Suchergebnisse

In the 1930s, the two primary goals of the Turkish state were to establish national unity and to modernize the country. The achievement of these goals was linked to the transformation of the human body in line with modern, rational and scientific values. The body politics of the new regime aspired to discipline society in order to create modern, healthy and dutiful citizens by regulating the human body in many spheres of life, including clothing, aesthetics, health, reproduction, childcare and housekeeping. Eugenics emerged as a part of the state's hygienic and ethical regulation of the human body. The state abolished abortion, mandated pre-marital examinations of couples, established childcare institutions, educated mothers, and aimed to prevent epidemics and alcoholism. The Turkish eugenicists were a small group of medical doctors who were influential in shaping these public policies. In accordance with the general Republican discourse, the eugenicists were critical of both traditional society and the Ottoman regime. The eugenicists founded their criticism on the old regime's ignorance of modern hygienic and reproductive practices. Although Turkish eugenic discourse was influenced by Western eugenics literature, it was also shaped by the particular concerns of the Kemalist regime such as natalism, childcare and social hygiene policies. The collectivist discourse of the Kemalist regime was so dominant that, in contrast to their European and American counterparts, the Turkish eugenicists were not at all concerned with ethnic and class diversity within society.

AbstractTwenty-first century Turkey has been shaped by two conflicting trends: all-encompassing reform in almost all aspects of law that were transformative if not altogether progressive, and an increasing erosion of the rule of law, which finally culminated in a nation-wide emergency regime and the April 2017 constitutional referendum. The pressing question for many is why the promising reform era was abandoned for crude repression? In this essay, we answer this question by challenging its very foundation and pointing instead to an alternative line of inquiry concerning Turkish politics and society, one that focuses precisely on the interplay between reform and repression. The constitutional referendum of April 2017 compels observers and scholars of Turkey to reevaluate the interplay between reform and repression. Rather than reading contemporary Turkey as a case of relapse from reform into repression, as many commentators do, we suggest approaching reform and repression as concomitant and complementary modes of government.