Women, gender and crafts: Turkey

166 ECONOMICS: CRAT-TS 0. E. Haynes, The dynamics of conrinuiry in Indian

domestic industry. Jari manufacture in Surat, 1900-1947, in licomm,ic a11d Social History Review 2.J ( 1986), r :z. 7 -49; repr. l'. Roy (ed.), Cloth a11a CO/II· merce. Textiles i11 col<>11ial India, New l)elhi 1996. --, The labour process in the Bombay hand loom in<lus­

rry, paper prcsenred ar conference on Clorl1, the World Economy and the Arris.in, at Darrmouth College, 1-1:inover, N.1-1. 1993.

--, The logic of the artisan firm in a capicalisr economy. 1-landloom weavers and technological change in west­ ern India, 1880-1947, in 13. Stein and S. Subrah­ m:myam (eds.), Institutions a11d eccmomic cha11!{e i11 South Asia, Oclhi 1996, 173-2.05.

H. Hossain, The alienation of weavers. lmpacr of rhc conflicr between the revenue :rnd commercial interests of the East India Company, 17 50-1 800, in l11dia11 E::ccmomic a11d Social History Review 16 ( r 979), 3 2. 3-45; rcpr.

·r:

N. Kumar, The artisans of Banaras. Popular culture a11d ide11tity, , HHo-1986, Princeron, N .

.J.

D. Ludden, Caste society and units of production in early­ modern South India, in 13. Stein and S. Subrahmanyam (eds.), /11stitutio11s a11d eco11<1111ic cha11ge i11 South Asia, Delhi I i196.

S. Mayaram, M. S. S. Pandian, ,rnd A. Skaria (eds.), Muslims, Va/its a11d the: fabricatiu11s of history, Delhi :!.005.

D. Mehrn, Work, ritual, biography, New l)clhi 1997. M. Meis, The lace makers of NarStlfmr. lndia11 house­

wives produce for the world market, London 1982.. M. Mines, The warriC/r merchants. Textiles, trade a11d ter­

ritC/ry in South India, Cambridge 1984.

P. P:1rrh:1sarathi, The transitio11 to a colo11ial eco11· "111y. Weavers, 111ercha11ts and l�ings i11 South India, 1720-1 Hoo, Cambridge 2.001.

T. Roy, ,,rtisans and industrialization. /11dia11 iveaving in the tiventieth century, Delhi 1993.

-- (ed.}, Cloth and co111111c:rce. Textiles i11 colonial /11dia, New Delhi 1996.

K. Specker, Madras handlooms in rhc nineteenth century, in Indian Economic and Social I listory Review 2.6:2. ( 1989), 131-66; repr. T. Roy (ed.), Cloth and cc>111-111erce. Textiles i11 co/o11ial India, New Oclhi 1996. E. Thursron, Mcmograph on the silk fabric industry o f t/Ji'

Madras />residency, Madras 1 899.

S. Venkatcsan, Crafting discourse. Mat weaving in Pattamadai town, South India, Ph.l). diss., Social Anthropology, University of Cambridge :?.oo 1 . --, l'mduction and representation. Mat weaving i11 a

Sowh Indian town, Centre of Sourh Asian Studies Oc.:casional Paper 3, Centre of South Asian Srndies, University of Cambridge 2.00:?..

S. Vijayagopalan, l::co110111ic status <>( hmulicm/t artisans, New Oclhi 1993.

C. Wilkinson-Weber, E111brnideri11g lives, Albany, N. Y. 1999.

H. Yanagisaw,1, The handloom industry and irs market structure. The c.:ase of the Madras Presidcnc.:y in rhc first half of the twenticrh century, in /11dia11 Economic and SC/cial History Review 30:1 (1993), 1-2.7; rcpr.

·r:

Wch�itcs

<http://www.banascraft.org>

<11ttp://www.c.:oop4c.:oop.org/h igh I ighr/dasrka r/sp _ 1 99 8. hm1>

Turkey

The history of crafts in Anatolia can be traced back to 6 500-5 500 B.C.E. to <;:,irnlhiiylik, a Neo­ lithic settlement where pottery making, painting, and embellishing were for ahead of other civiliza­ tions in the Near East and the Aegean world (Erbek 2.002, 1 5 ). The native Hatri settlement that invented the potter's wheel, the highly aesthetic craftwork of the Hittites, Phrygians, Urarrians, and Lydians, and later on Roman sculpture, Seljuk carpet weaving ,tnd rile making activities, the cul­ tural heritage of the Ottoman Empire, must have had significant influence on the development of handicraft traditions in the Republic of Turkey.

In Turkey today, the era ft production associated with women comprises ea rpct and kilim weaving, quilting, crochet work, lace-making, knitting, needlework oya (edging embroidery), tatting, han­ dling, basketry, doll making, frame embroidery, knitting socks, knotting, marring, tile-painting, and textile weaving on home looms. It represents the skill, creativity, and imagination combined with the knowledge that mostly rurnl women acquire from their female kin or network in their early childhood. Besides the religious and cultural significance of these crafts in daily usage, they also serve as a medium for nonverhal communication through which women find a way ro express their feelings within the traditional social structure dominated by religious and patriarchal values. As opposed to intergenerational transmission of the craft repertoire among women in rural areas, there arc schools, courses, workshops, university departments, and community training ccnters that teach traditional handicrafts as an economic or leisure activity, as a hobby, or as a career in the urban areas.

Internal migration and the rapid change in tra­ ditional economic and cultural structures since the

19 50s resulted in the emergence in big cities of sqmmer settlements inhabited by rural migrants. Rural women nre categorized as unskilled lahor force in rhe market economy. Their handicraft skills became an income generating activity as they engaged in home-based production, formed part of ;1 chain of production, or worked in textile and carpet factories in the cities. Thus, handicraft pro­ duction for domestic usage became a commodity

TURKEY

in the market. Lack of proficiency and education needed to attain jobs in the formal sector forced migrant women to work in the informal sector. The structural changes in the economic policies of the 1980s resulted in "flexible" forms of produc­ tion on the way to industrialization, namely "the informalization and decentralization of employ­ ment, whereby firms rely more on part-time, casual or temporary workers, subcontracting pro­ duction and/or using homeworkers" ((agaray and Berik t994, 78).

Statistics show rhat the participation of women in the labor market is 2.5.4 percent overall, where­ as it is 18.3 percent in the rural areas and 36.7 percent in the urban areas (DIE 2.004). "Unpaid and informal sector work arc largely uncounted in Jabor force and national income account. As a result they remain statistically invisible and despite their importance, are generally ignored in national human resource and economic policies and in budgerary priorities" (Esim 2.000, 8). Thus, traditional handicraft production is one of the forms of home-based activity of women. There are also state or NGO supported cooperatives as well as self-employmenr. The transformation of the traditional knowledge of women in handicrafts to paid work dates back ro the 1980s: "policy ori­ ented studies concerning women in development have emphasized the importance of women in paid work as a way to improve their socioeco­ nomic position. This concern has led to the devel­ opment of income-generating projects, most notably in handicrafts, for women in the 3rd World as a means of incorporating them into the development process and nlleviating poverty" (13erik 1987, r).

Turkish crafts have a distinguished place within world handicraft production and heritage due to their authenticity, functionality, variety, richness, and high quality. In the early periods of modern Turkey, a special emphasis was given co the con­ tinuation and preservation of authenticity and revival of the cultural heritage; however, today, many crafts ,lre either disappearing due to the death of their producers or have to compete with cheap and less time-consuming factory goods. State and local authorities develop and initiate projects for the protection and continuation of these handicrafts via workshops in folk training ccnters ,1n<l supply marketplaces co sell rhem. There arc also women's cooperatives, NGOs, and orher organizations that promote women's crafts as an economic activity (see related websites). A committee in the parliamcnc works for the devel­ opment and protection of these crafts for their

more effective utilization in cultural and eco­ nomic areas, including forming a cultural heritage databank, supporting e-commerce, and incorpo­ rating handicraft education into the public school curricula.

J31BLIOGRAPIIY

N. Abadan-Unar (cJ.), W0111,•11 i11 'fiirkis/J society, Leiden 1981.

H. 0. Barista, Turkish ha11dicra(ts, Ankara 1985.

G. llerik, Wo111e11 carpet weavers i11 rural 'li1rkey. l'attems of e111ploy111e11l, ear11i11gs a11d status, Geneva 1987.

H. A. Birkalan, Cclenekscl Tiiirk s:1nat1, kad111 vc yara­ tu:1hk. Nurten Sahin, in rofkor/Ede/Jiyat 2.1 (2.000/r),

19-30.

N. <;:agatay and G. llcrik, Whar has export-oriented man­ ufocmring meant forTurkis!i women?, in P. Sparr (cJ.), Mortgagi11g rvo111e11 's lives. l'e111i11ist critique of struc­ tural adjustments, London 1994, 78-9 5.

E. M. Cinar, Unskilled urban migrant women and dis­ guised employment. Home-working women in lsran­ lH1l, in World D,•velop111c11t u:3 ( 1994), 369-80. DIE, State Statistks Institute, Ankara 2.004, <www.die.

gov.tr>.

E. D0gramac1, Stat11s of 1110111e11 in 'Tiirkcy, Ankara 1984.

M. Erhek, from (:atalbiiyiik to the presc11t A11atolia11 motifs, Ankara 2.002.

S. Esim, Solidarity in isolati<ln. Urban informal sector women's economic organizations in Turkey, in Middle Eastern Studies 36: 1 (2000), 140-52..

H. Classic, 'fi,rkish traditimwl art today, Bloomington,

lud. 1993.

(:. Kagit<;iha�i (ed.), Sex roles, (e1111ily, a11d co1111111111ity i11 'fork_ey, Bloomington, Ind. 1 9!l:i..

I. Ozti'1rk, Gele11eksel Tiirk el sa11atl11m1a giri�, lzmir 2.003.

�- Tekeli (ed.), Women in 111,ulern Turkis/J society, Arhrn­ ric Highlands, N.J. 1995.

Related Websites

<www.albcnisanatcvi.com>, Grassroots women band­ system model handicraft production for the marker. <www.am1tolianarrisans.org>, Non-profit organization,

providing support for rhe revival of cultural traditions :rnd artisans of Tmkcy.

<www.dobag.com>, Woman-run carpet cooperative in Orsclli.

<www.gapculruralhcriragc.com>, EU funded Cultural Heritage Development Program in Southeast Anatolia. <www.gap.gov.rr>, Multi-purpose Community Centers

(CATOM).

<www.homenetww.org.uk>, International Network of Homeworkers (HomcNcr)

<www.itkip.org.rr>, Statistical darn for exported hand­ woven carpets.

<www.kulrnrmrizm.gov.rr>, Turkish ministry of culrun.' and tourism official sire.