By the 1980s, distinction
between children was no longer seen as an unacceptable and outdated practice,
but as a hard fact. Then again, many commentators were reluctant when it came
to revealing the ugly truth to children themselves. Although they greatly
reconciled with inequality and came to terms with a society that favoured some
children at the expense of others, many journalists argued that if at all
possible, the kids should be spared from recognizing their social statuses.
1977, Tercüman, was already offering
its own solution to this problem when it asked the municipalities to banish
residency below street level, so that children living in basements would not
feel inferior to their peers upstairs.[1]
By the 1980s other newspapers absorbed Tercüman’s
approach to the issue, and many commentators agreed that prohibiting and
containing symbols of distinction could be a solution. For example, school
uniforms were considered to be among the primary means of concealing inequality
from children. Thus, when private schools first introduced school-specific
uniforms instead of the nation-wide black school aprons, the practice was
interpreted as an unnecessary display of status, and Hasan Pulur of Hürriyet asked for strict regulations
for students’ dress codes, so that underprivileged friends would not witness
their friends who were dressed in fancy outfits for celebrations. [2]
Similarly, Milliyet asked for the
removal of television commercials for luxury goods that targeted children, for
they “belittled” parents of slender means in the eyes of their sons and
daughters.[3]
Although the angle of perceived inequality was not unsubstantial, newspapers’
approach to symbolic status was problematic insofar as this entailed a covert
acceptance of persistent inequality lest it was not visible to the child.
Therefore, this desire of maintaining the illusion of social equality could not
turn into a plea for a better society but remained an extension of the cautious
conservative criticism of Tercüman
which concentrated on avoiding the symbolic displays of social distinction
instead of narrowing the gap between children.
This timid request
to conceal increasing disparities from children’s eyes was nonetheless more
egalitarian than the downright defence of distinction that emerged in the
1980s. This sly reinterpretation changed the vocabulary of the
equality/inequality debate by detaching it from the viewpoint of the disadvantaged
children and approaching it from the perspective of the already advanced
groups. From this angle, equality was no longer viewed as a principle but
construed as an obstacle that would curb the advancement of already privileged
children. This was done by attaching “equality” to “opportunity,” a term used
synonymous with “available on the market.”
As the equality
concept was reduced to an appendage of “equal opportunity,” it was separated
from its social connotations. For, as pointed out by Amartya Sen and others,
children’s capability and opportunity were quite different concepts. Sen defines a child’s capability as
“the alternative combinations of functionings that are feasible for her to achieve.”[4]
Therefore, just because something was on the market does not mean that it is an
equal and “real opportunity,” not unless children could afford it. The
subversion of the equality concept was based on the assertion that it would be
unfair to close down privatized escape routes in an unequal system. This
twisting and turning of the term emptied it of its meaning as it used evidence
of existing inequalities and egalitarian efforts to advocate distinction.
The pairing of
“equality” with “availability” was especially apparent in the privatisation of
education debate which used the term “equality of opportunities” as a
multi-functional tool. On the other hand, private teaching institutions and
private schools were defended as egalitarian instruments that helped close the
gap between children.[5] For instance, Milliyet’s Mehmet Barlas was among the pioneers to employ the term
“equality of opportunity” to suggest that the upper classes should not have to
lower their standards to maintain social equality. He argued that since the
state was incapable of providing high quality education, it should step out of
the way of those who could afford to take care of their children, and should
allow them to do so.[6] At the same time, the same terminology was
used to oppose public high schools that offered foreign language education. Public
high schools for special students selected by nation-wide tests were considered
to be causing inequality that they offered better opportunities than regular
public schools. [7]
This perspective
was adopted by journalists and statesmen alike, who used the evidences of
dualities to justify elitism and distinction. For instance, Köksal Toptan, who
held the title as minister of education between 1991 and 1993, rarely refrained
from vocalising his great despair that the state schools were in very bad shape
indeed. Although it was highly unusual
for a politician to admit that his ministry had failed its duties, the point of
his declarations was clear: the minister stated that since the state simply
would not allocate enough resources to enhance the quality of education for
everyone, it was time for those of better means to take a stand and look after
their own children.[8] In
other words, he used the evidence of inequality to advocate privatisation, and
instead of looking for egalitarian measures, offered escape routes for the
already advantaged classes.
The equality of
opportunities approach became the dominant theme of the equality question by
the 1990s, when the priority of a just competitive market over a just society
was rarely contested. For example, in 1992, Erol Gönenç interviewed founders of
private schools for Hürriyet’s
private education file, and conveyed their demands such as tax exemptions,
state subsidies and abandonment of compulsory scholarship programs to support
the privatization progress. The article defended that private education should
be a mass marketing product, and concluded that public schools created an
unjust competitive atmosphere which was discriminated against private
institutions, and harmed the equality of opportunities for the middle-classes
by putting private education beyond their reach.[9]
[1] “Bodrum katlarında oturanlar sinirli
ve hırçın oluyorlar” (Those residing below the street level grow up more
irritable and ill-tempered)Tercüman,
12 July 1977.
[2] Hasan Pulur, “İlkokul önlükleri
üzerine” (On primary school uniforms) Hürriyet,
14 August 1982.
[3] “TV aileleri çaresiz bırakıyor” (TV
makes parents desparate) Milliyet, 9 March 1988.
[4] Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. p.75.
[5]
Özel dershaneleri kapatma kararının gözden geçirilmesi istendi” (The closure of
private teaching institutions was called into reconsideration) Hürriyet, 18 February 1982. Oktay Apaydın “Özel dershaneler fırsat
eşitsizliğini önlüyor “(Private teaching institutions help prevent inequality
of opportunities) Tercüman, 11 March
1982. “DPT özel dershanelerin kapatılmasına karşı çıktı” (The state planning
organisation is against the closing down of private teaching institutions) Milliyet, 14 March 1992.
[6] Mehmet Barlas, “Yabancı dil eğitimi” (Foreign language education) Milliyet, 27 January 1982.
[7] “Anadolu liseleri fırsat eşitliğini
zedeliyor” (Anatolian high schools are damaging the equality of opportunities) Hürriyet, 2 January 1987. Kemal Önder,
“Anadolu Liseleri tartışılıyor” (Debate over Anatolian high schools) Türkiye, 9 December 1992.
[8] “Bakan’dan acı itiraf” (Bitter
confessions from the minister) Hürriyet, 27 January 1992. “Milli Eğitim Bakanı’ndan
acı itiraflar” (Bitter confessions from the minister of education: report of a
public statement from the ministry) Türkiye,
20 August 1992.
[9] Erol Gönenç, “Özel okul dosyası” (File
on private schools) Hürriyet, 7-10
June 1992.
No comments:
Post a Comment