THE · 3 Table of Contents 6 1. INTRODUCTION 11 2. METHODOLOGY AND THE FIELDWORK 13 3. PERCEIVED...

1

THE PERCEPTION OF DISCRIMINATION IN TURKEYTypes • Agents • Dimensions

Financed by the European Union

Prepared byAssoc. Prf. Dr. Cem Özatalay

Research Assistant Seçil Doğuç

2

Eşit Haklar İçin İzleme DerneğiKamerhatun Mah. Hamalbaşı CaddesiNo:22/2-3 Beyoğlu İstanbulTlf: 0212 293 63 77www.esithaklar.orgemail: [email protected]

Prepared byAssoc. Prf. Dr. Cem ÖzatalayResearch Assistant Seçil Doğuç

Translated byCemile Gizem Dinçer

Art Director: Mehmet Ali Çelik

Printing Press: Ceylan Matbaası İSTANBUL - 2019

This publication has been produced with the financial support of the European Union. The content is entirely the responsibility of the Association for Monitoring Equal Rights and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

3

Table of Contents

6 1. INTRODUCTION

11 2. METHODOLOGY AND THE FIELDWORK

13 3. PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION IN TURKEY15 3.A. Prevalence of Discrimination15 3.A.1. Relationship Between Income and Education Level and Perception of

Discrimination16 3.A.2. The Relationship Between Perception of Discrimination and Religious and Ethnic Belonging

19 3.B. Major experiences of discrimination and main reasons for discrimination in Turkey19 3.B.1. Which Segments of Society Are Discriminated?24 3.B.2. Justified Discrimination28 3.B.3. Interrelated Attitudes Against Discrimination31 3.B.4. Spheres Where Discrimination Partially Tolerated and Not Tolerated

33 4. RESULT

4

Acronyms

AKP - AK PARTY JustıceAndDevelopmentPartyAMER AssocıationforMonitoringEqualRightsBBP Great Unity PartyCHP RepublicanPeople’sPartyCEDAW ConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofDiscriminationHDP People’sDemocraticPartyKAOS-GL KaosGayAndLesbianCulturalResearchAndSolidarityAssociationKPSS PublicPersonnelSelectionExaminationLGBTI+ Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual,Transgender,IntersexMAZLUM-DER TheAssociationforHumanRightsAndSolidarityAssociationMHP Nationalist Movement Party MRG InternationalMinorityRightsGroupNGO Non-GovernmentalOrganisationsTEPAV EconomicPolicyResearchFoundationofTurkeyUSA UnitedStatesofAmericaUN United Nations

5

Preface

Discrimination,whichfrequentlyblendsinwithvariousrightsviolations,isacommonphenomenon,especiallyforthegroupswhicharemoreatrisk,despitebeingprohibited inmany international conventions andnational legislation.Discriminatorypracticeswhichpreventdisadvantagedgroupsfromaccessinghumanrightsareincreasingly“absorbed”bythesegroupsandasaresult,areperceived as part of daily life. Facilitatingthevisibilityofdiscriminationwhichhasbecomeaphenomenonweencounteraspartoftheordinarycourseofdailylifeanddonotthinktoomuchon,aswellascombattingit,iscrucialtoensureequality.However,issuessuchasthesocialinternatlizationofdiscrimination,thelackofeffectivepreventionandcom-pensationmechanismsforthevictims,andthelackofutilizationofexistingmeansofremediesorseekingrights,allcontributetorenderingdiscriminationinvisible. Thecomplexnetworksofrelationshipsondiscrimination,andpatternswherethe linesbetweenthepersonsubject todiscriminatorypracticesandtheperpe-tratoroftenblurtogether,whencontextschange,the“victim”mightbecometheperpetrator,makesitdifficulttomonitorandcombatdiscrimination.ThequestionofhowtomakethesepatternsabitmorecomprehensiblewasthedrivingforcebehindconductingaresearchaboutdiscriminationacrossTurkey.Wehavetriedtoplanthisresearch,alsobytakingintoconsiderationthat,therehasbeennoresearchdonewhichencompassesallprohibitedgroundsofdiscriminationinTurkey. Theaimoftheresearchistoreveal,howdiscriminationtakesplaceinthemindsofpeople,whattheyunderstandfromdiscrimination,towhomandonwhatbasisdiscriminationispracticed,andwhatpositionsthevictimstakeinthe faceofdiscriminatorypractices.For thispurpose,wehave identified thesamplegroupandthenumberofprovincestoundertaketheresearch,soastorepresentageneraloverviewofTurkey. Theresearchisnotonlyfocusedontheperpetratorsorthosewhoareexposedtodiscrimination,onthecontrary,itaimstodiscovertheexperience,feelingsandthoughtsofeachgroupwithregardstodiscriminationaswellasreachingtoacon-clusionwhichcanbefunctionalincombatingdiscriminationthroughthisvein. Wehope,thisresearchwillprovideaframeworkforthosewhoundertakework on discrimination such as non-governmental organizations, academicsanddecision-makersaswellasthewiderpublicingeneral. WewouldliketothanktheDelegationoftheEuropeanUniontoTurkey,withoutwhosefinancialsupport,thisresearchwouldnothavebeenpossible.Wewould liketothanktoresearchassistantSeçilDoğuçandAssoc.Prf.Dr.CemÖzatalay,whoplannedandreportedthisfieldresearchandtoBulguRe-searchCompany,whichimplementedthefieldresearch.

AssociationforMonitoringEqualRights

6

1. Introduction

Theconceptofdiscrimination,justliketheconceptofothering,hasfrequentlyap-pearedinthemediaandpublicsphereforsometime.EvenaquickmediasearchontheInternetfornewspublishedbetweenOctober20-27,2018showshowof-tendiscriminationhasbecomeacommonlyusedconcept.OnOctober262018,theheadlineofthenewsannouncingtherulingparty'sstrategyforlocalelectionnom-inationwas"TheAKPartyWillApplyPositiveDiscriminationtoWomenCandi-dates"1.OnOctober25,2018,thesportsmediaannouncedthattheticketsoftheFenerbahce'sAnderlechtmatchinBelgiumsoldbylookingatindividuals'IDcardswiththetitleof"UglyDiscriminationAgainstFenerbahce"2.OnOctober20,2018,PresidentRecepTayyipErdoğan's"Anyonewhodiscriminatesbasedonethnicityinourcountrywillhavetofaceusfirst.”3 speechbroughttotheheadlinesbythemedia.Again,onOctober20,2018,anewsheadlinethatappearedonthesportspages:“At-tention-GrabbingEventforDiscriminationinSportfromGreenCrescent”4.

Thefactthattheconceptofdiscriminationisusedsofrequentlyinthemediamaysuggestthatthisconceptisaprioritytitleofsocialresearch.However,re-alitydoesnotconfirmthisidea.Indeed,usingtheconceptofdiscriminationinsocialscienceresearchesinTurkeyisarelativelynewphenomenon.Moreover,thissituationisnotonlylimitedtoTurkeybutalsoincludescontinentalEurope.

AlthoughtheintroductionoftheconceptofequalityintolegaltextsdatesbacktothetimesofFrenchRevolution,theintroductionofdiscriminatoryattitudescausinginequalityintolegaldocumentswasonlypossiblewiththeemergenceofthestruggleforHumanRightsinthepost-WorldWarIIperiod.

Eventhoughthearticles2and7ofthe1948UniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsdonotusetheconceptofdiscrimination,theyincludeemphasesonan-ti-discrimination.The88-pagereport5 ontheMain Types and Causes of Discrim-ination issuedbytheSecretary-GeneraloftheUnitedNationsin1949canbeconsideredasoneofthefoundingtextsonthisissue.Accordingtodefinitioninthereport,discriminationdefined“asunequalandadversetreatmentleadingtoinequalitybetweenmembersoftheprivilegedcategoryandnon-members,bydenyingtherightsorsocialadvantagesofmembersofaparticularsocialclass,

1 Akşam, October 26, 2018, <https://www.aksam.com.tr/siyaset/ak-partide-kadin-atagi/haber-787326>2 Fanatik, October 25, 2018, <https://www.fanatik.com.tr/fenerbahceye-cirkin-ayrimcilik-2019640>3 Anadolu Ajansı, October 20, 2018, <https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/gunun-basliklari/cumhurbaskani-erdo-

gan-etnik-ayrimcilik-yapan-karsisinda-once-bizi-bulur/1287847>4 Hürriyet, October 20, 2018, <http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yerel-haberler/manisa/yesilaydan-sporda-ayrim-

ciliga-dikkat-ceken-etk-40993204>5 https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1638125/files/E_CN-4_Sub-2_40_Rev-1-EN.pdf

7

orbyimposingspecialconditionsonthem;orbyprovidingavarietyofadvan-tagestomembersofanothercategory."

However,theinclusionofdiscriminationinuniversallegaltextsshouldnotbeunderstood,asiftheconcepthasbecomeoneoftheprioritysubjectsofsocialsciences.Primarysubjectsofstudiesinpost-warEuropefirstlyfocusedontheefforts to reach an explanation frameworkof the experiences of fascism leftbehind.Also,atthesametime,itfocusedontheproblemsoftransitiontocon-sumersocietyandissuescausedbymodernizationinindustry.Atthispoint,theUnitedStatesofAmerica(USA)isanexemption.

TheAfricanAmericanCivilRightsMovement,whichemergedprimarilyintheUSAinthe1950sand1960s,bringstheissueofdiscriminationnotonlytotheagendaofpoliticsbutalsototheagendaofsocialsciences.Discriminationstartsto be considered togetherwith the concept of power relations.Accordingly,discriminationatthesociallevel,whichbringsabouttheformationofmajorityandminoritygroups,servestoreproducestructuralpowerrelations.6 However,aswehavesaid,suchacademicinterestintheissueofdiscriminationisalmostexclusivetotheUnitedStates.

Oneofthemainreasonsforthesituationisthattheconceptofdiscriminationbecomemeaningfulwithintheperspectiveof"equalityofopportunity"whichisthefoundingnotionofjusticeoftheUSA.Inpost-warContinentalEurope,ine-qualitiesarediscussedaroundthequestionofthereproductionofpowerrelationsinfavourofthe(economic,cultural,socialcapital)capitalowners.Inotherwords,differentiatingfromtheUnitedStates,theproblemofstructuralinequalityofpo-sitionsbecomeprominentinEurope,nottheinequalityofopportunitiesbetweenindividualsorgroups.Reductionofthedifferencesbetweenpositions-thewagegapbetweenmanagerandemployee,orthevaluegapbetweenthediplomaofaneliteschoolandvocationalschool-isatthecentreofpublicdebate.Assuch,theconceptofdiscriminationcannottakeitsplaceinthedominantdiscussionofine-qualityofpositionsinEuropeuntilthe1990s.ThesituationwillalmostfollowthesamepathinTurkey.Andwhatcouldbethereasonforthis?Whatchangesafterthe1990sthattheconceptofdiscriminationcomesintoprominence?Ofcourse,thereisnosingleanswertothisquestion.However,evenbytouchingononeoftheanswers,wemayhavesomeexplanations.

For our discussion, themost important consequence of theneoliberal trans-formationandmarketization,whichgainedmomentuminthe1980s,wouldbe

6 Bereni, L., ve V.-A. Chappe. 2011. “La Discrimination, de La Qualification Juridique à l’outil Sociologique.” Politix, 94 (2): s. 16.

INTRODUCTION

8

thepreventionofthechannelsofinterventionbythepublicpowerintheareaofredistributionofpositionalinequalities.Whenapublicresponseiscutoff,competition,whichistheprimaryinstitutionofthemarket,becomesthemaindeterminantofjusticeandinjusticeinallareasoflife(school,work-life,sports,art,etc.).Thus,bythe1990s,the"equalityofopportunity"andrelatedsubjectdiscriminationbecomethefocusofjusticedebatesinthepublicspherenotonlyintheUSAbutalsoinEuropeandTurkey.

Theperspectiveofequalityofopportunityacceptstheinequalityofclasspo-sitionsasgiven.ItisnotquestionedwhypersonXoccupyingthepositionAgainsmorethanthepersonYoccupyingpositionBanddoesnotexaminethedifferencesinaccesstoresourcesbetweenthesetwopositions.Insteadthedif-ferencesinopportunitiesbetweenpersonX,whostrivestoreachthestatusofA,andpersonYisconcerned.Theconceptofdiscriminationwillbefunctionalattheexactmomentoftheobservationandinvestigationofthesedifferences.Thistransformationdoesnotmeanthattherewasnodiscriminationbeforene-oliberalism.Itmerelypointsoutthatwiththeprocessofneo-liberalization,dis-criminationhasbecomemuchmoreperceptiblethanthepreviousperiodssinceallkindsofexchangebetweenpeople-theabilitytoaccessapartner,adiplomaoracommodity-becomesubjecttocompetition.

Discriminationbasedonrace,ethnicidentity,gender,andreligiousbeliefsanddiscriminatorypracticesbeginstobequestionedandinvestigated.Thereisnodoubtthatthetendencyoftheculturalturninthesocialsciencesintheearly1990sand the rightbasedstrugglesofdisadvantagedgroupshad impactsonthisinvestigationprocess.However,aswementionedabove,intheemergenceofallthesetendenciesandstruggles,wethinkthatthediscriminatorypracticesembeddedinthecompetitivemarketjusticeplayavitalrole.

Tocapturethediscriminationpracticesbettertoday,wewouldliketoincludearecentdefinitionofdiscrimination.“Discriminationisanunequaltreatmentbasedontheapplicationofanillegitimatecriterion.Ontheonehand,thetreatmentre-quiresatangibleandcontinuousoutcome-notanideabutaction-;ontheotherhand,itshouldbebasedonanargumentunacceptableforsociety-obviouslythatchangesaccordingtomoralreferenceseverysocietymakeswhileconstructingthedifferencebetweensocialbeings-.7Webelievethatthisdefinitionisimportantbecause,itemphasizesthattoacceptanunequalbehaviourasdiscriminatoryinanysociety,thereferenceonwhichthatbehaviourisbasedonmustbeillegiti-matetosociety.Forexample,weknowthatthemediaorganizationsthatwecited

7 Fassin, D. 2002. “L’invention Française de La Discrimination.” Revue Française de Science Politique, 52 (4): 403-423.

THE PERCEPTION OF DISCRIMINATION IN TURKEY

9

theheadlinesthatcarryrejectiontothediscriminationatthebeginningofthischapter,alsocarrymanydiscriminatorysloganstotheirheadlines.Tofindex-amplesofbothcases,-aquicklooktotheHrantDinkFoundation'sHateSpeechandDiscriminationDiscoursereports,regularlypublishedsince2009,willbesuf-ficient.Thesereportsareclearexamplesofthefactthatmembersofthemajor-itygroupinanycountrycomplainofdiscriminationwhentheyfeelvictimizedandcontinuetodiscriminatewhentheyareprivileged.Moreover,theirreferenceframesdonotallowthemtoseethatasacontradiction.

Therefore,todefinediscriminatoryactsasdiscriminatoryrequiresastruggle-oftenbyminoritygroupmembers-toensurethatthebasisoftheactionisillegitimateforthemajorityaswell,sinceitisperformedmostlybythemajorityordominantgroup.Inthissense,justasthe“old”frameofreference,whichcausesdiscrimina-tion,isaconstruction,the“new”frameofreferencethatmakesitpossiblediscrimi-nationtobegraspedinaconsciousnesslevelalsoneedstobeconstructed.

InTurkey,thecivilsocietyorganizationswhichstruggleforhumanrightsin-itiated thisactof construction.The foundationof theHumanRightsAssoci-ation in 1986, and theHumanRights Foundation in 1990; followedwith theestablishmentoftheHelsinkiCitizens'Assemblyin1993.Weknowthattheseorganizationsstartedwiththeactivitiesaimingtopreventthestatefromtheviolationoftheconstitutionalrightsofindividualsandtopromotethedevelop-mentofdemocraticrightsinthecountry.Ontheotherhand,the1980sweretheyearswhentheindependentfeministmovementwasgettingorganized.In1987,TheWomen'sOrganizationAgainstDiscriminationwasexplicitlyestablishedtofightagainstgender-baseddiscrimination.In1985,TurkeybeingasignatorycountryoftheConventionontheEliminationofallFormsofDiscriminationAgainstWomen(CEDAW),whichadoptedbytheUnitedNations(UN)GeneralAssemblyin1979,hadaffectedTheWomen'sOrganizationAgainstDiscrimi-nationtoidentifytheaimsoftheirstruggle.Bythetimetheassociationmen-tionedabovestartsfightingfortherealizationofConventionobjectives.Inoth-erwords,whilenon-governmentalorganizationsweakeningthe"old"referenceframeworkbasedondiscriminationinthecountrybycarryingoutactivitiesfortheimplementationoftheinternationallegaltextssignedbythestateandfight-ingagainsttheviolationofrights;thediscriminatorynorms,andtheagentsofthesenormstrytomaintainthe"old"referenceframework.

Wewitnessthatthisconfrontationhighlyescalatedafterthe2000s.Between2001and2004,theTurkishGrandNationalAssemblylegalizedeightEUharmoniza-tionpackagesand twoconstitutionalpackagesaimingatentering theEurope-anUnion.Someoftheseincluderegulationsthataimtopreventdiscrimination.TheEuropeanCommissionhasbeenalsoofferingvariousfundstoidentifyand

INTRODUCTION

10

changethestatusofsocialcategoriesofvictimsofdiscrimination.Atthesametime,newNGOsaimingtofightagainstdiscriminationwerefoundedinTurkey.We see that comprehensive reports ondiscrimination inTurkey also starts tobepublishedfollowingly.Someof thesepublicationsareas follows: "Discrimi-nation,Racism,andHateCrimes"reportbyHumanRightsAgendaAssociationin 2005;DiscriminationMonitoringReportson fourdifferent areas ("Racial orEthnicOrigin", "ReligionorBelief", "Disability", "SexualOrientationorGenderIdentity") prepared separatelyby IstanbulBilgiUniversityHumanRightsLawResearchandApplicationCentreandreleasedatdifferentdatesin2010and2011;"DiscriminationReportonTurkeyfromthePerspectiveofAlevis"reportwhichwaspublishedwiththecollaborationofAleviCulturalAssociations,MiddleEastTechnicalUniversity,andHacıBektaşVeliAnatolianCultureFoundationin2010;"EthnicDiscriminationReportinTurkey"byTheAssociationforHumanRightsandSolidarityfortheOppressed(Mazlum-Der)publishedin2011;"DiscriminationandRightViolationsAgainstDisabledinTurkeyReport"preparedbyAssociationforMonitoringEqualRights,publishedin2011;"SexualOrientationandGenderIdentity-BasedHumanRightsWatchReport"anannualreportstartingfrom2013byPinkLifeLGBTISolidarityAssociationandtheKaosGayandLesbianCulturalResearchandSolidarityAssociation(KaosGL);"RatingsforGenderEqualityfor81Cities,andEqualityinEducationMonitoringProject"bi-annualreportwhichwaspublishedbyEconomicPolicyResearchFoundationofTurkey(TEPAV)since2014; InternationalMinorityRightsGroup (MRG),with thepartnershipof theHistory Foundation published the report titled "Colour, Ethnicity, Language,ReligionandFaith-basedDiscriminationinTurkishEducationSystem"in2015.Withinthesameperiod,wealsoseethattheissueofdiscriminationhasgainedimportanceinacademicpublications,too.Inparticular,atremendousamountofliteraturestartedtoformongender-baseddiscriminationinwork-life,andapartfromthat,therewasincreasingattentiontoexamininghatespeechanddiscrimi-natorydiscourseinthemedia.Wecanalsosaythatthereisasignificantincreaseintheresearchesaboutgroupssuchaslesbian,gay,bisexual,transgender,intersex(LGBTI+),disabled,andelderly,groupsthatweresubjectedtodiscriminationhasstartedtobeexpressedandrecognizedafterthe2000s.

Theresearchreportyouarereadingaimstocontributetothisliterature.Atthispoint,itcanbesaidthatthisreportdiffersfromtheresearchesofdiscrimina-tion,whichhasbeenconductedbyusingquantitativeandqualitativeanalysisofdiscriminationcasesor learningtheexperiencesvictimsofdiscrimination,bywidelyincludingtheperpetratorsandpotentialperpetratorsofdiscrimina-tionintotheresearchspace.Themainobjectiveofthisresearchislearningtheexperiences,feelingsandideasofpotentiallyperpetratorsorvictimsofdiscrim-inationinTurkey,andtoreachsomefindingswhichwouldbefunctionalandbeneficialtouseinstrugglefornon-discrimination.


11

2. Methodology and the Fieldwork

Thisresearchaimstounderstandthoughts,feelings,andexperiencesofpoten-tialperpetratorsandvictimsofdiscriminationinTurkey,andthus,targetingtoreachsomefindingswillbeoperationalinthestruggleagainstdiscrimination.The research conducted by using both qualitative and quantitative researchmethodsgradually.

Inthefirststage,asampleof1064peoplefrom26citiesresemblingTurkeyhasbeenformed.ThequestionnaireisusedasamethodtolearntheoveralltrendofTurkey.Inthefirstpartofthequestionnaire,theaimwastolearntheperceiveddiscriminationpracticesofthepeopleintheresearchspaceandtheiropinionsaboutthetargetgroups. Inthis framework, twoscaleshavebeenusedbasedontheconceptof“perceiveddiscrimination”.Thefirstscaleis“MajorExperi-encesofDiscrimination”,andthesecondoneisthe“EverydayDiscriminationScale.”8.Thefirstsetofquestionsseekstofindoutwhetherpeopleexperiencediscriminationagainstthemselvesorothersintheworkplace,atschool,intheirneighbourhood,andin-servicesector.Iftheyhaveexperiencedanydiscrimina-tion,researchersaskedsubjectsopiniononthereason(s)ofthediscrimination.Withthesequestions,researchaimstounderstandwhichtypesofdiscrimina-tionaremoreprominentandwhereandforwhomtheyareappliedmorewide-ly dependingon ethnicity, religious belief/disbelief, being a refugee/migrant,physicaland/ormentaldisability,beingyoungorold,gender,sexualidentity9

(sexual orientation/gender identity/gender expression/gender characteristics)andpoliticalreasons.Thesecondsetofquestionsexamineshoweverydaylifediscrimination expressed in behaviours. It alsoquestions the basis onwhichtypesofdiscriminationthisgetsout.Thatistosay,thisresearchaimstolearntheprevalenceandreasonsofdiscriminatorypracticessuchasnotbeingre-spectedbyothers,beingcalledwithhumiliatingnicknames,being treatedasif theywerenotsmartenough,unreliable, lower thanothersandgettingex-posedtoinsultingbehaviours,threatorharassmentpracticeintheirdailyhu-manrelationships.Thesamescalesinthepreviousquestionsetwereusedasthe reasons for discriminatory practices. Finally, an extended version of the“MajorDiscriminationExperiences”questionsetwasused inorder tomeas-ure the frequency of discrimination experienced by the interlocutors.Whiletheresearchersincreasedthediversityofquestionsaboutdiscriminationintheworkplace, school, and neighbourhood, they also added questions about the

8 See. Williams, D. R. “Measuring Discrimination Resource.”, June 2016, <https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/davidrwilliams/files/measuring_discrimination_resource_june_2016.pdf.>

9 In this report, Sexual Identity is used as a common phrase for the terms of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, gender characteristics.

12

frequency of discriminatory treatment in state institutions (police, judiciary,etc.)tothequestionnaire.Inthefollowingsectionsofthestudy,thereareques-tionstounderstandpeople’s feelingsandbehavioursafterbeingsubjectedtodiscriminatorytreatment(s).Inthelastsection,questionsaimtograspthesocialpositionsofsubjectstoevaluatetheirperceptionsofdiscriminationandtheirbehavioursagainstdiscriminatorybehaviours.Thesearequestionsaboutedu-cationalbackground,gender,age,occupation,income,placeofbirth,ethnicity,religiousbelief/disbelief.

Inthesecondstageofthefieldresearch,afocusgroupdiscussionisconductedtolearnmoreaboutthereasonsfortheimpressiveresultsofthequantitativeanalysis.Itwasdecidedthatonlyinthisway,theroleofethnicorigin,politicalview,genderandclassdifferences’intheperceptionofdiscriminationcouldbeunderstoodinfullterms.Withinthisframework,fourfocusgroupdiscussions-all in Istanbul-wereheld.Two focusgroupdiscussionsorganized separatelyforwomenandmenwithparticipantsfromdifferentpoliticalperspectives.Indoingso,theresearchersenvisagedtofacilitatetheunderstandingoftheimpactofthegenderdifferencesintheperceptionofdiscriminationandtopreventtheoccurrenceofmaledominationduringfocusgroupdiscussions.Theothertwofocusgroupdiscussionsweredesignedtoanalysetheimpactofsocio-economicstatus differences on the perception of discrimination.While the first groupincludesthepeoplewhohaveahigherstatusinthesocialhierarchyintermsofoccupation,education,incomelevel,livingenvironment,housingtypeandpropertyownershiplevel;thesecondgroupincludespeoplewhohavealowerstatusinthesocialhierarchyaccordingtothesamecriteria.Thus,itisaimedtodeepentheresultsobtainedfromquantitativedataanalysiswiththeresultsofqualitativedataanalysis.


13

3. Perceived Discrimination in Turkey

Different than the concept of prejudice, expressingunexperienced convictionsandfeelingstowardsagroup,discriminationrequiresconcreteactionsandexpe-riences.Forthesamereason,researchesondiscriminationoftengiveprioritytoexamineconcreteandmeasurablecases.However,intermsofsocialconsequenc-es,itisbothimpossibleandinaccuratetodistinguishprejudiceanddiscriminationfromeachother.Thus,thesetwophenomenaplayingrolesintheconstructionofsocialseparationandhierarchynourishandcomplementeachother.

Therefore, to examine the perception of discrimination, including concreteprejudices,aswellasmutualprejudicesamongthemembersofdifferentsocialgroupsconstitutingsociety,makesitpossibletoreachfindingsontheconstruc-tionofsocialdistinctions.Thesefindingsalsoenableustoidentifysomeoftheprioritiesnecessarytostruggleagainstdiscriminationandestablishedprejudic-es.Forexample,itisnotalwayseasyfortheonesexperiencingdiscriminationatthelevelofperceptiontoproveit.Letusassumethatapersonhasmadeanapplicationforaqualifyingposition.Weknowthat thisapplicationmaynotresultpositively forvariousreasons.However, letusassumethat thepersonwhoseapplicationdeniedthinksthatitarisesfromher/his/theirsexualidentityorethnicity.Thispersonwillnotbeabletorecordher/his/theirexperienceasacaseofdiscriminationduetothelackofapparentevidence.Thatisalsopossiblethatthepersonnotbeinghiredisnottoberelatedtodiscrimination.However,thepersonwhoisnothiredthinkingandfeelingthatisrelatedtodiscriminationwillbedecisiveinhis/her/theirsubsequentdecisionsandstepss/he/theywilltake.Inotherwords,theconsequencesoftheperceptionofdiscriminationwillbenodifferentfrompubliclydiscriminatorybehaviour.Thesamesituationisvalidforanadvantageousgroupmemberaswell.Ifonethinksthathe/she/theyemployedforbeingamemberofanadvantageousgroup,thisperceptionwilldeterminehis/her/theirfutureattitudesandbehaviours,andtheseattitudesandbehaviourswillleadtotheconstructionofadiscriminatorysocialhierarchy.

Forthisreason,weshouldsaythatsomeofthefindingsobtainedinthisstudymeasuringtheperceptionofdiscrimination,isprejudice.However,duetothereasonswementionedabove,webelievethatprejudicesshouldnotbeunderes-timatedconsideringtheirroleintheconstructionofahierarchicalsocialenvi-ronmentbasedondiscrimination.

3.A. Prevalence of DiscriminationLetusbeginourinvestigationbyreviewingourperceptionofthepervasivenessofdiscriminationinTurkey.Thefrequencyofthemarkersof10onthescoring

14

scale of 1 to 10 can be ob-servedinGraph1.Itshowsusthat people who believe thatdiscrimination is very com-mon inTurkey is quite high.This group constitutes 16.4per cent of the total sample.If we add the ones marking9,we can say that a group of 23.1 per-cent thinks that discrimination is pervasive in Turkey.

Inthesamecontext,itispos-sibletoconstitutethesecondgroupofpeoplewiththesameperceptionlevelfromthosewhoscore theprevalenceofdiscrimination less than5andthinkthatdiscriminationisbelowthemiddle.Those who think that discrimina-tion is not common or less common constitute 30.3 per-cent. ThelargestgroupinTurkeyistheonesthinkingthatdiscriminationisprevalentinpart.46.8 per-cent of the interlocutors make a prevalence assessment of 5 to 8 points, saying that they believe that discrimination is partly prevalent.

Theinterestingdatahereisthatthosewhomarkthehighestscore(10points)asthemostcommonlevelofdiscriminationconstitutethepeakvalue(mode)ofthedataset.The median value is 6 and the average value is 6.12, with a peak of 10, indicating that a group that thinks discrimination is very common differs from the rest of the country in this regard.


15

Andwhichcharacteristicsdistinguishthisgroupfromtherest?Weobservethatespeciallyfourvariablesarerelatedtotheperceptionofdiscrimination:incomelevel,educationlevel,religiousbelonging,andethnicbelonging.

3.A.1. Relationship Between Income and Education Level and Perception of Discrimination

Thereisastrongrelationshipbetweenincomelevelandtheperceptionoftheprevalence of discrimination.10 In other words, while the perception of the prevalence of discrimination in low-income individuals is higher than expected, it is the opposite for high-income individuals.

Whenwelookatthelevelofeducation,wefindasignificantrelationbutintheoppositeway.11 While the perception of the prevalence of discrimination is higher in high school and university level educators, it is a common belief that discrimination is not widespread in those with lower educa-tion levels.Inthiscontext,whenitcomestotheperceptionoftheprevalenceofdiscrimination,weseethateducationlevelandincomelevelareintheop-positedirection.ApplicationofthePearsoncorrelationanalysisalsoconfirmsthis opposite relationshipbetween the income level, education level and theprevalence of discrimination. 12

However,inthefocusgroupdiscussionsconductedtounderstandthenatureofthedifferenceinthisissue,weobservedthatthelevelofeducationprovidedarhetoricaladvantagetotheinterlocutorsregardingthedefinitionofdiscrimination,butthereisnodirectreflectionofitintheirattitudestowardsdiscrimination.Forexample,amaleeducatorwithgraduatedegreedifferentiateshimselffromtherestofthegroupbyanswering "what isdiscrimination?"questionas "othering".However,duringadiscussion in thegroupon theSyrianmigrants, thesameperson justifiesdis-criminationtowardsSyriansbysaying"becausetheystink”13.Thisexampleshowsthatthereisagapbetweenrhetoricandattitudewhenconcretesituationsarecon-cerned.Inthesamefocusgroupmeeting,itwasobservedthataninterlocutor-awomanwearingaheadscarf,alsowithagraduatedegreeandoftenreferencestotheexperiencesofherrelativeslivingasworkersinEuropeancountries,wastheonewhomadethemostsevereobjectionstothediscriminatorydiscoursesexpressedinthedebate,althoughshedidnotusetherightconceptsindescribingdiscrimination.

10 x2(4, N = 966) = 41.52, P = < 0.0111 x2(2, N = 1056) = 6.68, P = < 0.0512 While the correlation between the perception of the prevalence of discrimination and education level is

strong and co-directional (r = .089, p < .01), the correlation between the perception of the prevalence of discrimination and income level is strong and opposite (r = -.112, p < .01).

13 Bulgu Araştırması, 3rd Focus Group Meeting on August 2, 2018

PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION IN TURKEY

16

In other words, it is possible to say that experiencing discrimination rather than recognizing it as a concept is a more crucial determinant in the formation of sensitivity about discrimination. For the same reason,itcanbethoughtthattherelativeadvantageintermsofincomelevelreducesthelikelihoodofexperiencingdiscriminationitselfandbringsinsensitivitytodiscriminationpractices.However,weshouldnotethatthesurveyresultspointtoanawarenessofone'sethnicorreligiousaffiliationthatgoesbeyondthedif-ferentiationoftheincomevariable.

3.A.2. The Relationship Between Perception of Discrimination and Religious and Ethnic Belonging

14.2per-centoftheintervieweesstatedthatthelanguagespokenathomewasgenerallyalanguageotherthanTurkish.Ofcourse,itisnotpossibletodeter-mineone'sethnicoriginbasedsolelyonthisdata.TheremightbepeopleeventhoughtheyalwaysorcommonlyspeakTurkishat theirhomes; theydonotidentifythemselvesasTurkishbeingaskedabouttheirethnicity.However,eventhoughtheygenerallyspeakTurkishintheirhouse,wecanconcludethattherearepeoplewhoprefertowritealanguageotherthanTurkishtounderlinetheirethnic differences.Therefore, the person's choice in answering this questionstandsoutasanindicatoroftheethnicidentityofthatperson.

While23per-centofinterlocutorsthinkthatdiscriminationisprevalentinTur-key,ithasincreasedto38.4per-centamongtheonesspeakingalanguageotherthanTurkishattheirhouse.Thus, two out of every five people speaking a language other than Turkish at their house perceives that discrimina-tion is very widespread in Turkey. Only 42.4 per-cent of Turkish-speak-ing people in the house think that discrimination is less common in Turkey. Therelationshipbetweenthelanguagespokenathomeandtheper-ceptionthatdiscriminationiswidespreadisalsoconfirmedstatistically. 14

Membersofthemajoritygrouphaveaweakerperceptionoftheprevalenceofdiscriminationonethnicbelonging,whereas,inthecaseofreligiousbelonging,asimilartrenddoesnotoccur.Incontrast,wecansaythatviewsonthepreva-lenceofdiscriminationamongtheSunniMuslims,representingthemajority,isrelativelyhighconsideredproportionally.While 54.3 per-cent of the group declaring that they are not Sunni Muslims expressed that the discrimi-nation is less common, it is 39.9 per-cent for Sunni Muslims15.Itisfruitfultoemphasizetherelationofreligiousbelongingwithdiscriminationperception,whichdoesnotshowastatisticallysignificantdifferenceinperceptionofdis-criminationasmuchaslanguage.

14 x2(2, N = 1056) = 23.577, P = < 0.0115 x2(2, N = 1056) = 6.68, P = < 0.05


17

Firstly, researchers observed that theparticipants in the focus groupdiscus-sionswererelativelysensitivetodiscrimination.Particularlythereligiouspar-ticipantshaveastrongbelief thatwomenwearingheadscarvesstill facedis-criminationinbusinessanddailylife-thoughnotasmuchasbefore.TheyalsobelievethatthereisgeneraldiscriminationtowardsMuslimsintheWorld.

Thefollowingdiscussioninafocusgroupmeetingbetweenanexecutiveassistant29-year-oldS.whoisaRepublicanPeople'sParty(CHP)supporterandnotwearsheadscarf,and,a32-year-oldE.in-distanceuniversitystudentwhoisalsogettingpreparedforPublicPersonnelSelectionExamination(KPSS)withapoliticalviewoftheMHP-AKP-BBPbandandwearinghijabismeaningfulinthisrespect:

“S: For example, I recently went to social services. I couldn't see any women without a headscarf.E: Is this bothering you?S: No, I wasn't bothered. I just thought. Why not?E: Yes, I admit that veiling has accepted by the public sector, but I still do not un-derstand why it is not the case for the private sector. There is a big problem with that. For example, when we apply to some workplaces, we can get the answer "un-fortunately we cannot work with people in veils due to our customer portfolio.16"

Fromthisconversation,weunderstandthatE.seespublicinstitutions’recruit-mentofwomenwithheadscarvesasaneffort to secure justice.At the samefocusgroupmeeting,E.says thatsheandherhusbandhadbeentreateddif-ferentlyfromothercustomersinaluxuryrestaurantinthepreviousdays.Sheevaluatesthatthisistheresultofrestaurantstaffseeingtheminalowstatusbecauseoftheirclothing.

Inanotherfocusgroupmeeting,wecanseethatthemaleparticipantsfromtheconservative-nationalistgroupsfrequentlyrecalledwomenwhofacediscrimina-tionbecauseoftheirheadscarf.Wecanalsoidentifythatthesamemalepartici-pantsstatedthatMuslimsintheworldfacediscrimination.Inotherwords,thereisastrongperceptionofdiscriminationinthereligioussegmentsofsocietyrelatedtothepoliticalpolarizationbothinthecountryandtheworldandtherulingpar-ty'swidespreadappealtothediscourseofdiscriminationwithinthispolarization.Ontheotherhand,participantsclosetotheoppositionpartiessharethesameideathatthereisapoliticaldiscrimination.Sincethisresearchwasconductedjustbeforeandafterthepresidentialelection,theeffectsareundeniable.Moreover,theCHPpresidentialcandidate,Muharremİnce,whoestablishedhisentireelectoraldiscourseonthegoalof"eliminatingdiscrimination”alsotakepartinit.

16 Bulgu Araştırma, 1st Focus Group Meeting on August 1, 2018


18

However, it is seen that the group with a high awareness of discrimi-nation against wearing headscarves and Muslims, and also the group with a high level of awareness about political discrimination in public, can share the discriminatory language when it comes to Kurds, Syrian refugees, and LGBTI+’s.

Forexample,afteraparticipantfromAğrıoriginstatingthat the labellingofallKurdishandPeoples'DemocraticParty(HDP)executivesandmembersas“terrorists"isagreatexampleofdiscrimination,statementsofnationalist-con-servativeE.andCHPsupporterS isaquitenoteworthy ifweconsider theirabove-mentionedconversationontheemploymentofwearingheadscarvesinthesocialservicesinstitution.

“E: To tell the truth, I find discrimination against HDP people just. At the end of the day, it's baby-killer’s party. (...)S: I find it wrong to label the Kurds as terrorists for myself. Because I think the PKK is not Kurdish but Armenian.17”

Asaresult,whenitcomestotheperceptionoftheprevalenceofdiscrimination,wecansaythattherearethreepositions:

1.Affinitive Perception of Discrimination: It is the perception of thegroupdiscriminated forbeingaminority/subalternbasedon the identitygroupand/orworldview;butmayalsobeaffinitivewithotherdiscriminat-edgroups,expressingdiscriminationiswidespreadinTurkey.

2.Ego-centric Perception of Discrimination:Itistheperceptionofthegroupthatcanonlydistinguishthediscriminationtowardstheiridentitygroupandremaininsensitivetothediscriminationtoothergroups-sometimeseventhediscrimination is done by their group aswell.Theoneswith this formofperceptiondifferentiatediscriminationasfair/unfairdiscriminationandthinkthatdiscriminationispartiallywidespreadinTurkey.

3.Exceptional Perception of Discrimination: It is the perception of agroupbelongingtothemajorityanddoesnotacceptthereisdiscriminationagainst minority/subaltern identity groups.They only perceive concretecasesthatcannotbedeniedbutthinktheyareexceptional.Thisgroupac-knowledgedthatdiscriminationislesswidelyinTurkey.

Wecannowhaveacloserlooktohowthesedifferentformsofperceptioneval-

17 Bulgu Araştırma, 1st Focus Group Meeting on August 1, 2018


19

uatediscriminatorypracticesindifferentfieldsandtheirunderstandingofthecauses of discrimination.

3.B. Major Experiences of Discrimination and Main Reasons for Discrimination in TurkeyWehavealreadystatedthatthe"MajorDiscriminationExperiences"Scaleandthe"DailyDiscriminationScale"arethemainscalesofthisresearch.Thefirstscale aims to understand interlocutor's observations and evaluations on dis-crimination insocial life,where,howoftenand forwhatreason it isexperi-enced.Thesecondscale,ontheotherhand,aimstolearnhowpeopleevaluatetheirowndiscriminatoryexperiences.

3.B.1. Which Segments of Society Are Discriminated?

25.28per-centofthepopulationindicatesthatdiscriminationbasedonethnicoriginishigh.While25.28per-centoftheinterlocutorsstatedthatethnicdis-criminationexperiencedsometimes,49.14per-centexpressed thatethnicdis-criminationwasrarelyorneverexperienced.(SeeGraph2.)

Whenweaskwhetherthereisanydiscriminationconcerningreligiousbelief,we see that the answers are distributed almost as in the case of ethnic dis-crimination.26.59per-centoftheinterlocutorsthinkthatdiscriminationbasedonreligiousbelief isexperiencedall the timeormostly.21.43per-cent thinkthatsometimesthereisdiscriminationbasedonreligiousbeliefs,and51.97per-centoftheinterlocutorsthinkitneverorrarelyhappens.Inotherwords,dif-ferentfromethnicdiscrimination,1.3per-centoftheinterlocutorswhomarkthe“sometimes”responsetodiscriminationbasedonreligiousbelief/disbeliefseemstoshiftmostlyoralwaystotheside,and2.8per-centchangedintothesidethatrarelyorneverhappens.(See.Graph3).


20

Thedifferencebetweentheresultsinethnicityandbeliefobservedisinresponsestodiscriminationagainstrefugees/migrants.Thepercentageofinterlocutorssayingdiscriminationagainstrefugees/migrantsisneverorrarelyexperiencedremainsat35.52per-cent.Interlocutorswhosaythatdiscriminationagainstrefugees/migrantsexperiencedusuallyandalwaysincreaseto36.28per-cent,whiletheratioofthoseansweringwithsometimesincreaseto28.20per-cent.(SeeGraph4).

Thissituationoccurred inalmostall focusgroupmeetings.The followingstate-mentsfrequentlyexpressedare;Syriansaretraitorsforleavingtheircountry,Turk-ishStategivesextremeprivilegestothem,itisnogoodforTurkeytogivehomestoSyrianssincenobodywouldneverwanttobecomeaneighbourwiththem.

A41-year-oldmaleparticipantZ.fromSivas,workingasadministrativestaffatauniversitystartingfromthebeginningofthefocusgroupmeetingstatedthatsomepeopleartificiallycreatediscrimination,anditisnecessarytoloveallthecreatures


21

becauseofthecreator.However,inthedifferentstagesofthefocusgroupmeeting,Z.hasmadethefollowingsentencesthatweconnectwiththemarker(...):

"Itisagreatinjusticetodifferentiatepeoplebasedontheirrace,class,andsocialstatus.Theydividepeopleonthisbasis. (...)ButSyriansaremuchmoreprioritizedinourcountry.(...)Gotothestreetat11:00-12:00.TherearemanySyriansontheroads.AtATM's,they'retryingtoprotectthem-selvesfromthecold.Whydoyoulettheminthiscountry?Whydoyouputusinrisk?(...)Theyhaveheroin,marijuana,allkindsofnastythings.ThebestpractisingMuslimsareTurks.IthasbeencreatedanimagethattheArabsaregoodpractisingMuslims.Thenwhathappens?WepitytheArabs.Asdoingthat,webecomepitifulourselves."18

Another crucial and thought-provoking finding obtained from the field-work is that there are a large number of people who have a strong opin-ion that there is no discrimination against women. 41.64per-centoftheinterlocutorsstatedthereisnodiscriminationagainstwomen,and10.15per-centofthemsaidthatdiscriminationagainstwomenrarelyobservedinTur-key.Ontheotherhand,thereisnostatisticalsignificanceontherelationshipbetweentheperceptionofgender-baseddiscriminationandthegenderoftheinterlocutors.Whilealmosthalfofthesamplewaswomen,theydonotthinkthereisdiscriminationagainstwomen.(SeeGraph5).

In the focusgroupmeetings,mostof thewomendidnotobject to theargu-ments thatrather thanbeingsubject todiscrimination,womenprioritized inthe business life and even,men face discrimination.That implies campaigns

18 Bulgu Araştırma, 2nd Focus Group Meeting on August 1, 2018


22

onwomenmurders, sexualharassment,violenceagainstwomen, insufficientrepresentationofwomeninpoliticsandbusinesscouldhaveaminimalimpacton the constitutionofperceptionof discrimination.The fact thatpioneeringfeministfiguresfightingwithdiscriminationagainstwomennotfindinganyplaceexceptHDPwithinthepoliticalinstitutions,andthefactthatotherpartieswith85-88per-centvotingpotentialdonotvitalizetheissueintheproductionofpoliticaldiscourseseemstobefactorsofthesituation.

LGBTI+sconstituteanothergroupthattheyaresubjectedtodiscriminationincom-monbelief.36.28per-centsaysthatLGBTI+sarealwaysorusuallydiscriminated.Thisratioisthesameasrefugees/migrantsbeingsubjectedtodiscriminationatal-waysorusually.While17.86per-centstatesLGBTI+saresometimesdiscriminated;45.86per-centsaystheyarerarelyorneversubjectedtodiscrimination.

Inthefocusgroupmeetings,peopleanswered"towhomyouwillnotrentyourhouse?"questionasrefugees/migrantsandLGBTI+;withthesameratio.Interloc-utorsusedsentenceslike;"theyharmthehouse","youcannotknowwhowillcomeandgofromtheneighbourhood","immoralitywillbedispersedeverywhere".

Thelasttopicispolitics,whichisthoughtasoneofthebiggestcausesofdis-crimination. 42.02 per-cent considers that there is always or usually polit-ical discrimination in Turkey. While20.68per-centoftheinterlocutorsthinkthatsometimesthereisdiscrimination,37.1per-centbelievethatthereisrarelyorneverpoliticaldiscrimination.Aswementionedabove,conductingfieldworkjustbeforethePresidentialElectionmayhaveanimpactontheproportionofthosewhothinkthereisusuallyoralwayspoliticaldiscrimination.However,


23

evenifthiseffectisremoved,itisclearthat42.02%isquitehigh.Apartfromthis,theopinionsabouttheratioofdiscriminationbasedonmentalandphysi-caldisability,beingyoungandoldarenothigh.

Whilethetotalproportionof interlocutorsrespondingalwaysandusuallytothediscriminationbasedonphysicaldisabilityis16.35%,theratiofordiscrimi-nationbasedonmentaldisabilityincreasesto18.70%.

Whiletheperceptionofinterlocutorsaboutdiscriminationinsocietyissuch,wecancontinueintheanalysisbylookingattheircapacitytotoleratediscrim-inationagainstdifferentidentitygroups.


24

3.B.2. Justified Discrimination

Attitudesofpeopletowardsdifferenttypesofdiscriminationshowvarietyasmuchastheirperceptions.Betweenquestion2and7,ourquestionnaireseekstounderstandwhethersomediscriminatorypracticestoleratedornot.Theques-tionsareaboutvariousspheresoflife:lookingforajob,waitingforapromotionintheworkplace,rentingahouse,receivingeducation,receivinghealthcare,seekingjusticeinthecourthouse,reportingsomeonetothepolice,filingabankloan,andsoon.Theindividualsansweredeightareasthatdiscriminationbasedondifferentreasonsas;(1)Ifinditwronginallcircumstances,(2)Idonotseeitverywrongdependingonthecircumstances.

Theanswers to thesequestions are essential because althoughpeople are inprincipleagainstdiscrimination,theycanapprovediscriminatoryattitudesandpracticesinconcretesituations.Forexample,inoneofthefocusgroupdiscus-sions,aparticipantpersistentlydisagreeswithdiscriminatoryattitudestowardsSyrians,claimingSyriansareveryhardworkingpeople,waveredwiththeinter-ventionofanotherparticipantsaying“well,doyourentahousetoSyrian,yourentitforfourpeople,theybecome18people”.

Herewewouldliketocomparetwoprofiles:theonesopposingallformsofdis-criminationeverywherewithoutexceptionandtheonescantolerateallformsofdiscriminationaccordingtothecircumstances.Thus,wewantedtoidentifytherupturesinhowdiscriminationisexperiencedatthesociallevel.Tothispurpose,wehaveestablishedadiscriminatoryattitudescoretomeasurehowmanyareasoflifeaparticipantcantolerateaspecifictypeofdiscrimination.Forexample,ifapersoncantolerategender-baseddiscriminationinwork,schoolandhealthcare-accordingtocircumstances-butdoesnottolerategender-baseddiscriminationinotherareas,his/her/theirattitudescoreongender-baseddiscriminationis3.Like-


25

wise,ifapersoncantolerategender-baseddiscriminationinallspheresoflife,her/his/theirattitudetowardsgenderdiscriminationiseight;iftheydonotcon-donethistypeofdiscriminationinanyareaoflife,theattitudescorewillbezero.

Firstofall,weshouldnote that theattitudescores fordiscriminationdonotreflectnormaldistribution,butonthecontrary,theyappearquiteskewedtotheleft.Thereisonlyoneexceptiontothenormaldistribution.Theexceptionistheattitudedataondiscriminationagainstrefugees,intermsoftheZvalueofnor-mality(1.12)anditsappearanceonthehistogram,whichgivestheimpressionthatitisclosertonormal. In other words, when it comes to refugees, there is a convergence of discriminatory attitudes. The attitudes towards other subjects are generally differentiated.

Foramoredetailedlook,letusfirstexaminethetwodifferentscoresinTable1.Thevaluesinthefirstcolumnshowtheproportionofpeopletoleratingthementioneddiscriminationtypeinallspheresoflife-,thatshowstheportionofthosescoringeightintheattitudescoreforaparticularkindofdiscriminationinthetotalsample.Thevaluesinthesecondcolumngivethepercentageofpeo-pleintolerabletodiscriminationinanyareaoflife,thatshowstheratioofzeroattitudescoreinthetotalsample.(SeeTable1).

Table 1. Weight of Individuals in Total Sample who Accepts Discrimination If Necessary and Who Always Oppose

The proportion of those who tolerate

discrimination in all areas of life in the total

sample (%)

The proportion of those who are intolerable to discrimination in any area of life in the total

sample

Ethnic Identity 5.3* 61.8

Belief 6* 63

Refugee/ Migrant 10.4* 32.2*

Physical Disability 1.3 66.2

Mental Disability 1.3 49.3*

Being younger than 25 years old 1.4 66.7

Being older than 50 years old 1.3 61.6

Gender 1.2 76.3

Sexual identity 3.6 53.3*

Political View 5.7* 59.4*

Average 3.75 53.6

Median 1.4 and 3.6 61.6 and 61.8


26

Atfirstglance,itisseenthatthosetoleratediscriminationagainstyoungpeople,theelderly,womenandphysicallydisabledpeoplearebelowtheaverageandthemedianofthosewhocanacceptdiscriminationinallareasundercertaincondi-tions.Furthermore,wefindthat interlocutors intolerabletothesetypesofdis-criminationarehigher thanthegeneralaverageandthemedianof thosewhodonot tolerate anydiscrimination in any sphere of life. In other words, we can mention that there is a relatively high sensitivity to discrimination against young people, the elderly, women and physically disabled people.

Althoughtheproportionofthosewhotoleratediscriminationbasedonmentaldisabilityandsexualidentityislowerthantheaverageandmedianvaluesofthegeneralsample,weseethattherateofnottoleratingdiscriminationagainstthesamegroupswithoutcompromisearebelowthesampleaverage. In other words, we understand that discrimination against mentally disabled people and discrimination based on sexual identity are more tolerable in certain are-as of life (work, neighbourhood, etc.) than the general average.

Ontheotherhand,inbothcolumns,thevaluesshowthattheproportionismoreinsensitivethantheaverageregardingthediscriminatoryattitudetowardsref-ugees.Whenwe examine the other types of discrimination,we see that theproportionof interlocutorstoleratingdiscriminationbasedonethnic identityandbeliefindifferentspheresoflifeisabovetheaverage/medianvaluesofthesample.However,then,wealsoseethattheinterlocutors'proportionthatdoesnot tolerate these typesofdiscrimination inany spheresof life is above theaveragevalueandaroundthemedianvalueofthesample. On the one hand, there is a group that tolerates ethnic and religious discrimination more than average in all fields. On the other hand, there is another group above average that does not condone the same forms of discrimination in any spheres of life. Therefore, we can say that discrimination forms based on ethnic identity and belief constitute a field of division/conflict.

Graph10visualizesthedatapresentedinthefirstcolumnofTable1withtheradargraph/spidergraph.Withthisvisualization,wecanseethattheleasttol-erableformsofdiscrimination(typesofdiscriminationbasedongender,oldage,youth,mentaldisabilityandphysicaldisability)undercertainconditionsareintheinnercircle.Discriminationbasedonasexualidentitythatappearsabovethe secondpolygon from inside-out seems tobe close tomedianandmeanvalues.Politicalview,ethnicidentityandbeliefarethetypesofdiscriminationwhosevaluesareabovethethirdpolygon,andtheprobabilityofbeingtoleratedishigherthantheothertypesofdiscrimination.Finally,discriminationagainstrefugeescomeclosetotheoutermostperimeterasitisseenasmoreacceptableinallspheresoflifecomparedtoallotherformsofdiscrimination.


27

Graph11illustratesthedatapresentedinthesecondcolumnofTable1.Inthisgraph, thevaluesthatareclosest to theoutermostwall indicate thetypesofdiscriminationwhicharemorelikelytobeopposedinanyfieldcomparedtootherkindsofdiscriminationsuchasgender-baseddiscrimination,discrimina-tionbasedonphysicaldisabilityanddiscriminationagainstyoungpeople.Thepossibilityofobjectiontodiscriminationbasedonethnicidentity,belief,sexual


28

identityandthepoliticalviewisaroundorslightlybelowtheaveragevalues.Discriminationagainstrefugeesandmentallydisabledpeopleistheleastlikelytobetoleratedindifferentspheresoflife,withthevaluescorrespondingtothepolygonsontheinnerwallsofthegraph.

3.B.3. Interrelated Attitudes Against Discrimination

Toquestiontherelationshipbetweenattitudestowardsthesetypesofdiscrim-ination,wemeasuredthecorrelationvaluesbetweeneachwiththeKendall’sTau-btest.Thistestshowedastatisticalsignificance(p<.0005,N=1060)andapositiverelationshipbetweenattitudestowardseachtypeofdiscriminationandattitudestowardsothertypesofdiscrimination.However,onlysomeoftheserelationshipsindicateamedium-strengthcorrelation(0.4<r<0.7),whiletheresthaveastatisticallysignificantandpositivebutweakcorrelation.Basedonthetypesofdiscrimination,whichhaveamoderatelystrongandpositiverelation-shipconcerningthecorrelationcoefficient,wecangrouptheattitudesthatarerelatedtoeachotherintwogroups.

Thefirstgroupconsistsoftheattitudesthroughdiscriminationbasedonsexu-alidentity,politicalopinion,belief,ethnicbelonging,refugee/migration.Gen-der-baseddiscriminationisrelatedtobothgroups.(SeeGraph12)

Theothergroupincorrelationwitheachother,includesdiscriminationagainstyoungpeopleandtheelderly,andattitudestowardsdiscriminationbasedonmentaldisability,physicaldisabilityandgender.(SeeGraph13)


29

Assuch,wecanassumethatwehavetwodifferentunderstandingsandattitudestowarddiscrimination.Thefirstindicatesasensitivitytowardsdiscriminationbasedonbelonging,thushasmorepolitical/culturalaspects;theotherrevealsasensitivitytothetypesofdiscriminationthatarenotincludedinthelinesofnaturalandpoliticalconflict.Sensitivitytogender-baseddiscriminationcanbefoundwithinbothgroups. Somepeople considergender as adifference thatexistsinnatureandshouldnotleadanydiscrimination.Forsome,gender-baseddiscriminationispoliticalandopposingitappearstobeapoliticalattitude.


30

Letushandlethesesensitivityscoresandtheirclassificationregardingtypesofdiscriminationconsideredtobethemostcommoninsociety.Whenweaskedtheparticipantsaboutwhichtypesofdiscriminationoccurandhowoften,wehave seen that themost frequent types of discrimination based on politicalviews,refugee/migrationstatus,sexual identityandgender.Accordingtotheparticipants,discriminationbasedonethnicityandbeliefobservedatanaver-agelevel.Attheotherextreme,therearetypesofdiscriminationfrequentlyorrarelyobserved.Theseincludementaldisability,physicaldisability,elderlinessandyouth. Thetypesofdiscriminationdeclaredtobethemostfrequentoccurtobetheonescorrespondingtothecausesofdiscriminationthataremorelikelytoler-ated-exceptforgender-baseddiscrimination-.Theratioofthosethinkingdis-criminationbasedonpoliticalopinion,migrationstatusandsexualidentityiswidespreadandalwaysoccursabovetheaverageandthemedian.Thistrioisalsoamongthereasonsfordiscrimination,whichismorelikelytobetoleratedin certain situations.

The opposite of this relationship confirmed except formental disability. Al-thoughdiscriminationbasedonyouth,elderlinessandphysicaldisabilityarein-tolerable,thedominantopinionisthatthereisnodiscriminationagainsttheminsociety.However,declaringtheoppositionagainstdiscriminationbasedonyouth,elderlinessandphysicaldisabilityontherhetoricalleveldoesnotelimi-nateobjectivediscriminationonthesetopics.Weobservedthisalsoduringthefocusgroupdiscussions.Notably,weobservedthatpeoplewhodonothaveadisabledpersonintheirfamilynottakeanyactionotherthanshowingsensi-tivity.Expressedinsuchforms,thepositionofantidiscriminationunintegratedinto actual practice generally does not disrupt the continuity of the currentsituationreproducingdiscrimination.Ontheotherhand,thereseemstobenodiscriminationinthesetitleswherethemajorityseemtoagreeontheantidis-criminationattitude. In other words, although there is a so-called objec-tion to reasons of discrimination such as physical disability, old age and youth, which are not the object of political and cultural conflict, and do not require the parties to take part of this conflict, in a country like ours where there is hardly any inclusive practices for these segments of society, it would be more accurate to speak of the existence of ignorance and insensitivity to the discrimination that these groups live and may experience.

Ifwementionthereasonsfordiscriminationdifferentthanthesetwotenden-cies,discriminationbasedongenderandmentaldisability,becomeprominenttopics.Thescopeofthegroupthatdoesnotacceptgender-baseddiscrimination


31

underanycircumstanceisaboveaverage,andtheonesdefiningitacceptableinallconditions isvery low.Ontheotherhand, it isnotarare formofdis-crimination,suchas thecausesofdiscriminationbasedonyouth,elderlinessandphysicaldisability. The proportion of those who say gender-based dis-crimination is frequent or always remains above the average/median. That means it is observed (the most common cause of discrimination after political opinion, refugee and sexual identity) but not tolerated. Discriminationbasedonpoliticalviews,refugeenessandsexualidentityisalsoseen as reasonable by social consensus, gender-based discrimination doesn’ttakeplaceasaresultofsuchanagreement.Ontheotherhand,gender-baseddiscriminationisnotinvisibleorneglectedasotherdiscriminationsbasedon'naturaldifferences'.Thisisduetothefactthatthefeministmovementkeepthisagendaalive.Therefore, no discrimination that does not form a position in political struggles is visible, on the other hand, as soon as it enters a field of struggle makes itself apparent, the agreement that 'all forms of discrimination are wrong' is beginning to deteriorate.

Thesecondtopicisamentaldisability.Theratioofpeoplewhosaythattheywill not tolerate discrimination against thementally disabled in any case isat the lowest levels, coming immediatelyafter the refugeeness.On theotherhand,discriminationbasedonmentaldisability isnotconsideredamong themostcommontypesofdiscrimination. Unlike other types of discrimination that are more acceptable, mental disability is not a type of discrimina-tion that has a high level of acceptance in all areas. In other words, the discrimination of mentally disabled people in certain areas is seen as natural or a necessity. Herein,thelackofawarenessofthediversityofmen-taldisabilityandhowbroadtheconcretehealthstatusofthepeopleunderthisdefinitioncanbe is likely tobeeffective.Forexample, it is seennormal thatpeoplementaldisabilitiescannotreceivebankloans.However,itseemsunlikelyforthemtothinkthatamentallydisabledpersonwhoisinapositiontofulfiltheapplicationconditionmayalsobenefitfromabankloan.

3.B.4. Spheres Where Discrimination Partially Tolerated and Not Tolerated

Inourresearch,wetrytoanswerthequestioninwhichareasdiscriminationismoreorlesstoleratedinTurkey.Forthis,wescoredinterviewees'attitudestowardsintoleranceofdiscriminationindifferentareas(education,health,busi-ness,finance,neighbourhoodlife,etc.). Ifapersondoesnot tolerateanydis-criminationinanarea,wegiveitascoreof10outof10.Thus,wetriedtofindouthowmuchofthetotalsampleoftheinterlocutorsscored10pointsineachfield.(SeeTable2)


32

Table 2. Fields where Discrimination is Rejected at Most%73,1 Discrimination in the field of health

%56,1 Discrimination by law enforcement

%53,6 Discrimination in education

%50,5 Discrimination in court / police office

%46,9 Discrimination in work-life (low-wage employment)

%46,9 Discrimination in accommodation

%41,8 Discrimination in work-life (non-employment)

%40,9 Discrimination in the field of finance (rejection of loan application)

Whenwelookattherankingofattitudescoresonwhethertotoleratediffer-enttypesofdiscriminationinvariousspheresofsociallife,we observe that discrimination in areas directly related to government services is less acceptable. In the fields related to civic life and the private sector, the level of tolerance is likely to increase.

Whilethestudyshowsthattheleasttolerabletypeofdiscriminationinallareasisdiscriminationbasedongender,italsoshowsthatdiscriminationagainstref-ugeesismosttoleratedinallspheresoflife.


33

4.Result

Theresearchweconductedonthedimensions,agentsandtypesofdiscrimina-tionindicatesthatdiscriminationcontinuestomaintainitsexistenceembeddedinthesocialvaluesystem.Infact,ontheonehand,discriminationappearsasafunctionalelementwiththeroleitplaysintheprocessofreproductionofsocialdomination,andontheotherhand,itisalsothebasisforthosewhowanttomovefromdisadvantagedtoanadvantageouspositioninthesocialhierarchytolegitimizetheiractions.

At this point, those who are disadvantaged by their ethnic/identity and/orclasspositionsarepersonallyaffectedandharmedbytheconsequencesofdis-criminationinphysicalandemotionalterms.Thosewhoarepartiallyorfullyadvantageousinthegivenrelationsofdominationeitherinstrumentalisedis-criminationinanegocentricwayor,denyitortakeitlightlyespeciallywhenresponsibilityshouldbetaken.

Thefirstfindingofthestudyaimstointerpretthediversityofdifferentformsofdiscriminationinsociety.Accordingly,wecandistinguishthreedifferentpo-sitions. (1) Affinitive Perception of Discrimination (2) Ego-centric Per-ception of Discrimination,(3) Exceptional Perception of Discrimination.

Thefirst refers to thepeoplewhoare subjected todiscriminationbasedontheiridentitygroup(s),classpositionorworldview,andthereforecanquicklycapture the discrimination faced by others.The first position constitutes a15-16percentoftheresearchsample,thatisformedtorepresentTurkeyinsmall scale.

Ego-centric Perception of Discrimination is widespread in the society of Turkey. It expresses a selective perception of discrimination. A person is empathetic about discrimination on issues s/he/they think that they can harm herself/himself/themselves and is unconcerned with discrimina-tion s/he/they believes does not directly concern her/him/them. A very selfish way of being. Thatmayalsobringtheideatosupportdiscriminationactively or passively.

TheExceptionalPerceptionofDiscriminationrevealsintheformofunderesti-matingallkindsofdiscrimination.Amongtheindividualsadoptingthisposi-tion,thetendencytoevaluatethecasesofdiscriminationwhichareundeniablyconcrete as exceptional is very common.


34

Howtheseperceptionsdifferentiate?Wecananswerthisquestionarguingthattheexistingrelationsofdomination inTurkeyhave twodimensions:Ethnic/identityandclass.Thedominantpositioncrystallizesinthecombinationofthefollowingqualities:Turkish, Sunni,Native,Male,Heterosexual,Middle-aged,Non-disabled,Wealthy,supporterofthecurrentstatusquo.Individualshavingmoreofthesequalities,eitherfrombirthoracquiredlater,aremorelikelytoapproachtheExceptionalPerceptionofDiscrimination.Again,thosewhohaveleastofthesamequalificationsapproachtheAffinitivePerceptionofDiscrim-ination.Ontheotherhand,especiallyforthosenotbelongingtotheadvanta-geousgroupsintheclasshierarchybutfavouredintheethnic/identityhierar-chy,theEgo-centricPerceptionofDiscriminationisrelativelystrong.

Inthestruggleagainstdiscrimination,itiscrucialtoobtaintheactivecontribu-tionofthosewhohavetheAffinitivePerceptionofDiscrimination.However,itshouldnotbeforgottenthatthisgroupisasmallminority.InteractionswithEgo-centricPerceptionofDiscriminationcanhavemeaningfulconsequencesincombatingdiscrimination.ThisgroupismorelikelytounderstandthesituationofotherdiscriminatedgroupsthanthosewhohavetheExceptionalPerceptionofDiscriminationduetotheirexperienceofdiscrimination.

Ontheotherhand,anotherphenomenonthatweobservedduringtheresearchisthatawarenessofdiscriminationdevelopsinconnectionwithexperienceandnecessity.Thefact thatapersonorhis/her/their family isbeingsubjected todiscriminationduetocertainqualitiesthathavenotbeenacquiredandmakingconstanteffortstodealwithitmakesiteasierforhim/her/themtolookatalltypesofdiscriminationfromapointtransgressingprejudice.However,theex-periencethatenablesawarenessondiscriminationisnotnecessarilyaresultofobligation.Thepersonexperiencingincidentalexperienceswiththepeoplehe/she/theyhaveprejudicesaboutmake iteasier forhim/her/themtoovercomediscriminatoryattitudes.

Anotherimportantfindingofthestudyisthedifferentiationofdiscriminationtypesamongthemselves.Perceptionofformsofdiscriminationbasedoneth-nicity,religionandgenderetc.,whicharerelateddominationrelationsreflectedinpoliticalandculturalconflicts,arenotparallelwith theperceptionofdis-criminationagainstelderly,youngpeopleanddisabledpeople.Discriminationbasedonethnicity,religionandgenderstandsoutasthemoreknownformsofdiscriminationduetotheirintegrationtopolitics.However,beingawareofdis-criminationonasubjectdoesnotnecessarilymeanhavinganattitudeagainstthat discrimination. Aswementioned above, the position in ethnic/identityand/orclassrelationsdeterminestheattitudeofone'sawarenessofthesedis-criminationsasjustifiedorunjustified.


35

However, in the case of the elderly, young people and disabled people, awareness of discrimination is diminished and differentiation accord-ing to the identity and class position observed in the previous types of discrimination disappears. Inotherwords,theperceptionrevealedinthesetypes of discrimination is relatively homogeneous in the society of Turkey.Eventhoughtheyarenotjustattitudes,discriminationbasedonageanddisa-bilitystatusmaybeseenasinevitableaccordingtotheresearch.Notably,thetendency tofinddiscriminatoryattitudes these issues inwork-life inevitablyandtotoleratethembecomesmorepowerful.Ontheotherhand,discriminationbasedonageordisabilityishomogeneouslynottoleratedwhenitcomestopub-licservice-especiallywhenreceivinghealthcare.However,while tolerating discrimination in the market or working life for the same group, intol-erance to discrimination in public service itself should be considered as the expression of socially internalized discriminatory attitude.

Two types of discrimination - against the refugees - particularly Syrian ref-ugees-andagainst thegroupsthatdonotconformtoheteronormativitydueto their gender identities, can be considered asmost common forms of dis-criminationinthesocietyofTurkey.Attitudesagainstdiscriminationtargetingthesetwogroupsdonotvarysignificantlyaccordingtoethnic/racialidentitybelongingand/orclassposition.Thefindingsobtainedbybothquantitativeandqualitative research techniques clearly show thatnegativeprejudicesagainstbothgroupsaredeeplyrooted.

Therefore, while fighting against discrimination based on age or disabil-ity, it is necessary to give priority to the struggle to raise social aware-ness, and it is required to focus on breaking established prejudices while combating discrimination based on refugeeness and sexual identity.

AnotherstrikingoftheresearchisthatthereisagroupofpeoplewhothinksthatpoliticaldiscriminationisprevalentinthesocietyofTurkey.Itisalsooneofthecasesthattheperceptionisalmosthomogeneous.However,theresearchpointsoutthatthereisagroupthinkingthatpoliticaldiscriminationisjustifia-ble.Moreprecisely,thereisagroupthatconsidersclientelismemergingaspo-liticaldiscrimination,asanattempttojustifyformerdiscriminatorypractices.Thisapproachpredominantinthereligious-nationalistgroups. There is a firm conviction regarding political discrimination, especially in the groups who are not religious-nationalist and have no relationship with the cur-rent political power.

RESULT

THE · 3 Table of Contents 6 1. INTRODUCTION 11 2. METHODOLOGY AND THE FIELDWORK 13 3. PERCEIVED...

Documents

Transcript of THE · 3 Table of Contents 6 1. INTRODUCTION 11 2. METHODOLOGY AND THE FIELDWORK 13 3. PERCEIVED...