This paper begins as an investigation of the spatiality of the state in Turkey. In everyday life the state is experienced and recognized through a multiplicity of sites, agents, institutions, techniques, and regulatory capacities. Given this fragmentation, I ask how it is that the state is conceptualized as having a reality beyond its incoherence. Through a discursive analysis of focus-group discussions with lower-class and lower-middle-class men and women in Istanbul, I trace the spatial–temporal techniques through which state power is enacted. I argue that this power operates through referral and deferral, circulation and arrest; it is the power both to set in motion and to suspend the circulation of people, documents, money, and influence that marks out the space–time of the state. Further, my reading of focus-group texts suggests that it is through the operation of the space–time of the state that individuals both submit to state power and become subjects of rights—that is, citizens. At once establishing the authority of the state and the self-recognition of the subject, the Althusserian turn towards the law is a gesture of conscience or guilt. However, I argue that not all subjects are equally guilty in their imagined relationship to the state, some are more guilty than others, and, in this inequality, difference enters into the process of subjection. Focus-group participants discuss how acts such as showing identity cards or performing labor function both to assert their innocence and to mark them as guilty. By tracing out how spatial techniques of power and processes of subjection are discussed among particular groups of people in Istanbul, I hope to speak in an alternative voice to the usual top-down narration of the Turkish ‘strong state’. Finally, this paper is an attempt to wrap an argument around the secret of the state, around the desire, despair, and guilt that infuse the relational production of citizen and state.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsP, 1988, “Notes on the difficulty of studying the state (1977)”Journal of the Historical Sociology1159–89.
2.
AgambenG, 1998Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).
3.
AgnewJ, 1994, “The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory”Review of International Political Economy153–80.
4.
AktaşC, 1992Tesettür ve Toplum [Veiling and Society] (Nehir, Istanbul).
5.
AlthusserL, 2001, “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation)”Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (Monthly Review Press, New York) pp 85–126.
6.
AretxagaB, 2001, “The sexual games of the body politic: Fantasy and state violence in Northern Ireland”Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry251–27.
7.
AretxagaB, 2003, “Maddening states”Annual Review of Anthropology32393–410.
8.
AsadT, 2003Formation of the Secular (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).
9.
BenjaminW, 1978a, “Critique of violence”, in Reflections Ed. DemetzP (Schocken Books, New York) pp 277–320.
10.
BenjaminW, 1978b, “Fate and character”, in Reflections Ed. DemetzP (Schocken Books, New York), pp 304–311.
11.
BerkesN, 1964The Development of Secularism in Turkey (McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal).
12.
BourdieuP, 1990The Logic of Practice (Polity Press, Cambridge).
13.
BrennerNJessopBJonesMMacleodG, 2003, “Introduction: State space in question”, in State/Space Eds BrennerNJessopBJonesMMacleodG (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 1–26.
14.
ButlerJ, 1997The Psychic Life of Power (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).
15.
ÇarkogluA, 1998, “The Turkish party system in transition: Party performance and agenda change”Political Studies46544–571.
16.
Cizre-SakalhogluU, 1996, “Liberalism, democracy and the Turkish centre-right: The identity crisis of the True Path Party”Middle Eastern Studies32142–161.
17.
CrangM, 2003, “Qualitative methods: Touchy, feely, look–see?”Progress in Human Geography27494–504.
18.
DasVPooleD, 2004, “State and its margins: Comparative ethnographies”, in Anthropology in the Margins of the State Eds DasVPooleD (School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM) 3–34.
19.
de CerteauM, 1984The Practice of Everyday Life (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
20.
DeleuzeGGuattariF, 1987A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, NM).
21.
DerridaJ, 1992, “Force of law: The ‘mystical foundation of authority’”, in Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice Eds CornellDRosenfeldMCarlsonD G (Routledge, New York) pp 3–67.
22.
DesbiensCMountzAWalton-RobertsM, 2004, “Guest editorial. Introduction: Reconceptualizing the state from the margins of political geography”Political Geography23241–243.
23.
DoddC, 1992, “The revival of Turkish democracy”Asian Affairs23305–314.
24.
FinkelASirmanN, 1990, “Introduction”, in Turkish State, Turkish Society Eds FinkelASirmanN (Routledge, New York) pp 1–20.
25.
FoucaultM, 1977Discipline and Punish (Vintage, New York).
26.
FoucaultM, 1978The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Volume 1 (Vintage, New York).
27.
FoucaultM, 1994, “Governmentality”, in Power: The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954–1984, Volume 3 Ed. FaubionJ D (New Press, New York) pp 201–222.
28.
FoucaultM, 2003‘Society Must be Defended’: Lectures at the College de France 1975–76 Eds BertaniMFontanaA (Picador, Basingstoke, Hants).
29.
FreyF W, 1965The Turkish Political Elite (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
30.
GardinerM E, 2000Critiques of Everyday Life (Routledge, New York).
31.
GöleN, 1996The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and Veiling (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI).
32.
GuptaA, 1995, “Blurred boundaries: The discourse of corruption, the culture of politics and the imagined state”American Ethnologist22375–402.
33.
HansenT BStepputatF, 2001, “Introduction: States of imagination”, in States of Imagination: Ethnographic Explorations of the Postcolonial State Eds HansenT BStepputatF (Duke University Press, Durham, NC) pp 1–40.
34.
HeperM, 1985The State Tradition in Turkey (Eothen Press, Walkington).
35.
HeperM, 2000, “The Ottoman legacy and Turkish politics”Journal of International Affairs5463–82.
36.
HeperMKeymanE F, 1998, “Double-faced state: Political patronage and the consolidation of democracy in Turkey”Middle East Studies34259–277.
37.
HuntATokluoğluC, 2002, “State formation from below: The Turkish case”The Social Science Journal39617–624.
38.
JeganathanP, 2004, “Checkpoint: Anthropology, identity, and the state”, in Anthropology in the Margins of the State Eds DasVPooleD (School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM) pp 67–80.
39.
LefebvreH, 1991The Production of Space (Blackwell, Oxford).
40.
LefebvreH, 2003, “Space and the state”, in State/Space Eds BrennerNJessopBJonesMMacleodG (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 84–100.
41.
MardinS, 1969, “Power, civil society and culture in the Ottoman Empire”Comparative Studies in Society and History11258–281.
42.
MardinS, 1973, “Center- periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics?”Daedalus102 (1) 169–190.
43.
MarstonS A, 2004, “Space, culture, state: Uneven developments in political geography”Political Geography231–16.
44.
MitchellT, 1991, “The limits of the state”American Political Science Review8577–96.
45.
MountzA, 2004, “Embodying the nation-state: Canada's response to human smuggling”Political Geography23323–345.
46.
Navaro-YashinT, 2002Faces of the State: Secularism and Public Life in Turkey (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
47.
NealA, 2004, “Cutting off the king's head: Foucault's Society Must Be Defended and the problem of sovereignty”Alternatives29373–398.
48.
OlsonR, 1989The Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism and the Sheikh Said Rebellion, 1880–1925 (University of Texas Press, Austin, TX).
PooleD, 2004, “Between threat and guarantee: Justice and community in the margins of the Peruvian state”, in Anthropology in the Margins of the State Eds DasVPooleD (School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM) pp 35–65.
51.
PrattG, 2002, “Studying immigrants in focus groups”, in Geography in Practice Ed. MossP, (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 214–229.
SanchezL, 2004, “The global e-rotic subject, the ban, and the prostitute-free zone: Sex work and the theory of differential exclusion”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space22861–883.
54.
SanbayA Y, 1999, “Türkiye'de demokrasi ve sivil toplum” [Democracy and civil society in Turkey], in Türkiye'de Politik Değişim ve Modernleşme Eds KalaycioğluESanbayA Y (Alfa, Istanbul) pp 447–462.
55.
SchmittC, 1996The Concept of the Political (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
56.
SecorA J, 2004, “‘There is an Istanbul that belongs to me’: Citizenship, space and identity in the city”Annals of the Association of American Geographers94352–368.
57.
SecorA J, in press, “An unrecognizable condition has arrived': Law, violence, and the state of exception”, in Violent Geographies Eds GregoryDPredA (Routledge, New York).
58.
SecorA JO'LoughlinJ V, 2005, “Social and political trust in Istanbul and Moscow: A comparative analysis of individual and neighbourhood effects”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series3050–66.
59.
SirmanN, 1990, “State, village and gender in western Turkey”. in Turkish State, Turkish Society Eds FinkelASirmanN (Routledge, New York) pp 21–51.
60.
TaussigM, 1992The Nervous System (Routledge, New York).
61.
TomkinsS, 1994Shame and Its Sisters: A Silvan Tomkins Reader Eds SedgwickE KFrankA (Duke University Press, Durham, NC).
62.
ToprakB, 1995, “Civil society in Turkey”, in Civil Society in the Middle East, Volume 1 Ed. NortonA R (E J Brill, Leiden) pp 87–118.
63.
WilkinsonS, 1998, “Focus groups in feminist research: Power, interaction, and the co-construction of meaning”Women Studies International Forum24111–125.
64.
ŽižekS, 1994The Metastases of Enjoyment (Verso, New York).
