what happened at gezi park? a summary.

before tayyip erdoğan, there were different kinds of institutional alienation that worked in separation: political alienations, familial alienations, professional alienations, etc. and distances among these centers created imaginary and symbolic spaces for possible subjectivity.

in the last decade, by combining elements from each of these alienations, tayyip erdoğan created one big autocratic alienation machine for better immersing those who have already became perverts of capitalism. but this meant total alienation and forceful separation for millions of others, each of which dwelled in distances between various kinds of alienations.

gezi park became the sparkle it was, insofar as it enacted and repeated this total forced separation in the last decade. it also worked as some kind of regression to a “time before separation”, in which all kinds of previous political symbols re-emerged in a new context, since people came from different spaces of alienation.

however, when people came and became the “people of gezi park”, they created brand new spaces of alienation for themselves, and these are called “park forums”. after resistance calmed down, these alienations called park forums were carried to tens of parks in istanbul and many other parks in other cities, as well as cities around the globe where people from turkey live.

to see what’s happening:

important note: in english the word “occupy” was used to relate gezi to occupy movement in social media, but the turkish word “işgal=occupy” is not used in the movement, since it has negative connotations reminding palestine occupation, iraq occupation etc.

“resistance” is the word used, and it better represents the enactment-repetition-without-place that the resistance is. namely, death drive.


a small correction: park forums were copied to other places before resistance calmed down, since their copying was a response to a government attack, but they carry on still after resistance has calmed down.


from lacan’s s2 page 127 “censorship is not resistance”

In the strict sense, the subject’s resistance is linked to the ego’s register, it is an effect of the ego. In this chapter, it is an x designating everything, whether psychological or not, whether coming frm reality or by accident, which halts analytic work. Censorship has nothing to do with resistance, neither in the first sense, nor – though nonetheless a great deal more – in the second.

This brings with it the question of what we call the super-ego. I’m telling you about the interrupted discourse. Well, one of the most striking forms of interrupted discourse is the law in so far as it is not understood. By definition, no one is taken to be ignorant of the law, but it is never understood, for no one can grasp it in its entirety. The primitive who is caught up in the laws of kinship, of alliance, of the exchange of women, never has, even if he is very learned, a complete vision of what it is in this totality of the law that has a hold over him. Censorship is always related to whatever, in discourse, is linked to the law in so far as it is not understood.


“activity is essentially reactive against itself” hegel => spirit is bone => analysis is resistance


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s