the city for a certain period of time). The resulting prototype of this individual is no longer an individual in the countryside, nor an individual who has blended the city for many years: it is now a new urban identity. Wirth states that even if the relationship with people in urban spaces harmonizes with their networks, they bear the traces of the network of relationships that they lived in the past and continues “Since the city is the product of growth rather than of instantaneous creation, it is to be expected that the influences which it exerts upon the modes of life should not be able to wipe out completely the previously dominant modes of human association. To a greater or lesser degree, therefore, our social life bears the imprint of an earlier folk society, the characteristic modes of settlement of which were the farm, the manor, and the village. This historic influence is reinforced by the circumstance that the population of the city itself is in large measure recruited from the countryside, where a mode of life reminiscent of this earlier form of exis- Ahmet Mazlum 174 tence persists. Hence we should not expect to find abrupt and discontinuous variation between urban and rural types of personality. The city and the country may be regarded as two poles in reference to one or the other of which all human settlements tend to arrange themselves. In viewing urban-industrial and rural-folk society as ideal types of communities, we may obtain a perspective for the analysis of the basic models of human association as they appear in contemporary civilization” (1938: 3). Cities are dynamic units in structure and quality. There is no possibility to talk about a standard city and a standard city culture. The city has a constant and rapid changing identity, even if it only lives through the urbanization process with its own dynamics. In particular, Foucault argues that the power structures are making the body transformation of a subject through a series of spatial designs, and that the powers acting by an individual-oriented strategy have established their own space, and explains it as “There are rooms: one sleeps, eats, receives visitors in them, it doesn’t matter which. Then gradually space becomes specified and functional. We see this illustrated with the building of the cites ouvrieres, between the 1830s and 1870s. The working-class family is to be fixed; by assigning it a living space with a room that serves as kitchen and dining-room, a room for the parents which is the place of procreation, and a room for the children, one prescribes a form of morality for the family. Sometimes, in the more favourable cases, you have a boys’ and a girls’ room. A whole history remains to be written of spaces-which would at the same time be the history of powers” (1980: 149). Urbanization takes place in two ways: one through natural population increase in it and the other through migration from rural or other cities. Urbanization is, of course, not just a morphological and demographic process. It is a multidimensional process/phenomenon involving social, economic, political, anthropological, socio-psychological and cultural effects and consequences. When we look at the developing societies today, it is possible to say that cities are constantly growing in terms of population components and that there are an intense migration movement and urbanization connected to them. In this process, the way in which the social interaction and solidarity patterns of the established urban residents and of the new urban residents change has also emerged as an important problematic area. In this context, many scholars and researchers from different disciplines point out that, aside from solving the emotional solidarity bonds peculiar to these rural areas, it is natural to reproduce them and the emotional-solidarity Is it a Tampon Institution in the Urbanization Process? 175 side of the bonds in the traditional society becomes the driving force of urban life (Önen 1997: 450). This is discussed as a new process in the context of re-identification, the understanding of citizenship of enlightenment, and the problems of modernization. Urbanization process does not emerge in the same forms in developed industrial societies and developing societies. In modern societies, the differences between rural and urban living standards and styles have gradually decreased. However, in developing countries (such as Turkey) the difference continues to exist in favor of the city. The difference in quality of life between urban and rural areas are getting bigger. The fact that the experience of urban life is new in developing countries; the limitation of economic opportunities, the lack of infrastructure in urban settlements, the inadequate development of social organization, the inability of social institutions to form, and the inexorable mass migration of immigrants are transforming the process of urbanization into an unmanageable and problematic process. The uncontrolled growth and the economic structure that causes new problems to be added and the stakeholders governing it are inadequate in solving the chronic unemployment problems. The problem is not limited to this. The problems that force big masses to leave their own countries have not been resolved; further, no policy has been developed for the solution of problems such as marriage, employment and urban integration in the urban areas where immigrants come as a result of immigration (Bayraktar 2003). These random, uncontrolled and anomic urbanization processes in our country have revealed significant problems that local and central governments have failed to solve. Newcomers to the city have tried to develop new relationship networks and solution mechanisms to solve these problems. At the beginning of these mechanisms are the citizens’ associations based on the informal relationship. Township associations/organizations are a reality of Turkey that comes into existence, not as a result of natural urbanization (the growth of the city with its own dynamics) but are brought about as a result of the process caused by migration and have both positive and negative effects on urbanization. Township associations did not have the feature of being a topic that was discussed too much until recently. As these relations were considered, “close to the traditional between the modern and the traditional or close to the rural between urban society and rural one, and they were accepted to be a form of social relations, which is often temporary or will be lost soon- Ahmet Mazlum 176 er or later” (Kurtoğlu 2004:17), much emphasis was not laid on it and it did not take the attention of the academic circles. These associations, during the first period of their establishment, served as tampon points where the new urbanites had adapted to the city. Today, however, these structures have entered into a “struggle for interests in an institutional and individual sense” (Özdemir 2014: iii) as a political actor, especially in the political sphere. These structures do not only affect the political sphere, they can also emerge with different functions such as pressure and interest group, non-governmental organization, trade union and cultural harmony unit. In this sense, these institutions may function as tampon institutions. According to Kıray, “we use the term ‘tampon mechanisms’ for these newly established institutions, values, and functions that enable the change to be non-depressing, prevent the dissolution and not belong to both of the social structures. By means of these “tampon mechanisms”, the various aspects of the social structure are interconnected and the parties that are not part of the functional whole are lost. In this way, there is a possibility that the society can remain in an equilibrium in the formation of a change in moderate speed” (2000: 20). Here, we should mention the concept of ‘township’ and ‘fellow-townsmenship’. Migration is at the core of the notion of ‘homeland’, ‘township’ and ‘fellow-townsmenship’. In the general sense, the concept of the homeland can be defined as “the whole territory under the sovereignty of a state, the country” (TLS). In more specific terms, the concept of the country emphasizes the bond and longing of the countryside in the newly come place. It is a geographical concept at its core but emphasizes sociologically to the belonging of the individual (where he is born and raised, and where he is enrolled in the cult or the population). In other words, if we were to define the homeland, its first meaning is the land of the nation. In this sense, the homeland is the feminine geography, the motherland, where the nation is located and/or took its roots. The second meaning of ‘homeland’ the land of the family. In this sense, homeland defines the geography where the family settled and rooted. The ‘homeland’ in the sense of family land is masculine because the land of the family is the land of father/ ancestor. In the sense of ‘Fatherland’, it may be either inside or outside the homeland, but it refers to a geographical area that is narrower than the homeland. The relationship of the country with the cases of ‘township’ and ‘fellow-townsmenship’ is in this second meaning” (Kurtoğlu 2005:5). The concept of fellow-townsman can be conceptualized in the sense that it comes from the place where it is born and grown, from the same Is it a Tampon Institution in the Urbanization Process? 177 geographical origin. Therefore, it can also be stated as the subjective affinity of an individual coming from a certain geographic area to the one with whom he or she has adopted the same social culture and system of values. Accordingly, “the fellow-townsmenship also identifies identity and/or identities that indicate belonging to a geographical area at the same time and the relationship networks which are established on the basis of the common cultural characteristics shared by those whose country is the same place in the context of urban spaces and organizational and associative practices developed through this relationship networks (Kurtoğlu 2004:19). Fellow-townsmanship at first step is defined as a person of the same geographical origin, while there is no criterion at the point of relationality or situationality of who is regarded to be their townsman. However, individuals do not come from the same geographical background, but they can classify each other as fellow-townsmen. In the context of the networks of relations created in daily life, fellow-townsmenship also refers to a social identity. From this point of view, the relations of the township can be described as a conceptualization of ethnicity. These bonds developed between the fellow townsmen and the interactions created by them sometimes function at the level of social identity. We mean that individuals who don’t know each other, the physical appearance of each other, the speech of each other, etc. categorize each other by reference to a geographical area by looking at some characteristics and evaluate each one in the categories ‘we’ and ‘they’ (Kurtoğlu 2005:6). Housing and employment problems are the first problems of migrants/new urban migrants who immigrated to the city. The problem in the next stage is the problem of adaptation to urban culture or integration with urbanisation/urbanism in sociological terms. The fact that central and local governments are indifferent or inadequate in solving these problems leaves immigrants face to face with the fact that they have to solve them on their own. They try to adhere and adapt to the city with the strategies based on their informal relationship networks. It is assumed that the people who immigrated to the city would be resocialized and adapt themselves to the new patterns of behaviour. According to this acceptance, the influence of traditional and old methods will cease to exist and will accept new patterns of behavior within the framework of new cultural codes. However, it is not realistic for our country to assume that the interaction between the traditional and the modern is in favor of modernity in terms of facts and social practices, and therefore the interac- Ahmet Mazlum 178 tion between rural and urban is entirely in favor of the city (Yılmaz 2008:8-9). Immigrants who immigrate to the city have some natural tendencies to adapt to the strange city environment, to solve their problems and to maintain traditional relationships. These orientations begin with solidarity based on kinship ties and continue in the form of citizen solidarity. In this context, the new identity and informal relationship networks emerging due to the relations of the citizenship are taken into consideration for the new immigrants in the city, and they continue to change their qualities in the future when necessary in terms of the benefits they provide. (Yılmaz 2008: 13). This change and transformation extend to the formation of township associations. In the developing and transforming process, township associations can often move away from the purpose of serving the country they adopt as their foundation and evolve into new interactions and interest relations on an individual basis for their own members. These associations act as a political pressure group by entering into relations with clientelist patronage when appropriate and they become a reference group of commercial relations if it need be. Conclusion Cities are living spaces designed, fictionalized for individuals. Cities are the spatial units which grow both by their own dynamics and by enclosing the rural areas, in which twenty for hours of the urban individuals are planned for their functions of dwelling-working-entertainment and production and consumption are materialized. The process of urbanization, on the other hand, means that, with social change, civilizations are adopted and developed in this way through the cultural change experienced by the individuals in urban environments. They are the areas where ‘other’ and ‘different’ are encountered and the necessity of living together occur. This is very important for the coexistence of living culture and social integration. Urbanization with another expression is the period in which urbanization that occurs after migration creates a change in people’s behaviour, life styles, cultural patterns, and value judgments. Urbanization, which depicts the transition from tradition to modernity, creates a cultural shade in new migrants. The individual wavers between traditionalism and modernity 4 Is it a Tampon Institution in the Urbanization Process? 179 that he/she tries to hold. The individual is scattered among the dual cultural patterns. On the one hand, he tries to protect his own culture of the region and to adopt the urban culture he enters into. On the one hand, he tries to protect his own culture of the region and to adopt the urban culture he enters into. Township associations come into play paradoxically at this point. These associations, on the one hand, prepare the ground for the individual to preserve the traditional/local culture, while on the other hand, make it easier to adapt to the urban culture. Urbanization is an easier learning process for the second generation born to the city. If the children do not live indoors (in ghetto-style places), they will experience this process faster and adapt to less problematic situations, both with the peer group and the school environment. This does not apply to the first generation. The first generation of immigrants (parents) tend to maintain their relations with the people from the same country, so they are in a position to take a more conservative attitude in the cultural sense and to stand up to urbanisation. Township associations, in a sense, represent local culture and try to sustain and strengthen it. In this context, local culture is the culture produced by smaller groups of people within the nation/country through the concepts of citizenship/geography. The local culture produced in the country is also tried to live and develop in the place where it started to reside after the migration. The concept of Culture and its components cannot be restricted to the geographical boundaries of a country, and a large number of different local sub-cultures can occur within the national borders of a country. “These informal solidarity networks, which emerged as a result of the cooperation of the individuals” who immigrated to the city, “made it possible to maintain pre-migration relations in urban areas” (Bayraktar 2003: 107). This situation has resulted in a few positive/negative results. At the beginning of the positive impact and results, people who migrate to the city are more easily held in the city through community associations. They benefit from the serious contributions of these associations at the point of housing and employment. In addition, the individual who has the opportunity to continue his traditional relations in the countryside in a new environment does not experience the problem of isolation and alienation. According to Giddens, “Ontological security in the pre-modern world has to be understood primarily in relation to contexts of trust, and forms of risk or danger, anchored in the local circumstances of place” (1996:100). Individuals who migrate from the countryside try to identify the city and cling to the city through the people they already know or have met in Ahmet Mazlum 180 the city. The township that has the characteristics of identity for the people who come from the same geography and who share the same/similar culture is extremely important in terms of not losing their origin in the city and trying to keep the cult where it comes from. This situation protects the individual to a certain extent from losing his/her roots and alienation. The residential units that allow the local culture to live in the urban space and save the local culture from the yoke of urban culture are a result of the tendency of the townsmen to act together (Erdumlu, 2012). The traditional emotional and solidarist cultural ties between the citizens who have begun to come together in the city after migration begin to move to the legal ground with the establishment of the townsman associations. The social organizations held by townsman associations create an environment for the members to meet under the citizen identity and to continue the local culture in the urban space. Associations inform members of their members in important moments such as circumcision, wedding, engagement, funeral, and try to strengthen local solidarity by providing participation of other members to these activities. The members of Townsman Association try to eliminate the needs of the new migrants with the dues, donations and the aid they collect. At certain intervals, or at certain times, the members are brought together with the participation of local artists, organizing the night (such as the Night for People from Blacksea Region), festival (cherry festival, hazelnut festival etc.) or highland festivals. Through these activities, in which the examples of local culture are offered, local culture is tried to be kept alive and efforts are made to eliminate members’ longing for the country and make these people socialised. At the same time, the associations try to strengthen their members and their families economically. The shopping is made from its members, thus preventing the money from going ‘to someone else’ and the economic activities of the members are also made confined to the local culture. Political activities and preferences of members of the association are also influenced. Often political candidates who are their townsmen are supported in elections for mukhtars, municipal councils, mayors regardless of their political party and political opinion. In this way, the relations of patronage in cultural, economic and political fields are tried to be maintained through locality/countrymanship. Today, the participation of political parties at the level of President or representative of the activities organized by the townsman associations shows the importance of the role of these associations in the political arena. Is it a Tampon Institution in the Urbanization Process? 181 In addition to the positive features of the Townsman associations, which we have tried to sort out above (they act as a tampon in a sense), we also need to look at the negative consequences that are involved. New urbanites who enter into solidarity with their compatriots, acquire houses in the same apartment or neighborhood, and work on the same lines start to feel no need for integration with the city. Immigrants who started to live in the urban environment they lived before the migration might not need to integrate with the city and adapt to the urban culture. In fact, they begin to break around some social identities in the form of ‘we’ and ‘they’ (the people from Trabzon, Sivas, Diyarbakir, the Laz people, Kurds, Alevis, Sunnis, etc.) in the process. They begin to form social distances to the other by creating new ‘cultural islands’ (by ghettoisation) by themselves. Instead of social integration, this situation triggers decomposition and leads to urban tensions in the process. In the past, the negative consequences of tensions based on ethnic, religious, regional identities, which occasionally occurred in major metropolitan cities, have been a bitter experience in our country. Therefore, although the aim of the townsman associations is to provide economic, social, political and cultural support to the members of their identity, they can cause such problems and results to emerge without being desired or targeted. Townsman associations, which in essence encourage political participation, can change the orbit of democratic politics through the patronage relations they create. References Alver, A. (2012). Kent imgesi. Kent Sosyolojisi. (ed. A. Alver). s.9-31. Ankara: Hece Yayınları. Apltekin, M. Y. (2014). Şehirden kente mekânsal dönüşüm. Doğu Batı. Yıl 17. Sayı 17. s. 35-62. Ankara: Doğu Batı Yayınları. Aslanoğlu, R. A. (1995). Kaos teorisi, postmodern durum ve kent. Birikim Dergisi, Aralık 94-Ocak 1995. sayı: 68-69. s 88-97. Aslanoğlu, R. A. (2000). Kent, Kimlik ve Küreselleşme. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi. Bal, H. (2006). Kent Sosyolojisi. Isparta. Fakülte Kitabevi. Bayhan, V. (1997). Türkiye’de iç göçler ve anomik kentleşme. Toplum ve Göç. II.Ulusal Sosyoloji Kongresi, s. 178-194. Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık D.İ.E. Yayınları. Bayraktar, U. (2003). Formelleşen hemşehri dayanışma ağları: İstanbul’daki hemşehri dernekleri. Toplumbilim. Sayı 17. s.107-118.ISSN:1301-0468. Ahmet Mazlum 182 Bookchın, M. (2014). Kentsiz Kentleşme-Yurttaşlığın Yükselişi ve Çöküşü. (çev. B. Özyalçın). İstanbul: Sümer Yayıncılık. Cansever, T. (2010). Osmanlı Kenti. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları. Castells, M. (1982). City, Class and Power, (çev. E. Lebas). New York: Macmillan Education. Foucault, M. (1980). POWER/KNOWLEDGE Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. (Ed. C. Gordon). New York: The Harvester Press. Giddens, A. (1996). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Holton, J. R. (1999). Kentler Kapitalizm ve Uygarlık, (çev. R. Keleş), Ankara: İmge Kitabevi. Kılınç, İ. (1993). Türkiye’de kentleşmenin özellikleri. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, cilt 26, sayı 2, Haziran 1993.s.147-170. Kıray, M. B. (1998). Kentleşme Yazıları. İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları. Kıray, M. B. (2000). Ereğli: Ağır Sanayiden Önce Bir Sahil Kasabası. 3. Baskı. İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları. Kurt, H. (2003). Türkiye’de Kent-Köy Çelişkisi. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi. Kurtoğlu, A. (2004). Hemşehrilik ve Şehirde Siyaset: Keçiören Örneği. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. Kurtoğlu, A. (2005). Mekânsal bir olgu olarak hemşehrilik ve bir hemşehrilik mekânı olarak dernekler. European Journal of Turkish Studies [Online], 2 | 2005, Online since 27 February 2015, Connection on 19. May 2017. URL: http://ejts.revues.org/ 375. Memiş, E. Bülbül, C. (2014). Eskiçağda Göçler. Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi. Mumford, L. (2007). Tarih Boyunca Kent: Kökenleri, Geçirdiği Dönüşümler ve Geleceği. (çev. G. Koca-T. Tosun). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları. Önen, E. (1997). Kent, dayanışma ve hemşehrilik dernekleri. Toplum Ve Göç. II. Ulusal Sosyoloji Kongresi. s. 450-458. Ankara: DİE Matbaası. Özdemir, R. (2014). Hemşehri Derneklerinin Baskı Grubu Niteliği (Ankara ve İstanbul Dernekleri Örneği). Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi. Sağlam, S. (2006). Türkiye’de iç göç olgusu ve kentleşme. Türkiyat Araştırmaları. Sayı 5.s.33-44. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü. Sencer, Y. (1979). Türkiye’de Kentleşme. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları. Sennet, R. (2013). Kamusal İnsanın Çöküşü. (çev. S. Durak, A. Yılmaz). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları. Tatlıdil, E. (2003). Kentleşme ve göç. Sosyolojiye Giriş. (Ed. İhsan Sezal). II. Baskı. s. 329-361. Ankara: Martı Yayınevi. Thorns, D. C. (2004). Kentlerin Dönüşümü-Kent Teorisi ve Kentsel Yaşam. İstanbul: Soyak Yayınları. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a Way of Life. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44, No.1, pp. 1-24. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Yalçın, C. (2004). Göç Sosyolojisi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. Is it a Tampon Institution in the Urbanization Process? 183

Chapter Preview

References
Alver, A. (2012). Kent imgesi. Kent Sosyolojisi. (ed. A. Alver). s.9-31. Ankara: Hece Yayınları.
Apltekin, M. Y. (2014). Şehirden kente mekânsal dönüşüm. Doğu Batı. Yıl 17. Sayı 17. s. 35-62. Ankara: Doğu Batı Yayınları.
Aslanoğlu, R. A. (1995). Kaos teorisi, postmodern durum ve kent. Birikim Dergisi, Aralık 94-Ocak 1995. sayı: 68-69. s 88-97.
Aslanoğlu, R. A. (2000). Kent, Kimlik ve Küreselleşme. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi.
Bal, H. (2006). Kent Sosyolojisi. Isparta. Fakülte Kitabevi.
Bayhan, V. (1997). Türkiye’de iç göçler ve anomik kentleşme. Toplum ve Göç. II.Ulusal Sosyoloji Kongresi, s. 178-194. Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık D.İ.E. Yayınları.
Bayraktar, U. (2003). Formelleşen hemşehri dayanışma ağları: İstanbul’daki hemşehri dernekleri. Toplumbilim. Sayı 17. s.107-118.ISSN:1301-0468.
Bookchın, M. (2014). Kentsiz Kentleşme-Yurttaşlığın Yükselişi ve Çöküşü. (çev. B. Özyalçın). İstanbul: Sümer Yayıncılık.
Cansever, T. (2010). Osmanlı Kenti. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları.
Castells, M. (1982). City, Class and Power, (çev. E. Lebas). New York: Macmillan Education.
Foucault, M. (1980). POWER/KNOWLEDGE Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. (Ed. C. Gordon). New York: The Harvester Press.
Giddens, A. (1996). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Holton, J. R. (1999). Kentler Kapitalizm ve Uygarlık, (çev. R. Keleş), Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
Kılınç, İ. (1993). Türkiye’de kentleşmenin özellikleri. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, cilt 26, sayı 2, Haziran 1993.s.147-170.
Kıray, M. B. (1998). Kentleşme Yazıları. İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları.
Kıray, M. B. (2000). Ereğli: Ağır Sanayiden Önce Bir Sahil Kasabası. 3. Baskı. İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları.
Kurt, H. (2003). Türkiye’de Kent-Köy Çelişkisi. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
Kurtoğlu, A. (2004). Hemşehrilik ve Şehirde Siyaset: Keçiören Örneği. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Kurtoğlu, A. (2005). Mekânsal bir olgu olarak hemşehrilik ve bir hemşehrilik mekânı olarak dernekler. European Journal of Turkish Studies [Online], 2 | 2005, Online since 27 February 2015, Connection on 19. May 2017. URL: http://ejts.revues.org/375.
Memiş, E. Bülbül, C. (2014). Eskiçağda Göçler. Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi.
Mumford, L. (2007). Tarih Boyunca Kent: Kökenleri, Geçirdiği Dönüşümler ve Geleceği. (çev. G. Koca-T. Tosun). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
Önen, E. (1997). Kent, dayanışma ve hemşehrilik dernekleri. Toplum Ve Göç. II. Ulusal Sosyoloji Kongresi. s. 450-458. Ankara: DİE Matbaası.
Özdemir, R. (2014). Hemşehri Derneklerinin Baskı Grubu Niteliği (Ankara ve İstanbul Dernekleri Örneği). Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
Sağlam, S. (2006). Türkiye’de iç göç olgusu ve kentleşme. Türkiyat Araştırmaları. Sayı 5.s.33-44. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.
Sencer, Y. (1979). Türkiye’de Kentleşme. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.
Sennet, R. (2013). Kamusal İnsanın Çöküşü. (çev. S. Durak, A. Yılmaz). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
Tatlıdil, E. (2003). Kentleşme ve göç. Sosyolojiye Giriş. (Ed. İhsan Sezal). II. Baskı. s. 329-361. Ankara: Martı Yayınevi.
Thorns, D. C. (2004). Kentlerin Dönüşümü-Kent Teorisi ve Kentsel Yaşam. İstanbul: Soyak Yayınları.
Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a Way of Life. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44, No.1, pp. 1-24. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press https://doi.org/10.1086/217913
Yalçın, C. (2004). Göç Sosyolojisi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

Abstract

This book is about the continuity and historical and sociological ruptures experienced by Turkey during its process of modernisation. The author’s aim is to reveal Turkey’s social structure through theoretical and empirical examinations and by using certain problems as a point of reference.

The topics she discusses are gender, space, borders and immigration, urbanity, economic activities, Turkey’s social fabric, citizenship, childhood, family, and the transformations in the country’s politics and culture.

Dr. Hatice Karakuş Öztürk has written studies on fields such as childhood, bullying, and the sociology of the family and gender. She lives in Hopa, Artvin, where she is a faculty member of the department of sociology at Artvin Çoruh University.

Zusammenfassung

Das Buch handelt von den historischen soziologischen Brüchen und Kontinuitäten, die das Land während des Modernisierungsprozesses erlebte. Ziel ist es, die soziale Struktur der Türkei durch theoretische und empirische Untersuchungen bestimmter Problematiken offen zu legen.

Die diskutierten Themen gehen von Gender, Kindheit, Familie über Raum, Urbanität, Grenzen und Einwanderung bis hin zu wirtschaftlichen Aktivitäten und dem sozialen Gefüge, der Staatsbürgerschaft und dem Wandel in Politik und Kultur.

Die Herausgeberin Dr. Hatice Karakuş Öztürk forscht an der Fakultät für Soziologie der Artvin Çoruh Universität mit den Schwerpunkten Kindheit, Mobbing, Familien- und Geschlechtersoziologie.