Arrest of a monument in Ankara: imposing state-led citizenship upon public spaces

5. Literature Review

The Konur and Yьksel Streets have been an open place for different political mobilizations where they can make their demands and declarations public on the streets. This vibrant social environment evolved with its inhabitants too. After all these different actors' familiarity with each other raised a social entity that has been a place for collective and dependent social practices. From Lefebvre's (1991) social production of space concept, this place can be considered as a socially produced social entity with its social interactions since it is forming up a socialness upon the territory. In this sense, since such public spheres are considered as the places where alternative forms of citizenship models emerge by Gцle (2013) and Зinar (2019) too, the government mechanisms' constant existence and surveillance should be studied to understand how and why they function towards these alternative citizenship models (p.14; p.482). Since public spheres have been important ground places to study society and government interactions since they are open places for everyone at least in idea, these constant police intervention in Ankara making the public sphere politically contestant in terms of citizenship can be studied with how and why questions. Lalendais (2015) states that such social productions can contribute to emerging culture of resistance within a spatial dimension, and form a collective identity that can be interpreted in various ways (p.16). In this sense, this collective practice evolved around upon the public spheres are meaningful in terms of seeing the alternative ways of citizenship emergence too. That is why, this study seeks answers to the questions of how and why state intervention into such public places, that are politically charged as oppositional, triggers a change in the understanding of citizenship and what are their functionalities upon the public spheres towards such emerging forms of citizenship models. Since the concept of citizenship is socially, historically and culturally constructed, it is hard to limit it with a particular empirical definition, that is why, I find it useful to look at such politically contestant public spheres where the state mechanisms and society face each other concretely. As it is studied that public spheres can be the places where the new or alternative citizenship models can emerge as a demand to exist or deny a monitored citizenship upon public spheres, I find this contestation between state and society important to understand how regulatory practices of state function towards imposing or advertising a particular citizenship burgeoning from political power's ideological bases (Gцle, 2013, p.14; Зinar, 2019, p.482). In this sense, this citizenship can be thought of and deduced from the practices of the individuals in the public spheres depending on if they are politicized in an oppositional way or not. This contrast concept of citizenship is constructed since governments start to intervene into its social structures and practices by means of governmentality. Accordingly, this study describes this unfolding process of constructing power mechanisms over a public sphere to re-define a territory with its all actors, and express what it does to the meaning of being a citizen by the targeted citizens themselves through establishment of state of exceptions, instruments of governmentality. In this sense, functionality and the visibility of power representations of governments in public spheres can be evaluated in terms of a state-led citizenship-building. In this case, below, I discuss and introduce the relevance of these academic literatures to understand how constant police presence and prefabricated police stations as new parts of the city architecture in the Konur and Yьksel Street function towards nation-building and citizenship by exercising disciplinary and punitive security techniques over a public sphere.

As Foucault (2007) discussed pastoral power as a technique of churches to legitimatize the security of a population with particular aspects from social history, the first idea was that the mechanisms of security sought to defend society from threats (p.378). His conceptualization of security, territory and population with its historical construction is still meaningful to understand the relationship between power, security, and population over a territory. Since the security mechanisms sought to defend society from threats, it turned out to be an `arising social body' that the governments have to deal with in order to remove internal threats burgeoned with this social body (Foucault, 2007, p.380). After all, Foucault discussed governmentality with these debates as an exercise of political power which intends to develop state force which eliminates the internal threads to ensure governmentality as biopower (p.380). In this case, while considering power representations and constructions in public spheres, this concept of biopower is inseparable since I discuss how state intervention towards a particular population function towards discipline them under a metaphorical cultural citizenship. In this research, it is important to remember this exercise of power has this conceptualized role which I will discuss in detail below. Before introducing the literature of power representations in public spheres in detail, I discuss the approaches towards the public spaces in terms of constructing a meaningful argument in terms of studying emerging forms of citizenship models' experience with the means of governmentality on public spheres. In this research, I look at relevant literatures such as, public space, citizenship, surveillance, disciplinary power, urban political mobilizations and governmentality studies. In the below chapters, I follow a structure from macro look to micro look for my research focus, accordingly, firstly, I introduce the literatures that I find them related to the public spheres, actors and emerging citizenship forms, then I bring them all together in the last chapters of the literature. Thus, I intend to be explanatory for my approach to my main-case study by defining the possible conceptualizations before giving more detail related to it.

5.1 Emerging Culture of Resistance in Public Spheres

Public space as a socially produced concept consists not only of the everyday routines of people but also the appropriations of the environment (Pierce & Martin 2015, p.1283; Bayat 1998, p.17). This can be interpreted in different ways; however, it also can say that a socially produced public sphere includes all kinds of interactions where different actors confront each other sometimes. In this sense, accumulations of social and historical events around the Konur and Y ьksel Streets has been an open place for political activism which is also integrated with the inhabitant's cooperation with them. As Dinзer (2016) stated this social entity production for this public sphere too, the Konur and Y ьksel Streets constructed a way of political representation which lets different social and political groups to be visible in the public sphere consisting of different interactions of the actors of these streets (p.55). Referring to Lefebvre's (1991) social production of space concept, activities evolved around the monument of Human Rights, have created an open public space. In addition to this, similar to Lelandais' (2015) study illustrating how a culture of resistance emerged in Istanbul's particular urban spheres, an objection of cooperation towards the government emerged at some point. The functionality of this culture of resistance in Konur and Y ьksel Streets summited during the Gezi Park Protests in Turkey. In this case, these streets with its population have been a ground place for political activism where the inhabitants also support and cooperate with the political activists (p.16). Lelandais (2015) discussed that how an urban sphere became a ground place to spread a political ideology as a result of the historical and social events occurred during the protests and the cooperation between the people who are bounded to this public place as a frequent visitor of the public space, or as a political activist, or as an inhabitant of the neighborhood (p. 16). The research illustrated that this ` culture of spatial resistance' [“rйsistance spatiale”] is produced with the `fight' to claim the public spheres against the government intends to control (Lelandais, 2015, p.18). As Harvey (2008) and Lefebvre (1996) stated too, since life has an anthropological need to be in the public sphere, people appropriate this need in cities by touching, acting and so forth, so that this right to the city becomes a real-life practice (p.108; p.24). In this case, this `right to the city' concept can be understood how this emergence of spatial resistance evolved into a `culture of resistance' (p.108; p.24). In this sense, especially for this research, the public spheres should not be thought through only social movements but with the inhabitants or the cooperators who claim the streets in order to make themselves visible.

In this sense, emerge of an alternative resistance culture representing a way of being on the streets can form up a political characteristic upon public spheres reciprocatively. As Crinnon's (2013) work on `slutwalks' illustrated that the demonstrations do not only fight against a state mechanism that exists in the streets or also against legislature, but also to the discourse of these mechanisms of state to appropriate a public sphere in United States (p.50). More importantly, in the `slutwalks', the protesters fought against the police discourse telling them what they should wear in a particular urban sphere to not to be sexually harassed, in this case, this urban sphere gained a political identity and culture of resistance with the social and political activities intersecting over this particular territory which had never been a critical political ground place for political or social movement before. In this sense, emerge of a culture resistance does not have to be related with the history of a public sphere and the social interactions on that place. In addition to this conceptualization of claiming and appropriating the public space, appropriations of public spaces have different techniques which are hard to estimate before they occur. Coming back to Turkey again, in Ivegen's (2004) work on `Saturday Mothers' Saturday Mothers: The Saturday Mothers (Turkish: Cumartesi Anneleri) is a group who gathers every Saturday at particular times at the Galatasaray District which is next to the Taksim Square, Istanbul, to make a political declaration to ask for clarification about their missing relatives during the conflicts between Kurdish and Turkish groups., the study confirmed that women who occupy the streets blurred the gender-space relationship which had also been defined in contrast too by domesticating the urban space (p.71). A political occupation, or a rapid intensification of cooperation over a public space can cause a culture of resistance which also appropriate the territory where the actors of the square can perform anything social or political.

The Gezi Park in Istanbul has never been a political and social movement ground before the AKP government intended to build a shopping mall after removing the park from its place even if the Taksim Square, which is located next to it, has a long history of protests. As Sadri (2017) stated that the demolition of park made people from different backgrounds come together and resist towards this policy which later led country-wide protests against the AKP government (p.4). In this sense, Gezi Park was also a spatial gathering of different actors which was not organized but emerged as a culture of resistance. Sadri (2017) also stated that the spatial reflection of protests produced a concept of co-existence where different actors came together (p.8). As Gцle (2014) stated, the protests intending to protect the park was not merely metaphorical but also physical in terms of putting a new threshold for demanding democracy in the public spheres by different groups (p. 352). In this sense, manifestation of the public normativity still challenges the ideological complexities of late modernity in public spheres by appearing as social and political activities (Habermas, 1991, p.107; Susen, 2011, p.39).

Especially in authoritarian states like Turkey, since such public spheres have been producing such culture of resistance when there is a government intervention specifically, the `fight' over public spheres takes another dimension. The legitimatization of state intervention in Turkey has an interesting historical discourse. Security, which reflects as control over public spheres in practice, has a dominant discourse produced by state, and one of the most widely used term in this sense is `devletin bekasi' "immortality and continuity of state" is usually used by various governments in Turkey to legitimatize the bases of various political and policy enacments in practice (Gцkse l&Tekdemir, 2018) as Gцksel and Tekdemir (2018) stated (p.380). Gцksel and Tekdemir's work on this discourse illustrated that during Gezi Park occupations this security discourse was deconstructed since the protesters started to see police as threat and insecure mechanism (p.376). During the protests, the “Is it safe here? No, Police are here.” dialogue deconstructed this dominant security discourse over the public spheres in Turkey. As this deconstruction contributed to creation of a kind of public space democracy as Gцle (2013) stated, especially after the coup attempt in 15^th July 2016, the security obsession of the AKP government increased and the use of security discourse I mentioned above started to be used by the government frequently (p.6). The studies of public space are increasingly used to understand the relationship between society and government, since Lefebvre's distinction where perceived space and conceived space interact lived space is produced, in this sense, it is possible to discuss suddenly emergence of resistance is strongly connected to the action taken by the governments where the counter action emerge from the inhabitants or activists (Lefebvre, 1991, p.16; Pierce & Martin 2015, p.1283). In this case, what I observed in the Konur and Y ьksel is this kind of open social space where a culture of resistance emerged in particular political conditions. In this sense, this emerging culture of resistance is following the patterns of an alternative form of citizenship as I mentioned how public spheres can be a ground place for emerging alternative forms of citizenship models in this chapter above. Thus, the social entity around the Konur and Y ьksel Streets developed such culture of resistance in particular political conditions with its everchanging population. It is important to look how an alternative citizenship apart from the other parts of Ankara intensified in this place. Accordingly, the intervention into such a public sphere basically makes this place form up an identity already.

In this part, I introduced the different approaches and studies towards public spheres within emerging social movements and culture of spatial resistance. Alternative ways of being an actor on the streets have an unconscious political emergence. Accordingly, visibility of an actor has a meaning in this picturesque of the politically contestant urban spheres. Hereby, considering the government's exercise of power I discussed above discussing what is visible in the public sphere as a power representing an ideological reminder which defines the citizenship by pointing out the flags, and the shields of the state.

5.2 Visibility of Power Representations in Public Spaces

In this part of the literature review, I introduce the studies and approaches on the visibility of power representations and actors are related to the study. Accordingly, I present what kind of practices of states were studied with similar and different approaches to deepen how my research approach can find its way to study the practices of state mechanisms' results on public spheres and the social entity formed up within. In this part, I discuss how architecture took place in this exercise of power process and how state mechanisms became a part of these architectures of power representation with their constant visibility over particular public places. Thus, I do not separate this kind of architecture and the prefabricated police stations located to the public spheres sharply, but try to evaluate their similar and different functionality in terms of governmentality redefining the population and territory with only different security techniques.

While looking at power struggles over different issues among government and society, it is obvious that there is a power which is not equally distributed in society, but to more someone which is government, in this way, it has a position to exercise this power on its subjects (Cremonesi & Irrera & Lorenzini & Tazzioli 1992, p.6). This historical construction of justified power relations is giving the idea of how state building has legitimacy on regulations burgeoning from the power relations rooted in the relations between state, society and so individual. Weber thought of these offices of government institutions represent the political structure of the founding office, so the offices attached to this main institution reflects the same idea where one cannot escape from seeing a standardized way of office to be followed (Sharma & Gupta, 2006, p.54). As Weber stated, the legitimacy of the regulations burgeons from the bureaucratic administration that tends to exclude public to hide its knowledge, so that there would not be any criticism on the use of power while regulating the everyday lives (Sharma & Gupta, 2006, p.54). In this sense, Dikeз (2007) studied that the exercise of power over a population and territory to sustain governmentality can imagine different urban spheres with different socio-political and cultural conceptualizations which later give the government to secure and control the urban space (p.288). Accordingly, the relationship between the legitimacy of power exercise over territories can be reconsidered with this process of institutionalization. As Genel (2006) discussed, the Foucault's biopower is not only focused on life, but also exclude it from this `bare life' excluded from the political realm with Agamben's discussions (p.57). In this sense, it is interesting to see how this biopower can take form in public spaces since it is also legitimate to be able to secure and regulate the territory and population under a particular conceptual definition such as citizenship that I will talk in detail in the chapters below. In this sense, question of `why does state need to erect power representations in public spheres' can be reconsidered to understand how governmentality is constructed through biopower intending to define a standardized or differentiated or re-defined way of being a citizenship or experiencing the social & cultural structures produced by government. As Althusser (2006) discussed the ideological apparatus is also an educational tool which reflects the ideological and cultural basis of the ruling power, the governmentalizing of a territory has already its political motivations (p.96). In this case, threats are treated like the times of plague that Foucault (1977) described, and exercise of power to governmentalize a population and territory is legitimatized by a social contract. Accordingly, it is also the time when the definition of other emerged by necessarily. Foucault (1991; 1982; 1977) called this exercise of power to control territory and subjectification of the population as governmentality (p.89; p.781; p.83; Lait, 2010, p. 17; Raco & Mike, 2003, p.79). In this sense, for Foucault (1977), the “visibility became a trap” for the other. Considering the prefabricated police stations' establishment on the Konur and Yьksel Streets, the visibility of the other forms of citizenship can be deceptive for different actors in this sense. Since the state mechanisms' visibility on the public spheres are legitimatized and their practices are to governmentalize and secure the territory, the public spheres' contestant agenda is re-visited with this research.

Since public spheres have been open places where the contestation between socially produced or emerged mobilizations confront against the government mechanisms, which intend to `secure' and `discipline' the population, power representations have been a part of this everyday life state building in a public space as Ferguson & Gupta (2002) mentioned it as “spatializing states” (p.984). That's why; states `have to deal with territory with its subjects' to exercise its power so that regulations can be concrete in everyday life practices or any kinds of social interactions (Barnett 2009, p.108 Elden, 2007, p.568). In this case, public spheres became an open place for these practices too, since the visibility as an actor on these public spheres have different interpretations and results. As Bayat's (1998) work on Iran, state intervention into the streets may intend to formalize streets towards the people's use and appropriations of their public space, and this intervention can deal with the oppositions violently to redefine the territory and population evolving around it (p.16). In this case, a maintenance of the governmentality by the biopower, which use the government mechanisms to diminish the differences embedded in that population, can be considered as the creation of subject formation as Barnett (2009) stated too (p.109; Raco, 2003, p. 77; Rose & Miller, 1992, p.175).

Зinar's (2006) work on public sphere's re-construction in Turkey illustrated that how inscription of a monument of Atatьrk or erecting a mosque into the Taksim Square is strongly related to this subject formation and presenting the dominant discourse of appropriate citizenship (p.470). For instance, inscription of Atatьrk monument to the Taksim Square was a power representation of secular Turkey which redefined the territory and population under an ideological mйlange (Зinar, 2006, p.470; De Carvalho, 2016, p. 75). Зinar's (2014) work illustrates how building of the capital city reflects the political project which also establishes and own power to re-define the territory under a nationhood should be remembered while considering all the architecture which are the power representations of the established ruling party (p.228). In this case, engineering of space and monitoring of the public space does directly are means of illustrating the legitimatized power by considering how the architecture, design and symbolism is used (Зinar, 2014, p.254). As Foucault (1977) stated a real subjection is born from a relationship that constrains subjects to power, the roles of power representations on the public spheres have a principle role of founding these relations defining the roles of the actors (p.76). That is why, these power representations should not be limited to a monument or a protest, but to a social entity with its everchanging conditions and actors.

In this way, Turkey's experience with secularization and de-secularization have reflected on these public spheres architecturally especially with the AKP government. The reconstructions on the public spheres defined the roles of actors in the picturesque I described in the just above of this sentence by referring Foucault's panopticon concept. Accordingly, Turkey's experience with Islam in public spaces with a ruler conservative political party illustrated that the AKP government gave an importance to control the urban spheres already in this sense. It is studied that, this led a lot of transformation and re-construction around the cities under the debates of re-gaining the cultural fabric of the nation that also called as `re-islamization' of the cities within the re-islamization of the state-ideology (Irem, 2014, p.141; Dorroll, 2016, p.58). As a preliminary outcome of this picturesque, an understanding of citizenship is practically and mechanically have evolved in Turkey.

In this sense, with various ways of understandings, considering the emerging alternative forms of citizenship models upon politically charged public spheres fell into a trap of governmentality since their visibility on the public spheres is the trap with a Foucauldian approach (1977). In this sense, the visibility of particular understandings of citizenship is put forward by the means of governmentality by punitive security practices against the `other' ways of understandings. This practice can be named with the same theoretical approach as regulatory and disciplinary. These disciplinary power mechanisms in the public spheres are considered as power representations which intend to trigger a change in the understanding of citizenship in the public spheres. Thus, for this study, the constructed definitions of actors' role on the streets, and their visibility became an issue to this contestant relationship.

As Зinar (2006) stated, inscription of the Atatьrk statue to the Taksim Square was a new representation of secular Turkey after the Ottoman Empire, but then the erection of mosques around these places became a new way of presenting power in the public spheres (p.470). This transformation with the architectural intervention into the public spheres has been the power representation of the conservative politics in Turkey in the public spheres. Erection of Taksim Square Mosque, demolition of Atatьrk Kьltьr Merkezi (AKM) in the Taksim Square can be discussed as another symbolic war over the secularly constructed public spheres in this sense when the ideological base of the AKP government is considered. Emiroglu's (2019) work on Ankara's city gates erected during the AKP government rule illustrated that entering to the city defined under a particular power representation and cultural citizenship due to the historical meaning and Ottoman, Arabic, Seljuk architecture dedicated to these gates (p. 100). The City gates located to five different entrance of the roads of Ankara was constructed with the architectural designs related to Seljuk, Ottoman empires. (Emiroglu, 2019, p.101). Like the other studies in different parts of Turkey illustrated too, re-construction of Ankara followed an ideological path of the AKP government, which I discussed more in-detail in the literature review part related to citizenship studies (Irem, 2014, p.141; Dorroll, 2016, p.58; 1993, Зelik).

In this sense, representation of power in public spheres have a political intention obviously. Considering the locating prefabricated police stations and the constant police surveillance upon these public spaces, the police becomes a new visible power representation of the government in Konur and Y ьksel Street. Besides, it also defines the roles of each actor or each individual on the streets in detail by constantly existing on the streets. After all the monuments, mosques erection on the Taksim Square defining the actors and representing the state citizenship definition, the means of governmentality also became a part of this architectural display. In this case, police as a new part of this architecture is more operational in terms of power representing since they are legitimate power exercisers which also represents the ideological base of the AKP government. It is interesting to look at this relevance between how police exercise power against the territory and population to redefine this socially produced entity with different security techniques. Surrounding the monument and the street, or surrounding all the Gezi Park and Taksim Square, or surrounding the HDP political party office of Diyarbakir with police barricades and constant police surveillance with the located police busses are the main practices of the police that I focused on this research. That is why, in this research, power representations should not only be thought in terms of architectural construction but the government mechanisms which I related how they are a part of power structure above. The arrested monument of Konur and Yьksel Streets in Ankara, Gezi Park in Istanbul or a political party building can be considered in this concept. More interestingly, this arrest of the monument or a building is not metaphorical but physical. The only difference from re-constructing the public square with a new monument or cultural center here is that there is not a removal of a building or re-construction of a statue, but a construction of prefabricated police station next to these public spheres where the police is 24 hours is on guard for not letting the inhabitants, people or activists come closer to the related public space.

In this part of the literature, I discussed how the visibility of power representations are meaningful in terms of understanding the disciplinary practices of state towards the alternative ways of being on the streets. Also, I presented how prefabricated police stations or busses located to public spheres can be considered as power representations of the AKP government which intend to redefine the territory and population by not only exercising disciplinary and punitive power against the oppositions but also present a cultural citizenship which burgeons from the ideological bases of the AKP government. Before discussing the literature related to citizenship and subject-building in public spheres and how it is related to the citizenship and subject formation, I discuss and clarify the population that I refer constantly below to present a clearer understanding of the research concept for the reader.

5.3 Territorial Identity or A Project for State-led Citizenship?

Since I talked about territory and power, to clarify the theoretical conceptualization of this research, I need to re-visit the population over the territory that I refer in this research. In this sense, re-defining a territory with a population which can bound to it and regulating them in case they deny the re-definition and try to maintain their formalized public spaces has a crucial place in this discussion. When the government's exercise of power becomes a part of a public space in order to sustain governmentality and order like it happened in Konur and Y ьksel Streets, the emergence of resistance culture which are bound to these public spheres with different motivations and identities makes this public sphere more contestant than ever. Here, even if there is not an exact architectural re-design in Konur and Yьksel Streets, the police barricades surrounded the monument (Figure 1 and 1-a) for 1 year, then the prefabricated police station located next to this public sphere. In this case, police became the new part of architectural design of the street which also establishes the AKP government's power representation in public spheres. Here, why I discuss these contestant power relations over the public spheres becomes clearer since I mentioned that how subject formation is related to governmentality and exercise of power over the territory in previous chapters. Even if an extended and improved territorial identity concept can be defined over these public spheres as Capello (2018) did, to be able to understand how power representations function towards the subject formation and citizenship is possible by looking at what kind of alternative forms of mobilizations or citizenship models are defined by the power representations in the streets, which also define a new model of citizenship burgeoning from the AKP government's ideological bases.

Since there are different discussions on how to approach the population that I study, I find it useful to clarify why I do not use a particular approach which defines a political, social or cultural group over a territory, but a whole population which can be related to these public spheres as a visitor, as an inhabitant, worker, or within social initiative that just been there since there is an emerged resistance of culture. Chacha and Paasi (2013 & 2009) discusses how a territory can be meaningful since the population is bounded to this particular place with particular interests for Europe, however, here in this research, even if I do not have a closed group community which only defines themselves in this territory, the population that I have been referring in all my research is an everchanging population which represents a model of citizenship (p.220; p.124). Guermond (2016) describes territorial identity within a closed group and territory, however, since I am interested in how power representations define the roles of subjects on the public spheres, I eventually describe how a citizenship is being monitored by means of governmentality (p.291). Also, since the public spheres that I study are not isolated, closed or stigmatized in a way but the `fight' and contestation is being discussed and affected by different actors and from different geographies, I find territorial identity, or regional identity concepts are not sufficient to describe my population for the study.

In the Konur and Y ьksel Streets, among the inhabitants, there are common and different economic or social interests of the people which can also be defined under territorial identity like Capello (2018) studied, however, as well as there are common interests among the population there are different motivations, and most importantly these interests are not intersecting with the territory but with the socio-economic situation of their bars and workers (p.490). Thus, the public spheres which can be a ground place of spatial mobilization or culture of resistance towards the AKP government becomes places of control, where the disciplinary mechanisms are located constantly, in order to define the roles of actors.

As Gцle (2013) stated, the Gezi Park protests had an alternative form of citizenship emerged, the similar social structure evolved around the monument of Human Rights can also find its place in the literature (p. 14) Here, what I talked about a contrast citizenship above finds a place in the literature. While the understanding of this kind of citizenship embraces differences in public spheres, the state-led imposed citizenship confronts and intend to diminish the differences by means of governmentality. In this sense, as Зinar (2019) stated it for Gezi Park protests too, the protests denied and targeted the disciplined model of citizenship which envisions individuals to speak with the voice of nation (p.482). This denial is interpreted as an alternative form of citizenship which embraces differences and consists of different voices. That is why, since the roles of the subjects, and the visibility of the actors have a lot to say related to different citizenship forms emerging, I continue my research with regard to forms of citizenship trying to be legitimately visible on public spheres. In this sense, the locations of prefabricated police stations are meaningful since are the ones constituting the mechanical power relationship that define the way of visibilities reciprocatively. In addition to these, as Ong (1996) stated that cultural citizenship is a process of subject formation, the practices of the means of governmentality during this process to convict particular behaviors while acquits some of them (p.738). In this sense, that is why, I look at the security techniques and how they function towards subject formation and a state-led cultural citizenship upon public spheres. In this part of the literature, I presented subject formation of a citizen is related to the panopticon power since they both define subjects upon territories, and clarified why I do not look at my population as a territorial identity but a form of citizenship. In the chapter below, I present and deepen how actors of the public spheres are under subject formation process with the constant police existence in public spheres.

5.4 Occurrence of the State-led Citizenship

In this part of the literature, I discuss how representation of power can be observed in the government's mechanisms, which are to governmentalize the territory, and how it is related to build a form of citizenship practically. In addition to this, I refer to the studies on the AKP government's ideological bases to be able to explain how their understanding of citizenship is constructed. In this study, I am interested in the how question of this process, and how these actors and symbols as power representations re-define the actors' roles on the public spheres that are politically charged as oppositional functioned in terms of displaying the citizenship promoted. As Foucault (1977) described; `docile bodies' are disciplined, subjected and transformed by the exercising power to governmentalize the territory and population (p.136). Agamben takes this conceptualization further and explains it with a concept of sovereign power, which exercise power exceptionally under state of exception, which also impose the subject formation process where the governmentality is sustained and the power is represented very well (Agamben, 2016, p.135; Foucault, 1977, p.136; Agamben, 1998, p.3). In this sense, it becomes the biopower, that can decide the attitudes of the subjects over the territory. Agamben's theory of biopolitics has a very big step after the governmentality of Foucault. In this sense, still, they go together in the territory. Especially while considering public spaces, the biopower as the name of exercising power to governmentalize a territory are very complementary concepts to understand how subject formation and citizenship can be thought of. In this case, biopower becomes a power representation like the monuments I referred above to redefine the territory, besides, this time it also has a legitimate authority over the territory and population to regulate the actors of social life politically and economically. Accordingly, the power representations' role to define a territory is upgraded. In this sense, this new picturesque of the streets with new actors are capable of punitive practices towards the actors of the alternative citizenship models. The conviction of these actors is dependent on the imposed or promoted form of citizenship in this case. If there is one convicted by state power representations on public spheres, the definition of state-led citizenship also finds itself in detail. Accordingly, by looking at what is discredited, the credited one will be visible on the public spheres as the cultural form of citizenship that is burgeoning from the government. The means of governmentality's practices on the public spheres that convict and acquits the population in terms of their social interactions fit into this research approach to the Konur and Y ьksel streets to find out what kind of citizenship is promoted.

Even if the AKP political party program does not indicate that their politics are defined with Islamism, however, observed the ideological background of the AKP has a strong islamist background (1993, Зelik; Irem, 2014, p.141; Dorroll, 2016, p.58; Emiroglu, 2019, p.101). In contrast to this, the social entity that I focus on forms up a form of citizenship which also includes secular blocks within. Considering the AKPs ideological background and bases, it becomes inevitable to face this power representations since the security obsession of the government has been increasing year by year which reflect on the police and military expenditures in Turkey Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute . Stevenson (2007) also investigated the literatures on cultural citizenship and stated that neoliberalism is also a part of this conceptualization with the rise of neoliberalism (p.2). As Boratav (2016) stated too the AKP's has been a full-time implementer of neoliberalism (Blad & Koзer, 2012; Bozkurt, 2013; Цzdemir, 2015). At this point, citizens are envisioned with a neoliberal understanding during the AKP rule, and the non-secular building blocks of the AKP became a complementary of this citizenship concept at first place. In addition to this, I find it quite important to see how the AKP government used the security discourse while defining the public of Turkey. As Gцksel and Tekdemir (2018) stated, during Gezi Park Protest, the suppression of the protests was related and legitimatized with the popular security discourse “devletin bekasi” in Turkey (p.380). This discourse legitimatized the suppression towards the Gezi Park protesters since the continuity and eternity of the state were related to the concept. In this case, according to this, the state could deal with the threats that can oppose against it since the continuity and eternity of the state is the only thing matters even if there are problems. This explanation of the practice of security discourse is also a part of the building blocks of the state-led citizenship in Turkey. As Ate§ (2017) stated too, since the definition of the public presented by the AKP government defined a non-public while defining public under its ideological bases, this non-public consisting of alternative forms of citizenship became the target of the security discourses. Accordingly, since these constructions and practices of otherizing a particular group of people experienced several times, the definition of non-public and public took shape of a distinctive and sharp form. This state-led cultural citizenship upon the public spheres are emerged by this mйlange of being public or being a faithful citizen to state. Especially, considering the security discourses' place in the construction of the state-led citizenship form is crucial, because it is the one that described legitimacy and the roles of the citizenship models on the public spheres. Thus, seeing the state-led citizenship in practice by looking at what kind of visibility is not allowed on the streets is possible in this case. In this sense, this citizenship form can be considered as being subject to the current political power, in more detail, the AKP government envisions a faithful understanding towards state from its public since the continuity and eternity of state is the only thing matters. In addition to this, it envisions a cultural citizenship that is constructed by the islamist building blocks of the AKP where the citizens are following a particular moral construction. Lastly, the citizens are considered as objects under a neoliberal economic understanding at first place.

Considering the police in this picturesque to see how they function towards promoting this particular state-led citizenship is already the research focus, that is why I consider these practices of governmentality on the public spheres to understand what they have to say about the promotion of a particular form of citizenship.

5.5 Monotype Public Spheres, Removal of the Street Art

In this part of the literature review, I discuss one of the most crucial parts of the research where I intend to contribute to the related literatures that I have been studying. First, I presented my approach to the public spaces, secondly, I discussed the relevance between the population and territory, which is the public spaces in this case. Then I discussed the power representations' relevance to the citizenship where the police became a part of the urban spheres physically and visibly. Hereby, I discuss the similar and different examples of how surveillance and security techniques are used towards the social entity where there is a re- `re-defining' the territory with the interventions towards the ongoing social movements against government intervention. Since the location of prefabricated police stations to the public spheres are the power representations which redefine the population, their roles and the territory, the enemy is also re-defined as Golan (2005) studied too (p.73). According to the Golan's (2005) study too, militarizing and policing the socially and politically active public spheres was to ensure public safety first, conversely, it eliminates the opposition towards the dominant government ideology and re-defines `the enemy' in public spheres (p.73). In that case, the exercise of power is canalized into particular territories where the social and political mobilizations frequently appear or where the places that can be a ground place where the emergence of resistance culture can be mobilized rapidly. Control over public spaces with policing is not something new of course. Since I discussed power representations' place in public spheres, I want to add how the nation-building and cultural citizenship can be ensured over a territory and population by exercising power. Since police and military started to become a part of the city architecture, considering them as new re-construction of public spheres and erection of power representation of a sovereign power in the public spheres seems possible. Prefabricated police stations, constant physical presence in the public spheres which can be a ground place for emerging social movements or urban spheres that can be related in any sense which can produce anti-governmental discourse are the targeted places where police and military cars and equipment become a part of the street or public life.

In the literature, there are different techniques of surveillance and intervention discussed. Ullrich & Wollinger (2011) studied that the protest policing can be done by video surveillance to be able to track and create a social network map of the protesters by photo taking units (p.31; Ulrich & Knopp, 2018, p.17). In addition to this, in contrast, counter-surveillance from the protesters, where they document the security techniques of police in case of violation of individual rights, against police can be observed as Wilson (2012) studied this de-constructive technique (p.36). In short, for different security techniques, the expenditures on the surveillance equipment and also the increase in the military and police patrolling in the streets have been increasing (Graham, 2010, p.27). This militarization process of the public spheres, have a governmentality motivation and they are all the representation of power in the streets, neighborhoods and squares in this sense, and as Billig (1995) stated, these power representations are the `banal reminders of the nationhood' which defines the territory and the roles of its (p.8).

It is studied that concept of cities are re-imagined with the street-art, and the states attitude towards the graffiti policies filtered on the `zones of tolerance' (Young, 2010, p.102). This illustrated that the governments put a socio-cultural, socio-economic barrage with stereotyping the parts of particular neighborhoods of streets to allow or ban street art. In this case, the street art is only possible when it can be tolerated by state. As Conklin (2012) stated too, the possibility of a graffitis' visibility follows an ideological pattern (p.144). For this study, I consider street art as a part of the social entity since the street arts representing political images and figures are also social practices forming up the socialness and interaction between the actors. That is why, considering the constant police existence in the streets of Ankara, the change of the social entity that is representing an alternative form of citizenship should be evaluated with its street art too. Accordingly, contestant fabric of these streets has also another dimension where the walls of the streets are controlled and regulated by state while the actors paint political figures and representations. This contestant agenda of a public sphere is studied by Iveson (2012), and the removal of graffitis who are a part of the social production of space and culture of resistance are also included into this contestant war over public space (p.117). It has been written a lot on the visibility of actors in urban spheres, however, here the representations of power who exercise the biopower regulate this visibility since their increasing visibility is legitimatized with the security discourses that I mentioned above and also by the re-claim the territory to make it “re-gain the cultural fabric” with its population, so that the population and territory can also be re-defined.

5.6 Arrested Buildings and Public Spheres

Considering this research, since the constant police existence in the public spheres and the police barricades surrounding these public spaces have a new theoretical understanding, the physical arrest of the monument of Human Rights in the Konur and Yьksel Streets, and the prefabricated police station's establishment next to it has a strong relation over this interventionist exercise of power of the state. Since I limited my research comparative approach to the actors of different contexts functionality towards each other, I should elaborate it to make everything clearer. In this research, I question these arrests or surveillance practices of the public spheres, buildings and public parks to see how they are meaningful to build and promote a form of citizenship model upon these public spheres that are politically charged as oppositional or non-public place by the government. Accordingly, it is important to see this comparison in Istanbul and Diyarbakir since they also experienced similar and different social and political contexts. In Istanbul, the Taksim Square and the Gezi Park closures like in the figure 3 and figure 4 should be evaluated in this research to see how the actor's function towards each other. Also, the arrest of these public spheres on particular days when the 1^st May celebrations, honor pride take place should be considered with the actors taking place on these streets. Since this place is one of the important places where the alternative citizenship forms are emerged as Gцle (2013) stated, this contestant structure evolving around the state and society upon this public sphere should be a part of the research. Thus, the subjects of surveillance, visibility of the actors can be discussed with my main case study to deepen the research approach and method. In addition to this, in Diyarbakir, where the HDP party building located, there was also a similar context of police barricading and surveillance. However, while in Istanbul the Gezi Park is arrested, and while in Konur and Yьksel Streets the monument of human rights arrested, here in this place, a political party building is arrested and surrounded by police barricades apart from the constant police existence located next to the HDP building.