At the Borders of Public and Private: The Oturmalar of Kayseri

Abstract

This article examines political implications of vibrant social life of city of Kayseri in Turkey. By using qualitative data collected by participant observations and in-depth interviews, we discuss traditional form of gatherings called oturmalar. We evaluate lively participation in gatherings whose borders blur public, private, and religious fields in light of more theoretical debates on sphere and situated within literature on sphere in Middle East.This article examines political implications of vibrant social life of Turkish city of Kayseri. By using qualitative data collected by participant observations and in-depth interviews, we will discuss traditional gatherings called sittings, or oturmalar.1 These periodic meetings are attended by ordinary citizens as well as by city's political, economic, and religious elites. The frequency of participation may vary from three or four meetings a month to two meetings a week. While ortumalar reflect some characteristics of liberal and plural meaning of sphere, they also echo more recent understandings like eccentric modernity of Armando Salvatore's new Islamic civilizational project and Charles Hirschkind's counterpublic of ethical values.A major question we address in this article is following: how can we evaluate lively participation in gatherings whose borders blur public, private, and religious fields in light of more theoretical debates on sphere? We will try to elaborate on how these old and traditional gatherings are being transformed into modern networks for political, economic, social, cultural, and particularly religious organizations and how they became core centers of life in city of Kayseri. THE PUBLIC SPHERE: SUBSTANTIAL ACCOUNTS VERSUS BORDER NEGOTIATORSThe sphere is a normative concept. Its definition varies from the realm of freedom, where fellow human beings get together and create world (Hannah Arendt) to true where people engage each other in conversation (John Dewey).2 The concept of sphere is considered a tool for further democratization, but also what we look for when we consider equality of participation in debate and deliberation.3 In same way, Bruce Ackerman stated that the dialogue is a defining aspect of sphere.4 A sphere is a site for different groups to attempt to solve problems of mutual coexistence reasonably, even when they do not share same conception of good.5 It strongly implies that people cherish debates over policies and issues affecting everyone.The debate on sphere consists of reflections, responses, and reactions to these definitions. We propose to classify prolific literature on sphere into two groups. In first group is work of scholars that prioritize content of sphere. Works such as Arendt's The Human Condition and Jurgen Habermas's Structural Transformation of Public Sphere laid ground for definition of sphere. The group concerned with content of sphere argues for existence of a sphere as an arena to collectively deliberate on issues of polity. The content of sphere is established by offering answers as to what sphere is. We see this in Habermas's definition of a sphere as a body of persons assembled to deliberate on matters of public concern or common interest.6However, most contested aspects of this definition lie in its claim of (procedural) rationality and systematic exclusion of certain groups,7 including those based on race, ethnicity, class, gender, family, and religion. By pushing these groups into private realm, this definition makes distinction between and private highly problematic. This brings us to second body of literature on sphere in which scholars have questioned spatial and temporal boundaries of and private. …