‘On Turkish Television Women Face Life and Death’: Confessions on reality TV and ‘feminist’ nightmares

In late 2010 Robert Fisk wrote (in The Independent) about honour killings, under the title of “The crimewave that shames the world”: ‘In Jordan a man raped his own daughter. She got pregnant… When he found out he accused her for having affairs with people and killed her to save the ‘honour’ of his family… A Turkish father and grandfather buried a 16-year-old girl alive for ‘befriending boys’… In Somalia another woman was stoned by 50 men for adultery… In Pakistan a young woman was axed to death for having an illegitimate child…’ This list continues. The reasons for honour killings differ but it was the first time a woman was shot to death for appearing and voicing her concerns on television when, in May 2005, after fleeing her abusive husband, Birgul made her way the television show “Woman’s Voice”’s colourful set, in Istanbul. According to press reports when she sought help from the police previously, she was directed to the TV channel and to this particular program. During the live show Birgul told of being forced to marry her husband some 20 years ago. Her husband, she said, had had two previous wives, both of whom he allegedly also abused. Host of the show Yasemin Bozkurt demanded protection for Birgul in her hometown during the live show. However, on her return, as she got off the bus, she was shot five times in the head and chest by her 14 year-old son, who, according to a news report entitled ‘On Turkish TV women face life and death’, yelled: "You went on television and disgraced the family!" Her son got arrested along with his father who was accused of sending him out on the murder mission (wenews.com).

Since the 1990s there have been significant changes in the Turkish television programmes that target women. The shift is from shows that teach women domestic duties (cooking, child caring, cleaning) which all refer to the domain of the home, to shows that focus on overtly feminine issues but with a sensationalist approach. These programmes are introduced as and pride themselves for being ‘the voice of women’. This is apparent in their titles. Your Voice (Flash TV), As We Discuss (Channel 7), From A to Z (Channel D), Let’s Not Talk About That (Star TV), Adams and Eves (TRT-1), Between Us (Show TV), You Are Not Alone (ATV). Issues that are regarded as private are talked about in these shows with stories including rape in marriage, adultery, sexual problems, divorce and violence. In fact, dominance of sexual themes, citing frank and open discussion of sexual practices, orientations and deviance has never been discussed on Turkish television in such way before. With the explosion of the private in the public these talk shows offer entertainment through the discursive construction of the victim, within a space full of intimate confessions.

In a statement Channel D’s management (Murat Saygi) (Sabah, 18th May, 2005) said they cancelled the show because it was becoming a ‘social problem’. In a response to this, the co-founder of the Istanbul-based Women for Women’s Human Rights, also a feminist academic, Pinar Ilkkaracan said: “The major social problem is that these women get no help; they have no other place to turn. I think these programmes have come into being because of what’s happening in the field. Women wanted to speak out, they wanted help.” The host of one of the talk shows, Aysegul Yazici, (ATV, You’re Not Alone) said she was getting around 300 enquiries every day from people who wanted to appear on the show: “The main objective of my show is to tell women that they should not remain silent, that a solution will come if they raise their voice, and take steps to address their problems. I’m trying to show women their way out.’ Interestingly, along with women fleeing an abuse home, Woman’s Voice also featured women and men looking for dates and marriage. So there is an underlying task here: to reaffirm patriarchal structures through marriage.

The idea of ordinary people speaking about their experiences is culturally significant. But do these talk shows refine gender politics and how? Do they raise any form of consciousness on women’s human rights? Sadly, it is hard to argue that they provide women (as audiences and citizens) with the knowledge of basic laws and information on the way in which political system functions or other help mechanisms (if at all available). More importantly, they hardly ever regard women’s issues as social problems. Instead these problems are individualized and do not go beyond sharing sensational experiences on the small screen. Women become constructs of commercialism and are framed as victimized individuals – hence television in Turkey ends up melodramatizing the issues which have political resonance.

“Honour is everything for Muslims”? A note on Vendetta Song, Cinematic Representation, Religious Identity and Gender Politics in Turkey

In Eylem Kaftan’s 2005 bio-documentary Vendetta Song a group of men are asked what honour means and one answers: “Honour is everything for Muslims. It is everything in Islam.” Vendetta Song is a significant film that calls for an analysis for its exploration of honour killings, gender inequalities, the traditional practice of arranged marriages and the semi-feudal social structure in Eastern Turkey within the context of Islamic tradition. The film problematizes the relations of the West to the East (both within and outside Turkey) as the narrative is structured as a travelogue of a woman travelling from Canada to Istanbul and then from Western to Eastern Turkey.

Religious values are significant determinants in cultural practices and customs in Turkey: honour crimes may not be religious but they are certainly religiously practiced. Indeed, violence shapes gender relations in various ways: both in reality and at the level of representation it resonates at different levels: verbal, physical, emotional. I raise three main questions here about the relationship between cinema and religion. The first question is: what can be said about the nature of the relationship between religion and tradition at the level of filmic representation? The second question is: why and how are honour crimes regarded as a customary practice of ‘the East’? And finally: how does Vendetta Song as a film which takes the previous two questions as its focus represent these complex links between the concepts of honour crimes, religion, patriarchal tradition, and ‘the East’? Honour crimes are generally associated with Islam and the East. However, there is in fact no intrinsic or necessary link between them.

Vendetta Song problematises the concepts of Islam and tradition whilst at the same time positioning honour crimes within an Eastern context. The film, on one hand, critiques gender politics through its feminist discourse and, on the other, attempts to deconstruct this misperceived connection between Islam and violence against women. Whilst doing so it also places emphasis on tradition rather than religion. The two are distinguished, and whilst it is accepted that they might intertwine, or that one might be overlaid on the other in practice, by thus distinguishing them, space is opened up for the possibility of critique. The tradition is a patriarchal tradition – and this is what the film focuses on. However, there is a serious issue whether the film, although it appears to want to draw this distinction between tradition and religion, succeeds in doing so clearly or consistently. Whether this is because of the aesthetic choices made in the film or whether it is a consequence of the self understanding of those filmed is another issue which needs to be carefully considered. Members of a society can subjectively (but falsely) believe that things which are not intrinsically linked are thus linked. The point, then, is that religion and culture or tradition are different categories and should be distinguished as such. The fact that a certain tradition or culture is largely based on religious practice in fact does not obscure this point. To conclude, I argue that tradition should not be thought of as justification to practices including honour crimes. To invoke tradition to justify a (violent) practice is not sufficient. Instead, institutional practices must be targeted to think about the reasons behind patriarchal discourses and violent practices.