The economy of global diversity - Day 3

On the basis of the urban agglomerations Istanbul and the Ruhr, a three-day symposium at the Institute for cultural science (KWI) in Essen examines the organisation and development of cultures influenced by ethnical factors in urban areas.

The third and last day of the symposium of the Global Young Faculty at the KWI in Essen starts with a survey on current urban developments in Istanbul, presented first by Nil Uzun from Ankara, and then by Deniz Yonucu, currently living in the United States. Nil Uzun points out that Istanbul’s development in the 20th century hasn’t always been a planned one. Be that as it may – the gentrification was a first step away for the still growing city from the nimbus of being a centre for transport and commerce towards a more finance- and service-oriented hub in Turkey. The according consolidation of the middle class led to a quick cultural and technological development. Historical districts were restored, at the same time, industrial buildings, or those endangered by earthquakes, were replaced by new ones.

Real estate industry and settlement policy: well-directed use of gentrification

Since the theory of gentrification has become publicly known in the late 60s and early 70s, especially the purely economical interpretation by Neil Smith, this form of real estate industry and settlement policy has become a more and more interesting topic for investors who used this theory practically and deliberately in working-class quarters and historical districts. In quarters like Cihangir, the increasing commercialisation by restaurants, cafés, and artists led to the displacement of the local ethnic groups.

 

A popular TV series was filmed in a quarter named Kuzuguncuk, and that fact alone made the „scene people“ move in – the local residents less geared to media trends moved away, though. Regarding this point, it may be an interesting information that some Ruhr cities are currently fighting over the production location of the popular German crime series „Tatort“. Will it be Dortmund-Nordstadt, or Duisburg-Marxloh? Maybe that dispute is intentional, after all...

Construction of tenement blocks increased segregation

Deniz Yonucu describes how the workers coming from rural areas and advancing to the city’s core were driven away from profitable areas in Istanbul since the 40s, first purely monetarily, later also regarding development plans. This concerned Kurds at once, and also working-class Muslims – always accompanied by an analogy from the era of Kemal Atatürk: the „true Turks“ stand their ground against the „other Turks“ who don’t know how to behave in a big city. The construction of tenement blocks for the “other Turks” and a zero tolerance policy derived from New York increased the problem caused by segregation and no go-areas even further: the „danger spots“ now exist within a tenement block settlement, by settling the Curds in the first row of the blocks, for example, police men (partially been paid as headhunters) in the second, and ultra-nationalists in the third. Some of the discussion participants are very surprised by this fact. Later, Deniz Yonucu tells the audience that this completely economised gentrification logistics in the USA leads to compulsory services the ones arrested in such blocks have to do in private prisons. Although regarding to Turkey, it may even be a bit more exciting that Erdogan’s nephew is extremely active in the construction industry. And it also became obvious that a working class also generating terrorists can’t be put in a left wing / right wing drawer – the difference between rural and urban regions and religion / ideology play a role much too important for that. Constructors and tourism centres don’t mind at all, though.

Parallels between the Ruhr and Istanbul

Around noon, Yunus Ulusoy from the Zentrum für Türkeistudien und Integrationsforschung (centre for studies on Turkey and integration research) takes over by providing some insight into the streams of people between the Ruhr and Istanbul (as the hub for entire Turkey). Almost all of the first Turkish migrants in NRW came from rural areas, later, and especially in the 90s – also due to the asylum-oriented German legislation – also followed by groups then (and still) considered „other Turks“ in Turkey. So, those migrants came from nothingness in Turkey into nothingness at the Ruhr: from difficult circumstances into unknown difficult circumstances, just defined via their manpower. Ulusoy calls the first phase of migrants in the 50s and 60s the „era of interpreters“, marked by a kind of orientation phase of the first generation. This is followed by the “era of social workers”, starting 1973 with the ban on recruitment until the beginning of the assisted return policy 1982, during which most of the migrants could/should have returned. But in the meantime, the second generation had arrived, in line with the „native phase“ in the 90s, thus marked by naturalisations. The actual acceptance and integration started only with the „partnership era“ since the millennium, started by a change of citizenship legislation and finalised by the new immigration law. It is shortly mentioned why the dual citizenship doesn’t work for Turks, and the focus of the presentation shifts to the comparison of the agglomeration areas Ruhr and Istanbul and the consequences of emigration and immigration between these regions.

Migration in Turkey offers advantages and disadvantages 

Each year, Istanbul increases by the population of current Oberhausen, while the Ruhr is a „shrinking city“. The Ruhr rarely has any historical roots, but a bit more experience regarding migration, although not regarding long-established ethnic or cultural minorities. Pull factors, meaning reasons for moving from Turkey into the Ruhr, currently comprise the subsequent immigration of family members, followed by academic studies, after that, asylum, and just then, work. Thus, Turkey is only on the fifth position as an immigration country for the Ruhr, far behind Poland or Russia. Push factors from the Ruhr towards Turkey: first, the job market, followed by the lack of approval of foreign qualifications, discrimination (including collective liability for extreme positions not only among Turks), and finally, missing networks, and the still scarce social rooting. Opposed to that, the Turkish job market is alluring, but more competitive. Intercultural competence of German-Turks has a higher significance in Turkey than in Germany, but repatriates have more trouble in coping with the internal differences within the Turkish society. All of the above-mentioned factors are consequences of the uprooting and following abuse as labouring human capital at the Ruhr.

Differences between migrants and Ruhr families disappear 

(How) Should these people be a location factor in favour of the Ruhr, after all these experiences, facing the fact that very few Turks move away to Istanbul, preferring Düsseldorf, followed by Berlin, and Frankfurt? Some answers certainly arise from the above-mentioned, but at the same time, it gets obvious that migrants and established Ruhr families don’t need to be treated that differently. Perhaps in the same way, but differently. A theoretical levelling by summing up class terms, for example, or by negation of other „right“ ways than the German one, the socialistic one, or the “homo oeconomicus” one etc., can’t be the perfect solution – the final discussion is a demonstration of this fact. The interdisciplinary economic group has met. May global diversity remain maintained – not only regarding urban issues.