Social movements under repressive regimes : experiences of participants of the Saturday People movement over time : frustration and solidarity as a stimulus for mobilization

(1)

UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS UNDER REPRESSIVE REGIMES

Experiences of participants of the Saturday People movement over time: frustration and

solidarity as a stimulus for mobilization Zara Toksöz

Master Thesis Political Science, International Relations 2015 Supervisor: Dr. Vivienne Matthies-Boon

2nd reader: Dr. Beste Işleyen Date of Completion: 26 June, 2015

(2)

Cumartesi İnsanlarına

(3)

Introduction

I arrived just a quarter to twelve at the first of the five Saturday gatherings that I would observe during my time in Istanbul.1 The weekly meeting of the Saturday People would start in fifteen minutes; I looked quickly around the Galatasaray Square, but I did not see my father’s friend or other familiar faces of participants whose photos I had searched on the internet before. The big TOMA vehicle2 in front of the Galatasaray Lyceum and a handful of policemen were the only indication that something was going to happen. Yet, when I paid better attention, I did see signs of the upcoming meeting. On the side step of the Yapi Kredi

Yayinlari bookstore sat a women with a bouquet of red gillyflowers in her hand. Across her,

next to the metal statue on the square, stood a guy holding some rolled mats. A handful of people walked out of Meşrutiyet street towards the square, one of them carrying a bag with white plates protruding out of it. Then, at five to twelve the action started: groups of people appeared from the other three streets leading to the square. The grey mats were pulled open and a huge banner was spread out on the ground. ‘The perpetrators are known, where are the lost ones?’ said the slogan in big white words. Sound equipment was put next to the banner. In high tempo two women organized where everybody had to sit. ‘The mothers in the front, the mothers must be seen’ shouted one of them. White plates with pictures of the lost beloved ones were rapidly distributed by the other women amongst the seated people. One of the women looked at the scene, to make sure all the pictures were the right way up. In the meantime cameramen were installing their devices. As I would notice later at the other gatherings, this was also the time for the civil police to act. In the heart of Istanbul, in the most crowded and noisy street of the city, the square was turned into a small area of total silence. A woman took the microphone in her hand and spoke: ‘This is the 523st week we are here’. The meeting of the longest-lasting act of civil disobedience in Turkish history had just begun (Beinin et al, 2011: 123).

Following the People of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina 1977, since the 27th of May 1995, the Saturday People of Turkey gather every Saturday in the Galatasaray neighbourhood of Istanbul to attract attention for the unclarified disappearances and political murders of their beloved ones during the 1980s and the 1990s. The Saturday People, known in the media as the Saturday Mothers, use both names interchangeably. However, in this thesis I will only use

1_{Saturday Gathering, April 4, 2015.}

2_{TOMA or Intervention Vehicle to Social Events, is an anti-riot water cannon used by the Turkish police and}

gendarmerie (Erhart, 2014: 1725).

(5)

the name Saturday People. Both to emphasis the diversity of my respondents and to prevent any risk of confusion. From 1995 until 1999 the Saturday People continuously gathered at Galatasaray Square to demand clarification from the authorities. Their gatherings did not happen without hindrances. In 1999 the meetings were put to a stop, due to violent police repression against the participants (Baydar & Ivegen, 2006: 689). In 2009, when the Justice and Development Party (AKP) was already seven years in office, the Saturday People resumed their activities.

At the beginning in 1995, the amount of participants were around thirty, but it has since turned into meetings which can get up to hundreds of participants. Although the protest started with the gathering of particularly mothers, later on fathers and other relatives joined. In recent years the participants extended to journalists, students, politicians and passers-by (idem: 696). Even though the gatherings are not hindered with violent police acts anymore, this does not imply that the authorities lost sight on the Saturday People.

This thesis aims to explore the relation between the Saturday People movement and the Turkish authorities over time. It tries to understand the effect of a semi-authoritarian regime on the tactics of the Saturday People movement and especially on the personal lives of the movement participants. This will be done through a focus on the personal stories of participants. By placing the narratives and experiences of the movement participants at the core of my analysis, issues of mobilization, repression and emotions will be discussed. Although existing theories touch upon some aspects of the relation between a

semi-authoritarian regime and a social movement, they overall neglect the effect of such a regime on personal lives of movement participants. In this sense, this research aims to contribute to and to complete these existing theories.

My main findings are that feelings of frustration and solidarity, which were created after experiencing the state strategy of enforced disappearances, were a stimulation for collective action. Furthermore, my outcomes reveal that although my participants do not experience physical repression anymore their activities are certainly repressed. Many of my respondents call this a ‘silent repression’ or a ‘silent response’. The obstructing actions of the Turkish authorities against their movement are not physical and visible, but more covert. Even though a physical reaction is absent, my respondents call this general ignorance of the

authorities against their movement demands a form of repression. My findings show that this present-day silent attitude of the Turkish state towards the Saturday People movement contributed to a so-called lasting frustration. However my empirical research also revealed

(6)

that a collective identity and group solidarity can contribute to a certain hope and persistence which keeps the movement alive.

Relevance

A lot of research has been done on social movement mobilization and its relation with the state (Tilly & Tarrow 2006; Goldstone 2003; McAdam, McCarthy & Zald 1996). There is also some amount of research on the relation between repressive regimes and social

movements (Johnston 2006; Earl 2005; Opp & Roehl 1990). But there is a lack of empirical material which supports these existing theoretical claims. Moreover, there is no research which focusses particularly at the effect of different forms of repression on participants of social movements. The result of this study would contribute in filling up this existing research gap.

Furthermore there is some research done on the Saturday People phenomenon, for example research related to different ways of mourning (Kürüm 2012) and identity politics (Baydar & Ivegen 2006). But there is no existing literature on how the movement present-day relates to the ruling government and how this relation affects their personal stories.

I argue that the findings of this research could be important for local dynamics. The result could enlighten the general public with the existing attempts for social change. Through this, it could contribute to the empowerment of people who are uninformed. The research could be an effort to make the general public understand the emotions and actions of the participants of the Saturday People (which may appear disruptive to them). Furthermore it is important to understand the social dynamics in this specific context to understand which dynamics can stimulate mobilization (or change mobilization tactics). This research could reveal some of the dynamics which influence the strategies of mobilization. Finally this research would acknowledge the agency of individual participants of social movements.

(7)

1. Methodology

This chapter will cover the different methods of research, which I used in my inquiry on the Saturday People movement. In the next four sections I will discuss ethnography, semi-interviewing and narrative analysis and I will justify why I used these specific methods. In the discussion I will shed light on the ethical and practical dimensions of my research methods. I will also describe the advantages and difficulties of doing fieldwork in Istanbul.

1.1 Research design

This thesis aims to explore the relation between the Saturday People movement and the Turkish authorities over time. It tries to understand the effect of a repressive regime on tactics of the movement and the personal lives of the participants. It does this through the narratives and experiences of participants of the movement.

As, for me, a natural result of this aim, I will make use of qualitative research to explain the case of the Saturday People movement. Qualitative research tries to explain findings in individual cases (Mahoney & Goertz, 200: 230). Since I want to investigate the interplay between the Turkish state and the movement thoroughly, the in depth methods of qualitative research which I chose allow me to understand better the qualitative aspects of this interplay.

Qualitative research puts emphasis on everyday interactions between people, which can reveal characteristics of social processes, which would not be uncovered by using other methods (Barbour, 2008: 12). Only through qualitative research, with its focus on the meanings that people give themselves to certain events (Ritchie et al., 2013: 3), it will be possible to examine and understand the relation between a social movement and a repressive state. Going to the field and talking with the Saturday People participants themselves, and hereby exploring what is actually taking place and how they give meaning to this, I argue, is crucial to my research.

It follows, that my epistemological position will be an interpretivist position: a proper understanding of the world around us can only be realized by listening to the participants of this world (Bryman, 2012: 380). Taking such a position means that I am focused on

understanding the behaviour of my respondents, instead of only explaining their actions. Besides giving factual information, making meaning of -and interpreting behaviour is key to an interpretive position (Von Wright, 2004: 28). Simply put: my aim is to come up with a reflection of others’ reflections. Participant observation, semi-interviews and narrative

(8)

analysis are the specific methods I have chosen to make most sense and understanding of the experiences of the Saturday People movement participants. I will elaborate further on these three methods in the next three sections.

1.1.1 Ethnography

Ethnography or participant observation is a social research method where the researcher is part of the social scene he or she studies (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994: 249). In order to understand and observe behaviour, the researcher involves itself in the daily life of the ones he or she studies, listens to what is said and participates in conversations (Bryman, 2012: 431). I believe that ethnographic research is necessary to understand the actions of the participants of the Saturday movement and to recognize changes in their relations with and feelings about the Turkish state. This because only by observing them and listening to their stories I can interpret their actions and examine the dynamics between the movement and the authorities. To link general occurrences on the state level (as a period of harsh repression) with actions and experiences of the Saturday People movement and its participants, it is above all important to see what actually happens in their lives. This will provide me insights into the effect of repression on mobilization and on personal feelings.

It would be useful to follow and to be part of the Saturdays People movement for a longer period of time, because that would give a more rounded picture of the specific relation between the Saturday People movement and the Turkish state and could reveal micro- and macro-level changes in a longitudal period of observation. Unfortunately, due to a lack of time, it was not possible to carry out a full-scale ethnography. Instead, a so-called

micro-ethnography was carried out, by joining the Saturday gatherings for one month, being present

at one related protest and conducting in depth interviews with twelve participants (Bryman, 2012: 433). Instead of observing people and participating in people’s activities several months or years to reveal all aspects of their lives, a micro-ethnographer picks some features of a subject and studies these features for a short period (varying from a few weeks to three or four months). Within the broader subject of a movement’s dynamic, I picked the relation between the movement and the state as my research topic and focused on those aspects that had to do with this relation.

Ethnographic research has several advantages. Firstly, the strength of ethnography is that the researcher is really close to the people being researched. Through this, behaviour and changes in behaviour can be better understood (May, 2011: 153; Nurani, 2008: 442). It is precisely this closeness to people’s lives, that more quantitative research methods do not

(9)

capture, that allows me to reveal how and why my respondents act and react in a certain way. Moreover, in being close to my respondents, meaning making processes can be uncovered. Such a process is about the personal meaning that people give to what they say or do. The process of meaning making can show how someone views its own position and the reality surrounding him or her (Krauss, 2005: 762).

Secondly, cultural and language differences can be grasped better and can be placed in the wider context of the research, by observing the respondents (May, 2011: 153).

My study aims to examine experiences to say something about dynamics between the Turkish state and the Saturday People movement, by listening to the movement participants and observing how they say things in a specific context. Through this I can interpret their specific attitude or changing attitudes and relate this back to the broader relation between the

movement and the state.

Using ethnographic methods has also some difficulties. To begin with, there is the question of objectivity. In using ethnographic methods, as interviewing, the researcher tries to get access to his/her subject matters, to conduct the interview in a natural setting and to gain trust from its respondents. Whereas the values of the respondents can be sympathetic to the researcher, it should not be forgotten that the aim is to study the respondents. During the observations the researcher can struggle with both being close and maintaining a certain distance to the ones under observation (Nurani, 2008: 443). Although the researcher should bear in mind what the exact aim is of the study and what kind of attitude this requires, it is an illusion that research can be conducted in a total objective way (May, 2022: 154; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007: 15). A researcher always carries cultural and social equipment that

influence his/her study. An ethnographer relies on this biography (May 2011: 154). Researchers in the field are constantly dealing with new findings, which they have to

interpret. During this reflexive process, an ethnographer involves itself in the social world of the people he or she studies. In this case, engagement with the people is an advantage. Personal experiences of the ethnographer can contribute to involvement in the social life of participants. Next to this, personal experiences, or biography, can be used to understand and reflex on behaviour in its context (May 2011: 154-155).

For instance, years ago I participated in a Saturday gathering of the Saturday People and I had already heard a lot about the movement and its aim through stories of my father and a friend of his. This ‘personal baggage’ influenced the way I looked at the movement and its participants. But I do not believe that this prior experience and knowledge influence my data negatively, in contradistinction: in my view it even helped me to understand and interpret

(10)

choices and experiences of my respondent better. Through the former knowledge I could place their information more into context. In my view a part of the respondents also shared their experiences more easily, because of my ‘cultural baggage’.

My fieldwork also influenced my look at the ‘objectivity’ of the researcher during participant observation. Where I, at the beginning of my presence at the Saturday gatherings, stood more aside and only observed, at the last gathering I stood in between the ‘Saturday People’. Hereby I was participating in their meeting. Although one could argue that this ‘harmed’ my objectivity, in my opinion it helped me to understand aspects of their experiences, such as having feelings of solidarity.

Another difficulty within ethnographic research is the reliance on memory (Nurani, 2008: 444). When field notes are taken it is not always possible to do this at the exact moment of observation, because of the risk of making people self-conscious, but also because of the specific context. Certain contexts do not allow a researcher to be ‘open’ about his/her role. Due to this, notes sometimes have to be taken afterwards, which can influence the reliability (Bryman, 2012: 448; Nurani, 2008: 444). When I was at my first Saturday gathering, for example, I stood in between journalists and cameramen with my notebook, but at that same day I realized that this behaviour made me vulnerable and conspicuous. After talking with some journalists, who told me how they were bothered by policemen because of their news coverage of the Saturday gatherings, I decided to write my field notes quickly after the Saturday meetings.

1.2 Access to the movement and its people: suspicion and trust

In order to gain relevant data, access to the social setting under investigation is crucial (Bryman 2012, 433). The process of gaining access should not be underestimated. It depends on the specific social setting, in what is required to get access, and, hence some time and effort are needed in order to discover the ins and outs of that setting (Hammersley, 2007: 41). On the one hand gaining access is a practical matter: it depends on making personal contact with people and finding strategies to maintain this contact, and getting access to new people through them. The researcher must put effort in being tolerated by the research environment (idem; May, 2011: 157). On the other hand, trying to gain access to a social setting is a process of recognizing the hindrances and difficulties of doing this (Hammersley, 2007: 41). Discovering and overcoming these difficulties can also provide knowledge on the social setting or the people being studied (idem).

(11)

them, it is also about the entry to the research field. While most public settings require no permission to be there, it is necessary to gain information about appropriate behaviour at that specific setting (idem: 43). It is important to be familiar with the ins and outs of social setting, to understand behaviour that may initially seem inappropriate or strange (May, 2011: 157). In every public setting are, like Hammersley and Atkinson describe it, styles of social interaction where the researcher needs to be aware of (2007: 43). When a researcher is not informed about the specific ways of interacting and behaving at a social setting, this can be an obstacle for gaining access to the people of that setting and for his/her further research. The

negotiation of access also involves ethical considerations; I will elaborate on these in the section below.

When I told a very good friend of my father, who lives in Istanbul, about my intended research on the Saturday People he was very willing to help me. He himself participated in the gatherings and also wanted to tell his own story. Gaining access to the Saturday group seemed initially quite easy. I lived at the Netherlands Institute in Turkey (NIT), where I received a fellowship for one month. The NIT is located at the heart of Istanbul and at 300 meters distance from Galatasaray Square, where the weekly meetings of the Saturday People took place. During my first presence at a Saturday meeting, my father’s friend introduced me to some participants who organized the meetings. They seemed interested in my research. But this did not imply that I had immediate access to all the participants. I had to put some effort in reaching people who joined the movement from the beginning. This effort made me aware of the different segments/relations within a movement. As Severyn Bruyn puts it: Clearance

at one level does not ensure clearance at another level (1966: 204). Contact with some people

did not mean that I had immediate access to all ‘segments’ of the movement (May, 2011: 157).

Pretty soon I discovered that ‘hanging around’ at the area of the gatherings (waiting until someone asks me to join or to talk with them) was certainly not enough to obtain my data (Bryman, 2012: 438). I introduced myself to other participants who were not concerned with the organizational aspects, but were involved in the gatherings from the beginning. They as well responded with interest and appeared to be quite accessible. But I misjudged this initial openness and confused access to the group with actual access to the people themselves. The weekly Saturday gatherings were open to all, whereas contact with the participants beyond everyday talks was harder to achieve. Some of the participant reacted hesitantly and I had the feeling that they were suspicious when I asked to make an appointment for an

(12)

experienced reporters to whom they had shared their story, but then never heard something of them again. Again others told me how exhausting it was for them personally to share their experiences. One woman, whose husband disappeared under custody in 1995, told me that one interview cost her a whole week of sleeplessness.3 Through other people who were involved with the movement through either joining their current meetings or reporting about the Saturday gatherings, I heard that a lot of participants, mostly mothers of lost sons, were not able to speak to reporters/outsiders due to psychological problems.

At the beginning the hesitant and suspicious approach of some people, felt as a setback (of my research). But somewhat later I realized that these attitudes were also relevant

observations and revealed something about the participants’ feelings. Discovering this difficulty of gaining access provided me at the same time knowledge about their social setting. Namely, that it takes some time before someone is accepted in their ‘group’. Initial attitudes towards my presence as a researcher could show a lot about peoples’ concerns and interrelationships in the group (May, 2011: 158). Also it could be interpreted as a logical outcome of behavior from the position in which they were (Belousov et al., 2007: 164). In their situation: a general suspicion towards outsiders dominated.

Before I could actually interview some participants it was necessary for me to develop a relation of trust with them. An ethnographer needs to obtain trust of its respondents to gain access to their experiences; a peaceful relation between researcher and respondent can make the respondent ‘open up’. This generally leads to more useful data and meaningful findings (Magolda, 2000: 140). Trust needs to be established from the start of the research. Yet, in my view, once trust is gained this does not mean it will remain in the same way or will continue to be there. Trust is not static; levels of trust can vary from person to person and can change over time (Belousov et al., 2007: 169). In my case gaining trust of some respondents occurred faster than with others. When I told several of my respondents that my father was forced to flee Turkey under the same military regime under which their beloved ones disappeared, I felt a shift in their behavior. This felt strange of course, because it was not me, but my father who lived under the Turkish military rule in the 1980s. Still, since I had discovered that my

father’s story made participants more comfortable and willing to do an interview I

deliberately mentioned it to them. My respondent from interview 1, for instance, immediately asked me to join a protest in front of the court in Gebze the next Wednesday and said he would introduce me to other participants. During the protest in Gebze he presented me as ‘one

3_{April 4, 2015.}

(13)

of us’ to others. This showed me that I was, at least by him, ‘accepted’. This openly

expression of trust made me more engaged with the group, but also affected the opinions of others, positively, about me (May, 2011: 157). I think it contributed to the fact that it gave me the opportunity to observe them in their ‘natural’ behaviour, without being obstructed by my presence.

This did not mean, however, that the sceptical thoughts of every participant

disappeared. When I was introduced by a friend of my father to one respondent for example, her reaction to my father’s experiences was doubtful: ‘What do I have to do with her father, tell me something about her..’.4 With her and with others who were more sceptical, I took some more time to talk about my political views and the purpose of my research (see also 1.3.3 on ethics). I noticed that when I emphasized interest (by showing my knowledge on the movements’ history) and showed respect for the long lasting sit ins of the Saturday People they seemed more comfortable and willing to talk. In general, when the interviews took place, my respondents seemed relaxed and comfortable.

Next to these examples of building trust, I also experienced fluctuation of trust: One of the female respondents was very willing to talk when I met her at the Saturday gathering, but when the interview took place she was more hesitant and careful with what she shared with me. When I asked her, for instance, more personal questions she gave more general answers back. Perhaps this had to do with the place where the interview took place, a tea garden, and with the fact that her friend was with her (although my respondent wanted her to be there). I will elaborate on the issue of place/environment in the following section.

1.3 Meeting up with the participants

My main source of data consists of interviews with the participants of the Saturday People movement. Next to this, my own observations of their behavior during the interviews and my observations of the Saturday gatherings -and one related protest- will also contribute to my data. Through this research I want to get insight into the Saturday movements participants’ experiences and feelings. I also want to examine their attitude towards the Turkish

government. In my view, interviewing is a useful method to acquire these experiences and observe people’s behavior. I used semi-interviewing to both discuss specific topics and made sure to leave enough space for the respondents to come up with experiences, thoughts or feelings that are particularly important to them (May, 2011: 123).

4_{April 11, 2015.}

(14)

The differences between interview methods are usually about the amount of control the researcher has over the conversation with its respondent (idem: 121; Bryman, 2012: 471). Within semi-interviewing, themes are formulated beforehand, but the interviewee is

encouraged to expand beyond these themes and to stick more to their own formulation, rather than putting words into their mouths (May, 2011: 123). During the interviews I encouraged respondents to share experiences that were important to them. I did not only direct my attention to what was said, but also observed the atmosphere and the behavior of the interviewee.

I made a list of questions beforehand, classified along three themes: state repression, movement tactics and emotions. But in a short time I found out that my so-called interview guide (Bryman, 2012, 473) was not that useful during the interviews. To my mind, the

conversations went more naturally when I did not pay attention to the paper and came up with questions during our talk. In the end these more spontaneous questions were somewhat the same as I had determined before, but the order in which I asked them varied and contributed in my opinion to a more smooth conversation. I could anticipate more on what my

respondents answered on a former question and asked a new question out of what was told before. In some interviews this style of interviewing led to a more reserved attitude of my side, since some respondents began a whole story after my first question.

I did not feel an urge to interrupt and direct the respondents back to my questions when they elaborated on events that I did not necessarily ask about. I (more) strongly felt that the first and foremost aim of my method should be yielding insights in experiences of which

they thought they mattered (within the overall frame of state attitudes). Therefore, I believe

my method of interviewing also includes accounts of oral story interviewing.

Oral history is more about the meaning of happenings than factual information on certain happenings. Through this, it sheds light on unknown aspects of events and gives the researcher an idea of the effect of this event on the daily life of people (Portelli, 1992: 50). For instance, when I asked my respondent from interview 3 what happened during the first gatherings of the Saturday People, I also asked additional questions on what she wanted to do and how she reflects now on what she did back then. It is not only relevant if her memory of what happened is correct, her accounts can be – in the words of Portelli – psychologically

true, because it tells us something about what it did to her (1992: 51). To understand the

effect of state repression, these psychological truths are a necessity for my study.

(15)

1.3.1 Sample

I conducted interviews with twelve participants of the Saturday People movement. With most of them I got in touch trough my father’s friend. Contact with the others went through

snowball sampling (Bryman, 2012: 424). Usually when I finished an interview, respondents suggested others that I could interview. The disadvantage of snowball sampling is that I do not know how representative my sample is for the whole Saturday People movement. But since this group changes, almost per week, it is almost impossible to take a representative sample.

My initial idea was to talk with more mothers of lost children. As I already mentioned before, the name Saturday Mothers, which is used by the general media, is somewhat

misleading. The mothers who did join the movement from the beginning gained a lot of attention, but their other children, relatives and friends, always supported them. The

respondents described the movement as very diverse. The movement did not only consist of mothers of lost sons, but also siblings and spouses of the disappeared. Participants varied from illiterate old Kurdish mothers to highly educated students. Therefore some of the participants prefer to refer to their movement as the Saturday People instead of the Saturday Mothers. Most of the Turkish media refer to them as the Saturday Mothers, some more leftist media use both terms with a slash in between. I decided to not only focus on the mothers, but also on other participants, who were actively involved from the beginning. Next to this some mothers already passed away and others could not, or did not want to, talk because of

psychological reasons.

For my sample determination, I looked at who were active in the Saturday gatherings from the beginning (to interpret possible changes) and I tried to choose a variety of

participants in terms of age, gender, origin and education. Among my respondents there were nine relatives of lost people, of which one mother, one wife, two sons, three brothers, and two sisters. The other three included one male, who lost a friend under custody and two female participants who did not lost anyone, but were involved through their human rights activities within the Turkish Human Rights Association (Turkish: İnsan Hakları Derneği) and the International Committee Against Disappearances (ICAD). The age of the respondents varied from 36 to 88. Around seven of the respondents emphasized their Kurdish background, the others gave importance to their leftist/socialist believes.

(16)

1.3.2 Role of the researcher and the environment

The role of the researcher during its inquiry is crucial, because it effects the behavior of its respondents and thereby the data. For instance, it is said that a more sustained relation with the respondent provides more and more detailed information, whereas a more distant relation provides more reliable data (May, 2011: 127). So it is important to reflect here on my

influence on the respondents and on my data.

Although it was my intention to both be friendly and maintain my role as a researcher, in most of the cases I felt more as a ‘friend’ than an objective scientist. My first interview appointment was at the home of the respondent. Due to the length of the journey, I arrived in the evening. He introduced me to his wife and we talked for almost one and a half our about their life in Istanbul - without the voice recorder being on -. We also talked a lot about their Kurdish identity and the (then) upcoming elections. The respondent emphasized the fact of Kurds being suppressed in Turkey. Often when he told a story related to this suppression he would say, ‘of course you understand’, referring to the Kurdish background of my father. Although this felt strange, in some way or another I believe it had the effect of a very natural conversation. This continued during the interview. After the interview, at midnight, the respondent asked me over to sleep, since I had another interview the next day in the same neighborhood. I believe that the respondent and his wife felt very comfortable with my presence and that this encouraged him to talk openly about his experiences. One could question my ‘objectivity’ in this case, since the fact that I stayed at their place made our relation more of a friend-to-friend relation than a researcher - respondent one. But I believe that this close involvement also contributed to the value of my data, in the sense that I can interpret his experiences better and that I can decide better what meaning he gives to his experiences, since I know in which context I have to place his story.

Interviewing is also influenced by the setting in which it is conducted (Bryman, 2012: 473). If the setting is more familiar to the respondent, he or she might ‘open up’ more. In this research, six of the interviews took place at the participants’ houses. I interviewed one respondent in her friend’s house. Three meetings took place at a so-called çay bahçesi, a Turkish teagarden, where the Saturday People participants gather after their weekly meeting. For one interview I went to the workplace of the respondent. I met with one participant, at her request, at a park next to her home. It occurred to me that the interviews at the teagarden passed somewhat differently than the ones that were conducted at the homes of participants. It seemed that respondents talked less freely and were more hesitant in sharing personal

(17)

experiences, instead they made sometimes more general remarks with regard to their experiences.

Although these interviews were different from the others I do not feel that they were less usable, since it showed me how my respondents still had some difficulty in telling me things about what happened more than twenty years ago.

1.3.3 Ethical considerations

Since my participants have experienced and are still experiencing different forms of repression from the authorities, and are in this sense a vulnerable group, it is important to discuss the issue of ethics (Bryman, 2012: 135). In the case of my research the areas of informed consent, harm and privacy are relevant.

It is important to inform participants (when doing overt research) about the aim of the research, before they agree with their cooperation. But also to repeat this later on, since

participants can forget the role of a researcher, when they get to know the researcher better ‘as a person’, and when they meet each other in non-formal settings. Also, it can be necessary to make participants feel more comfortable when they know what is expected from them (Atkinson & Hammersley, 210; May, 2011: 129). As I mentioned above, I repeated and explained the aim of my research more profoundly to some of my respondents, who initially were sceptical in participating in my research. I believe this was important, because it gave them more clarity about my intentions and made them more comfortable during the interview itself.

Having said this, it is not advisable to inform participants in every detail about the study. Because it could have the consequence of participants adapting their behaviour to ‘fit’ in the research aim. But also because the researcher often does not know the precise form and implementation of its research, since this also depends on the data (idem: 211).

Privacy is an important issue within research ethics. Like Atkinson and Hammersley put it: ethnographic research is in a sense about making private things public (2007: 212). It is therefore crucial to discuss issues of privacy and anonymity with participants. I informed all my respondents before the interviews about what the interviews would be used for, and how they would be published. I emphasized that the findings in my research would, in general, be accessible to everyone. In this research all respondents are anonymized. Although none of the respondents insisted on this by themselves -‘they already know everything’, is what a lot of them said-, since I could not form an impression on the effect of their statements and stories I still decided to anonymize them. Moreover, I had some interesting conversations with my

(18)

respondents before and after the interviews were conducted –without the voice recorder being on-, but for the sake of privacy I did not include information in my data analysis which could reveal the identity of my respondent.

In discussing the possible harm of research to participants, this does not necessarily have to entail physical harm (Bryman, 2012: 135). In the case of my research it is interesting to look at the issue of possible psychological harm to my respondents. Since a lot of my respondents have experienced some kind of repression (e.g. physical harm, arrests,

intimidation), talking about this experience could for example be stressful for my participants. On the one hand it belongs to the task of the researcher to minimize such feelings, on the other hand it is not possible to predict whether a certain harm is likely to occur (Bryman, 2012: 135/138).

Although I have no expertise in the field of psychology or trauma, relying on my observations during the interviews I think almost all of my respondents have a traumatic experience of what happened to them in the past. Relying on my observations, I believe that for respondent A from interview 1, it really was a traumatic topic to talk about. During the interview it seemed that she had a revival of her experiences in the past. When she, for instance, spoke about present day happenings, she randomly said ‘where is my son’ in between sentences. Furthermore, she was heavily emotional and seemed confused. Since her daughters were present during the interview, and did not intervene, I let her tell her story and did not interrupt.

Like I already mentioned above, I heard from other people that some of the

participants of the Saturday People movement had psychological problems and did not want to share their experiences because of this. For me this observation was a clear signal to bear in mind when approaching other possible respondents. Before I made interview appointments with my respondents I asked them if they really wanted to cooperate and if they thought they were capable of sharing their story with me. Also before the interview, after I had told them that I would anonymize them, I told them that answering my questions was not obligatory. That I formulated these questions as a guideline, but that whenever they did not want to answer they did not have to. And if they felt like sharing things beyond my questions they were free in doing so. Still it can be questioned of course, if my respondents could decide for themselves if they were able to do an interview. But it was not in my power to predict to what extent they could do this.

The risk of harm is not only with regard to participants, but also to the researcher him/herself (Atkinson & Hammersley, 2007: 217). Heaving heard different stories of

(19)

acquaintances who had negative experiences with the Turkish authorities during their research and after listening to the their advices I decided not to tell everyone about my research details. For instance, I told strangers that I was doing research on social movements, but not that I did this specifically in relation to the Turkish authorities.

1.4 Difficulties and drawbacks

I already slightly touched upon the fact that some of my respondents became very emotional during the interview. During one of my interviews, my respondent began to cry, when I asked about current thoughts with regard to the state’s attitude. I also felt a lump in my throat and I could not talk for a moment. It remained silent for a minute. Until my respondent said: ‘I have to tell you what I think, but sometimes my feelings defeat my thoughts’. I was kind of seized by this emotional response. I think this influenced my role as a researcher somewhat

negatively in how the rest of the interview passed, in the way that I found myself being more hesitant in asking about personal feelings, where I should (I believe because of some kind of unconscious fear that my respondent would cry again).

Besides this I had the feeling that my use of the voice recorder withhold one of my respondents to really ‘open up’. Before I started the voice recorder we had a natural

conversation, but when I said I would put the recorder on my respondent began to tell me the factual story of what, when and how things occurred to him.

1.5 Fieldwork approach and theory

Political opportunity theory and resource mobilization theory were the two accounts of social movement theory which I choose beforehand, as my theoretical framework to analyse the mobilization of a social movement and its relation with the state. Next to this, perspectives within the repression related literature were used to cover the relation between social movements and repressive states, and to discuss several tactics of social movements in response to state actions.

During the interviews and even more after I reflected on the interviews and my own observations I concluded that my framework was too thin to cover my observations. My initial theoretical framework was more about the abstract (political) relations between a movement and the state, whereas in my interviews the stories and feelings of participants were dominant. Because of this, I decided to include a section on emotions within social movements, because emotions prevailed in my observations. I realized that by discovering the

(20)

patterns and dynamic on a more micro level (e.g. interaction between persons, feelings of individuals ), I could better explain macro level occurrences (e.g. government attitudes, repressive strategies).

1.5.1 Data analysis

During the process of data analysis and coding, I used different colours to order my data. I formed codes out of my theoretical framework, such as feelings of joy and frustration which I will elaborate on in the next chapter. But I also used ‘new’ codes, which were formed after my fieldwork. One of these is for instance ‘unresponsiveness of the regime’, since I had encountered that a lot of respondents put emphasis on this.

(21)

2. Theoretical framework: perspectives on mobilization and repression

Understanding the relation between a social movement and an authoritarian state and the effect of this relation on mobilization is key to recognizing the experiences of the Saturday People that influence their relation with, and their reaction to the authorities. I will use social movement theories and the repression related literature to do this. In this chapter I will give an overview of the relevant existing literature on the relation between social movements and (a repressive) state. I will describe different theories and perspectives which, together, will provide a framework to analyse the relation between the Saturday People movement and the Turkish state in my data.

This framework will be used specifically to understand how the Saturday People are approached by the Turkish government and how this influences the movement’s attitude and tactics, but also how specific state behaviour effects the participants more personally. I will use experiences and feelings of participants of the movement to yield rich insights into the influence of the Turkish authorities on the Saturday People movement. I believe that it is significant to pay attention to personal experiences and emotions in order to map the more abstract relation between a movement and the state. A movement consists of people, who all have their own stories and feelings. It is in my view that only after taking notice of these individual stories and feelings more broader considerations and actions of a movement can be understood.

But before understanding the abovementioned, it is important to explain how social movements come into being and why people join movements, as this can be the beginning of a relation between the movement and the state. I will use accounts from social movement theory to do this. Social movement theory provides tools to understand the development of a social movement and to analyze the interaction between a social movement and the state. Furthermore approaches within social movement theory emphasis that emotions take a significant place in this. Other accounts pay attention to the specific role of a repressive state on social movement tactics.

In the next two sections I will discuss literature on social movements and mobilization and I will describe the relation between state repression and mobilization, and changing tactics of social movements. I will discuss resource mobilization theory and political

opportunity theory, but I will also put emphasis on the much neglected role of emotions

(22)

movements. These four theoretical perspectives will be used together to shed light on the case of the Saturday People movement.

In the last two sections of this chapter I will explore the (semi-) authoritarian nature of the Turkish state and give a historical overview of the development of social movements in Turkey and their relation with the Turkish authorities. I will review the position of the Saturday People in this historical context

2.1 Social movements: from development to action

How do social movements come into being? And how do they evolve? Which factors influence their mobilization and their success? Over several decades different theoretical insights within social movement theory have emanated and evolved from these questions. Since I am interested in the development of the Saturday People movement over time, looking at these insights is relevant for my study. I do not intend to discuss all existing theories on social movements exhaustively and the following section will therefore only discuss the most influential and most important theories for my own research. As I am interested in the relation between a social movement and the state I will focus on those theories that deal with this relation. But to adequately posit my own perspective in the academic debate, I will briefly describe and criticize early social movement theories that do not put emphasis on the state movement relation.

Social movement theories can be divided in traditional and new social movement theories. The traditional theories, such as collective behaviour theory and connected theories, dominated the research on social movements in the mid-20th century (Morris, 1999: 531). These theories explain the participation in collective behaviour as a consequence of heavy emotions. The creation of social movements is seen as spontaneous and the participants are regarded as irrational (Morris, 2000: 445). According to this view, heavy emotions can arise after important social and cultural changes take place in a country, for example after a revolution, or after industrialization and urbanization (Kornhauser, 1959; Smelser, 1963). After a revolution for instance, people feel confused and therefore act impulsively and hereby stimulate the creation of a social movement.

According to Neil Smelser (1963) these heavy emotions are usually those of strong feelings of disappointment and frustration after people have to deal with problems in society. Such feelings can make people join a social movement. According to Smelser’s value added

theory, strong feelings of disappointment and frustration (or structural strains, as he calls

(23)

These feelings are fed by rumours and stimulated through unexpected events, such as the rumours about unjust arrests in the 1960s in the Unites States which culminated in exploded in race riots (source). Taken together with a lack of social control, collective action can erupt. A lack of social control can be that authorities are hesitant in their decision to act against protesters. But also that people do not think it is likely that they will be penalized or harmed by the authorities. A hesitancy of the authorities to control collective action and the creation of a feeling that there is a lack of a social control, makes people unite more easily (Smelser, 1963: 295).

Other traditional social movement theorists put emphasis on feelings of exclusion and deprivation as conditions for collective action (Morrison 1971; Krahn & Harrison 1992). These feelings of exclusion arise when people compare their social position with others, and join a movement with the desire to end these feelings (Morrison (1970) & Gurr (1973) in Gurney & Tierney, 1982: 33-34). This happened with the creation of the Civil Rights

Movement in the United States in the 1950s, where the quality of public education played an important role. African Americans felt subordinated in comparison to Caucasian students, because access to ‘white’ schools was denied. Their desire for good education was hindered by society and caused feelings of deprivation which led to the eruption of the Civil Rights Movement (Flynn, n.d.: 106; Morrison, 1971: 688).

The abovementioned theories did receive some criticism from other social movement scholars. After conducting some empirical studies, several scholars (Snyder & Tilly. 1972; McCarthy & Zald 1987) criticized the assumptions of collective behavioural and other

traditional social movement theorists. Criticism was specifically directed at the then dominant belief that social movements developed as an irrational answer to life in a complex society and at the reasoning that mobilization was stimulated through emotions and feelings of exclusion and deprivation. Several empirical studies showed that there was not a strong link between already existing grievances and the creation of social movements (Mueller, 1972; Snyder & Tilly, 1972). New social movement theories like resource mobilization theory (McCarthy & Zald, 1987; Jenkins & Perrow, 1977) and political opportunity theory (Tarrow, 1988; Tilly, 1978; McAdam, 1996) emerged as a reaction to traditional approaches. These theories pay attention to the political context, they look at the openness of a regime to people their claims, and are therefore more useful in my analysis.

Although Smelser’s and other traditional social movement theories give some

interesting insights on how collective action occurs, they do not capture the relation between movements and the state which I want to discuss in this thesis. Several points of criticism can

(24)

be articulated on these traditional theories. Firstly, it remains vague how much heavy emotions and strain is needed to make collective action arise. Are people not always frustrated or disappointed about something in life? Do a lot of people not feel excluded sometimes when comparing their situation to others, or feel isolated from society? So the question which remains open in these theories is: when is it exactly that these feelings of frustration, deprivation, isolation and exclusion turn into protest?

Furthermore, Smelser’s theory for instance, provides the reader with tools to

understand why collective actions starts, but it does not tell us much about how a movement further develops once it exists. For example, under what circumstances a movement would take a break in protesting or when it would restart in taking action. Also, they do not elaborate on the role of the state. The importance of the political circumstances is reduced to instability and disorder at state level, which affect people psychologically. In Smelser’s theory it only matters if the authorities will react or not to protest and if participants think the authorities will react, but no attention is given to the type of reaction. This is not enough to explain the interaction between the Saturday People movement and the Turkish state and the changes in their strategy over time from both sides.

What is the role of the political context exactly in the development, direction and success of social movements? And in which way do emotions play a role? I argue that the behaviour of a movement is a form of political struggle and not merely a reaction due to deprivation. It is a political struggle because the movement aims to reach a set of goals and the achievement of these goals depends partly on the political environment (receptiveness of government and its institutions for participants claims). For another part, the activities of a movement depend on the emotions of participants. Emotions are involved in the political fight, but they are not merely feelings of deprivation. It is important to specify which precise emotions are relevant in the political struggle to reach the movements demands. Below, I will discuss accounts from three theoretical perspectives: resource mobilization, political

opportunity and emotions in social movements, that together pay attention to both the political environment (external factors of influence) and personal experiences (internal factors of influence). Although all three perspectives are relevant to understand collective action, a greater emphasis is put on the role of emotion. This because my methodology is focussed on occurrences on the micro level (feelings of participants); by paying attention to feelings and experiences I will shed light on the case of the Saturday People movement in Turkey.

(25)

2.1.1 Resources

The emphasis in former theories on the psychology of irrational people neglects the influence of other ‘external’ factors on a movement, like organisations and (governmental) institutions (McCarthy & Zald, 1987: 151). This is not to imply that grievances do not play a role at all in the development of social movements, but to show how other factors are also important. As resource mobilization scholars McCarthy and Zald argue: a social movement needs resources to develop and gain success (1987: 150). Resources must be seen in a broad sense, they can vary from money (funding) to legitimacy (commitment of participants) (Staggenborg: 17). The mobilization of these resources is affected by certain factors: the authorities, people who believe in the goal of the movement (adherents), people who provide resources (constituents), the general public and the internal organization of the movement. The support of these groups for the movement depends on whether they directly benefit from the demands of the movement (McCarthy & Zald, 1987: 156). If we look at the authorities influence on resources, the level of social control matters. Social control refers to the power of the state to hinder or allow the mobilization of resources. The authorities can for example block flows of money to social movements (and hereby hinder the mobilization of this resource) or vilify movements publicly to reduce support (and hereby decrease the amount of sympathisers and legitimacy) (idem: 155).

The organizational structure of a movement is also important with regard to resource mobilization. Within a social movement there is a key/central group of people who focus on creating awareness through the media, bringing in more supporters, and searching for political support, the so called cadre (idem: 159). The success of the movement’s demands is also dependent on the achievements of this cadre. Also, certain resources need to be present for a movement to mobilize and to gain success. What these are exactly depends on the specific goals of the movement.

Research of resource mobilization scholars (McCarthy & Zald, 1987; and XX) is largely based on social movements in democratic states, especially social movements in the United States (McCarthy & Zald, 1987; Von Eschen et al., 1971). Due to this societal and political differences between countries are not taken into account. The mobilization of the Saturday People movement occurred in a highly repressive atmosphere. Although they

depended on resources, like legitimacy, to mobilize, all my respondents mention the influence of the repressive atmosphere on their mobilization and further development. Since empirical research of resource mobilization theory is largely done in democratic states it needs to be

(26)

seen if these theoretical insights are applicable in another context, in this case to Turkey in the 1990s and Turkey now.

2.1.2 Political Opportunity

In explaining the relation between the Saturday People movement and the Turkish regime, understanding the role of the political environment is crucial. Political opportunity scholars (Tilly, McAdam), closely related to resource mobilization, put emphasis on this political environment. The theory stresses the importance of government tactics with regard to a social movement. Political opportunities play a great role in the mobilization and success of social movements and changes within the movement over time (Staggenborg 2011: 19). The

influence of exogenous factors is essential for the development of social movements (Meyer & Minkhoff, 2004: 1458-1459). These ‘exogenous factors’ refer directly to the political environment and can, for example, be liberal policies with regard to public protest or new policy opposed to repressive action against protestors (Meyer, 2004: 125).

Opportunities for mobilization and opportunities for the success of mobilization sometimes differ. If a government is for instance relatively ‘open’, there is more space for activists to claim certain rights or to protest against certain measures, so the chances of success will be higher. But at the same time it can be harder to mobilize activists, since they might think there is no urgent need to protest. Whereas if a regime is more repressive against the aims of a movement, chances of mobilization are bigger, but chances of success lower (Meyer 2004: 125; Staggenborg 2011: 19).

In his empirical research Peter Eisinger (1973) showed how political openness towards activists was essential in the stimulation or prevention of protest. He tried to explain the differences in the outburst of riots in different American cities in the 1960s. His findings showed how the level of openness of city governments mattered: In cities that were relatively open to participants claims, riots erupted, whereas in cities that were not ‘open’, riots did not occur.

Although the abovementioned insights from political opportunity theory are useful for my analysis, the theory remains vague over issues such as when and which opportunities are the most important in mobilization and how we determine these. Some opportunities can be very important for certain movements, whereas these same opportunities can be completely irrelevant for other movements (Meyer & Minkhoff, 2004: 1461). Furthermore both resource mobilization and political opportunity theory downplay the role of emotions in social

(27)

movements and its effect on mobilization and activities of participants.

2.1.3 Emotion

Within new social movement theories not much attention is been given to the role of emotions in movement mobilization and changes within movement tactics. Emotions were often

regarded as elusive and woolly and seen more as a byproduct rather than a motivator or explanatory factor of mobilization (Goodwin et al., 2004: 413).

Renewed attention for emotions in social movements started in the 1990s, when several scholars demonstrated how emotions had a significant place in the mobilization and further development of social movements (Taylor 1995; Aminzade & McAdam; 2001; Goodwin & Pfaff, 2001). Deborah Gould, for instance, studied gay and lesbian advocacy groups’ attitude towards the AIDS crisis. Gould showed that when grief was the overruling emotion in the group towards AIDS, the participants were not able to have a more resistant (like increasing street protests, broadening demands and threatening with radical actions) attitude to the government about the AIDS problem (Gould 2009).

Current work on emotions in social movements argues that emotions are important and not necessarily irrational (Jasper, 2011). As Jasper puts it: ‘We need to recognize that feeling and thinking are parallel, interacting processes of evaluating and interacting with our worlds, composed of similar neurological building blocks’ (2011: 286). Emotions and rationality are not necessarily incompatible.

Although resource mobilization and political opportunity theory acknowledge that grievances are usually present when collective action erupts, there is no recognition for other sorts of emotions within their theories (Tilly & McCarthy). Also, in explaining mobilization and changes therein, the relation between a movement and the state is only analyzed in terms of macro concepts such as resources and political opportunities. Whilst these analytical tools can be useful in explaining a part of the development and actions of the Saturday People movement, it does not help us in understanding the personal stories of the participants. No attention is given to the agency of movement participants. It is not only politics which decides what actions participants will or will not take, individual participants have feelings and

experiences which influence their actions. Most of the participants in the Saturday People movement lost a beloved one and had to endure some kind of state repression in the early years of the movement. It is very difficult to imagine that their mobilization occurred without the presence of strong emotions. Both the loss and the repression, had (very likely) a

(28)

actions, tactics and interplay with the Turkish government. The resource and political opportunity angles of SMT do not capture this agency of individual participants of social movements. Hereafter I will describe existing literature which do pay attention to emotions and its influence on collective action.

Different emotions are identified as having an effect on social movements’ mobilization. Firstly fear can hinder collective action. In a so called high risk situation, a country with a very repressive regime, fear among social movements participants of police violence and other forms of state violence can withhold participants from protest. But factors as a strong collective identity and social networks in their turn can reduce this fear and even stimulate people to mobilize despite and even because of a possible threat to their personal wellbeing (Goodwin et al.,2004: 417).

A strong collective identity creates solidarity among movement members and can

stimulate collective action. Shared emotions and experiences can create a strong feeling of collectivity which can motivate protest. Feelings of solidarity can also arise out of ‘negative’ events, a shared feeling of anger or outrage can create a sort of collective identity (Jasper, 2011: 294). As Eyerman puts it: ‘Even the experience of fear and anxiety [..] can be a strong force in creating a sense of collectivity and be an attractive force in collective actions’

(Eyerman, 2005: 43).Based on his analysis of the Columbia University protests in 1985, Eric Hirsch stresses the importance of feelings of group solidarity. These feelings, which develop in a polarized, repressive environment, can contribute to a support for the movements’ aims and tactics (1990: 243-245).Hirsch (1990) argues that high levels of state repression result in radicalized citizens, in the increase of oppositional movement members and the extremity of protest. He describes how coercive government tactics can lead to a strong, angry response from social movement participants. In this way, repressive government strategies, according to Hirsch, can have positive effects on participation in movements (1990: 245; Earl, 2006: 134). This sense of solidarity comes back in my findings.

Charles Brockett also emphasized the importance of anger in mobilization. He argues that feelings of anger over violent state reaction can trigger protest (2005: 292). Brockett studied movements during the armed struggle in the 1970s and 1980s in Guatemala and El Salvador which challenged the authorities. He researched their motives for mobilization. His findings were that emotional responses (next to political opportunities) can turn participants into political mobilization. Anger as a consequence of state repression and solidarity amongst the movement participants stimulated protest mobilization.

(29)

develops when an unforeseen happening creates such anger, that this erupts into collective action (2011: 292). This happening can be a public/general experience like an economic crisis, but also a very personal occurrence like a loss of a family member (Jasper, 1998: 409). Violence against peaceful sit-in or non-violent protest can be the basis of moral shocks (Jasper, 2011: 292). This anger after a moral shock was clearly present in the stories of my respondents. I will elaborate on this in my data analysis chapter.

Unforeseen joy and sudden success can also stimulate participants and potential participants to mobilize or join a social movement (Goodwin et al.,2004: 418). Furthermore, the desire to have an effect on the world can move collective action (Jasper, 2011: 291). If participants in a movement feel that their actions do not have a great impact, or if they feel that they are not being listened to, frustration can arise (Jasper, 2011: 291). This frustration can direct movement tactics more intensively against the specific governmental/political measures that failed to help them. If this frustration is at their own government, the presence of a feeling of betrayal can stimulate mobilization even more (idem). The findings in my data analysis show that feelings of frustration clearly had an impact on the collective action of the participants in the Saturday People movement.

2.1.4 Repression

Although some things have been said in the former section on repressiveness and

mobilization, such as how a repressive regime can raise feelings of anger, it remains unclear how more or less repressive governments influence social movements in terms of their mobilization and tactics in different time periods. Also the concept of repression needs to be outlined, to understand what I am talking about since I use the term repression with regard to the Turkish authorities.

In this study the repressive agent is the Turkish government. Therefore I will only discuss repression that is carried out by state agents, since this is the kind of repression the participants of the Saturday People movement experienced. They did not, for instance, experience repression from counter movements or other non-state actors. I will specifically pay attention to police violence.

In this section I will also use literature on the interplay between the state and social movements in authoritarian regimes. Turkey is a semi authoritarian state; its political system is different from regimes as Iran or the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, accounts from these places can be useful, since it provides a framework in which repressive elements of the Turkish state can be explored. I will discuss the concept of authoritarianism and the

Social movements under repressive regimes : experiences of participants of the Saturday People movement over time : frustration and solidarity as a stimulus for mobilization