The Disgusting World of Freelance...

Okay, maybe my title is a bit harsh. Freelance work is not all disgusting. In fact, I am quite envious of Nikola's ability to survive in the freelance world. The aspect that disgusts me happens to be the only area that I am really qualified to work in: freelance writing.

Since I will be needing to stay home or at least a year starting this winter I have decided to look into options for making money online. This produces the usual anxiety that accompanies assessing your skills, desires, interests and boundaries. However, the things that people ask you to do online really stretch those boundaries, making the lines of your ethics fill in thickly. I am not talking about all of the advertisements for cam-girls, disguised thinly as "virtual assistants," or not disguised at all. Sex-work, although something that isn't for me these days, is something that I can respect. (Although at the price of $4 an hour I am starting to question what capitalism and globalization is really doing for the world.) No, the posts that really disgust me are the people looking for academic writers.

I am not really sure what I expected when I opened the freelancer section entitled, "academic writing." Perhaps assistance on research projects. Maybe tutoring. Maybe even blogs and electronic publications that are trying to have a more academic approach to their content. Of course I suspected some college students trying to have their papers written for them. What I did not realize was the extent of this rampant deceit. Almost every post was seeking someone to write some sort of paper, motivational statement or entrance essay. This went all the way up for someone requesting that their 20,000 word dissertation for their MBA be written. Not edited. Not assisted. Written. This is something that I have come to expect in Buglaria and Turkey. Grades are purchased. Homework, if it is done at all, is rarely done by those who claim to have done it. But these are jobs coming from the United States, where academic integrity is supposed to mean something. I guess that degrees are purchased all over the world. I waiver in the areas of cv's and motivational statements when the client gives you all of the information about themselves and just wants you to organize it. That seems sticky, but it has come to be acceptable in this world where presentation is everything. I draw an appalled line directly in front of plagiarism.

Of course this is hypocritical. When I was 10 I was writing essays for my older brother. Nothing complex, just book reports, with a promise of payment that I never saw. I wrote my friend's speeches in exchange for her cleaning my room in high school. But that was different. It was stupid and inconsequential. I definitely didn't know what I was doing and how important it is for individuals to be themselves, and how it just decays our society when we are built on never-ending lies about who we are and what we can do.

Between the terrible social consequences of labor without ethics, and the incredibly low wages associated with outsourcing writing I am thinking that becoming a freelance writer is probably not for me. For now I put in an application at one of the local language centers and I will hopefully be able to work there until December. Then, maybe I will take the encouraging offer of my husband to finish off one or two of the books that I am working on while I am home all winter while he works in a world of freelance that is at least skill based and a little less "ghostwriter." 

Understanding.

I wish I understood more of what was going on in Istanbul these days. It isn't a matter of not keeping up on the news. I get my daily dose of papers, blogs, and facebook feed. It isn't a matter of not having friends in the "know." I have people who can tell me this and that is happening, and why they think it is happening, and what, exactly, they will be protesting any given evening. But the fact of the matter is that I don't believe that anyone actually knows what is going on here. Reporters continue to report. Social scientists have stepped in, from anthropology to economy, to make their comments. The prime minister and his team continue to spin in one direction, the protesters in the opposite, and international media in a third. Overall it makes no sense, and what gets me, what is absolutely terrifying to me, is that as the violence dies down and people go about their daily business, it seems that the Turkish government has won and will write history. Ten years ago I would not have minded the government winning. Sometimes it is better for the people if the government wins, I thought. These days the anarchist in me hopes strongly for the underdog to win. But hopes and political theories aside, this is what I know:

Yesterday I went to sushi with Nikola and his co-workers. I decided that I would take the metro from Taksim, just to see how things were now that (from what I have heard) things have died down. When I got to Taksim it did not appear that things had died down at all. There was a line of police men all around the statue in Taksim square, and surrounding the main square as well. At every entrance to Taksim officers were refusing to let people pass. I asked to be let down into the metro and was informed that I could not pass. I decided to walk around and barely made it out of the square before officers sealed off another entrance. I walked about a kilometer down the road to the next metro station, all the while passing police officers streaming into Taksim.

I was told last night was special. It was a memorial for one of the men who had died during the protests (now being called riots?) and of course the police needed to increase their presence. But one thing truly bothers me. The statement that the prime minister gave about the park needing to be open to all. I already commented on the absurdity of that statement as a park is not "open to all" if it is being torn down. But last night I wondered, how on earth can any one trust that man when this is his definition of, "open to all." Apparently, "open to all," means that it is sealed off by police to the point that public transit isn't working and people cannot even walk through a space, let alone rest and enjoy it. I was down in the park during the protests. They were truly open to all. I feel that anyone could have gone down there and wandered, and spoken, and existed. Now, they are closed. Now they have been taken by a singular, selfish group making claims that they know what is best for everyone. "Open to all," means that they are apparently protecting it from everyone. It was tragic. 

Same-sex couples in the Peace Corps

http://www.advocate.com/travel/2013/05/22/peace-corps-recognizes-respects-same-sex-couples

I want to start by saying that I am not exactly against this. I am more confused by it as I am unsure of how the implementation will actually take place. I am also slightly tired from it as it re-enforces the ideal of the romantic relationship as the most important, end-all relationship in everyone's life.

I know that in Bulgaria the Peace Corps staff encouraged LGBTQ volunteers to remain closeted when they were at their sites, and to only tell people who they knew very closely and were sure would keep it a secret. This is partially due to the safety of volunteers, and partially due to the effectiveness of volunteers. I have heard countless rude, gross things said about gay men in Bulgaria, some in jest, and some fueled by obvious hate, and so it is easy for me to understand how the effectiveness of a volunteer to complete his work could be compromised if he (or she) was outed as gay. Volunteers are often in high profile positions, working with mayors, schools, etc, and so keeping an image within the host country is important. I am not saying that every site is the same, or every country, but I can definitely see why we were instructed to be cautious in this area of our lives.

With that being, unfortunately, accepted I am wondering how they will work with this. Will they send same-sex couples to countries where it is acceptable? I am sure those exist, somewhere. Or will they play the same-sex couple off as, "good friends serving together?" It seems odd when no other volunteers get good friends to help them, and all other people placed together and especially living together happen to be married. Maybe the set up in different countries would allow for this without suspicion.

But, what really gets me, is how many times my best friend during service and I wished that we could have been assigned to the same site. There were so many ways that we could have played off of each other's strengths and really benefited the host country while offering much needed support to each other. But, people who are not married are required to serve alone. It is supposedly better for integration. The Peace Corps does not recognize that for some people integration is actually facilitated (and not hindered) by having an integration wing-man. But the entire Peace Corps program is set up to isolate volunteers and romanticizes the experience as a lonely volunteer as authentic and necessary. This is unless, of course, the person has a valid romantic partner.

I want to know why romance is so highly valued by the government, and why does it get to be judged and validated by the government. A couple cannot be long-term dating, they must be married. Same-sex couples who can't get married have to sign an affidavit basically, I assume, saying that their relationship is like a marriage- committed and based on love. To me it is bullshit. How does romantic-love better serve the host country than two friends who are also committed to each other, neither sexually or romantically involved, and yet perhaps have worked together for many years? Why can they not serve together but two people who are romantically involved but maybe can't work at all together professionally can?  Why is the romantic relationship the only one considered important and given special preference?

I get that this is in some ways very important for gay rights. However, at the same time I believe it is reinforcing this myth of monogamy and romance as the two most important factors in life. Granted, I am married now so that I can enjoy the benefits of the government recognition of my relationship as lasting, authentic, and positive for the community. But I don't believe it should be necessary, or it should be worshiped quite as strongly. 

Silence.

The protesters have been cast out of Gezi Park, using too much force, justified by the global fetish-fear of "terrorism." I still check the news every evening, but fewer and fewer articles are being written and now the blogs are reflecting on the past instead of current events. It is as if by going back to the beginning in their thoughts people are putting the period on the protests. Still, there are the standing people (A protest that officials consider "pleasing to the eye.") and rumors of people making plans in their neighborhoods. But mostly it feels like things in Istanbul are back to normal. All of my pessimistic aquaintences were right in assuming that nothing would change. I had thought that something would change. I thought that with the force of international media something had to change. But the thing is that the international media never cared about WHAT the people in Turkey were protesting. They only cared about the violence. Now that the violence (physical) has stopped it is no longer considered an important topic. Really it is no longer interesting, and no longer "easy." It is easy to tell a story of an authoritarian regime. The pictures spoke for themselves. But now the journalism would get messy. It would get involved, and westerners don't have the patience to get involved in their own affairs, let alone those of people thousands of miles away.

What is most unsettling to me these days is reading the reaction of the officials. The smugness of the Prime Minister, and the foreign ministers. They are trying to spin everything into dominant history, and I fear that it is working. This will go down in history as a peaceful protest that got hijacked by militant, violent, terrorist groups. Within a year the government will actually look like it was protecting the Turkish people and come out in a positive position from these protests. But every statement that they release just seems too condescending, and too smug for people to accept. Yet people are accepting them, or at least no longer speaking out against them. I don't really blame them. It must be hard to speak when your supposed leader has cut off your head and virtually made it illegal for anyone to disagree with him.

I love one of the official's statements regarding the standing man protests. He said that they are pleasing to the eye, but people should only stand for five minutes and then on the sixth minute go about their business. I think he misunderstands what a protest is. A protest is supposed to disrupt society strongly enough to make people consider their actions and beliefs. But now any disruption is considered violent and any dissent is considered an attack. Five minutes is not a protest, it is a brief memorial to the death of something that was once beautiful. Okay, beautiful is maybe a dramatic and incorrect choice of word. Not beautiful, but living. Pulsing. Messy.

I think the biggest loss here is going to be the forgetting of who is considered Turkish, and who is not considered Turkish by the sovereign. He made it very clear that he represents only the AKP, and not all people of Turkey. He attempted to strip the minority of their national identity. Real Turks support the party in power. Real Turks don't dissent. Real Turks don't protest, he seems to say. What does that make all of the thousands of people who protested? They are NOT some fringe group. They are not social deviants. They love their country, aand are proud of their heritage. They just want to be heard and represented.

It started about trees, but grew into so much more, and in the end it seems like it to will once again be only about trees.

Silence.

An Obsession with Progress

Lately progress has been on my mind. It dug in there via a crazy-haired, impassioned professor speaking about Benjamin in an obviously loving tone. According to Benjamin, social progression is a myth. Human nature is... well, natural. History is, like nature, cyclical. It is a constant repetition of the same tragedies that are justified as necessary by the myth of progression. Things like technology progresses, but the ways in which we use it stay in the same pattern. But, Benjamin believes that history will start. He believes that there will come a time when things are called by their true names, and we can grieve properly, and afterwards something "new" will actually begin, thus beginning history.

I swallowed Benjamin hook, line, and sinker. Everything that my teacher said seemed to make perfect sense. Except for one thing that I am beginning to realize now- even Benjamin was wrapped up in this obsession with progression. Although he didn't believe that it had started yet he did believe that it would happen, and that it is something we need to work towards. He had, what may have been an absurd, hope that humans would progress.

Progress, it seems, goes hand in hand with another favorite topic of mine lately, stolen from Foucault: measurement. Measurement, expertise, and science guide the average person's life. We measure our weight, our height, our body fat, our temperature. (Which is a common topic for me to discuss: body image and the scale). I was looking up some new yoga poses and I can across a blog which had before and after pictures, so that a girl could measure her progress in yoga. It made me think about my dread updates and how I am constantly measuring their progress, and how it really just makes me much more impatient.

I don't think I am ready to give up measurement, but I do think that I can work on my relationship with the concept of progress, and instead to start noticing changes. It will be difficult, as I grew up in a society obsessed with progress and SMART goals and always being on your way towards something. I think that it is time, though, for me to start being in the moment, and experiencing what is here now, and not focusing so deeply on this concept of an ultimate destination and progress towards it. 

Foucault's Police

Last night, watching Gezi Park be "evacuated" by the Turkish police (Online, from the safety of my home) I finally began to physically comprehend Foucault's ideas regarding examination and visibility. Today, reading the strong propaganda line that the prime minister is following regarding what is and isn't legal, and what is and isn't happening, I am beginning to understand more clearly the concept of the sovereign and homo sacer. Watching a counter-rally march down my street today and hearing my husband ask how anyone can still support the current Turkish government I am finally beginning to understand the gravity of the state and the stateless. It is as if last semester frothed up perfectly into this resistance, giving me almost too many platforms for understanding what is going on in Istanbul. At the same time I feel clueless, and all of my studying of the social sciences can not prepare me to fully comprehend the mess that is still happening.

Still happening. I know the world moves on, every morning, to the next 'big' thing, but for the people living here it is continuing, day after day.

Last night what was visible, from the few camera angles available, was a wall of completely anonymous police, covered in gas masks, dressed in black, saying absolutely nothing and imbued with the power of the 'state.' Against them was a large group of individuals, each dressed differently, each shouting their own individual opinions, each banding together with different groups, and each risking their individual lives. What was on display was the individual. What was hidden was the power of the state. Granted, each of those officers has an individual beneath those masks, and each of those individuals must make the choice to follow orders, but the very issuing of these orders takes away the risk and responsibility from the individual police. Notice that they have nothing to say- they are just doing their job. They retreat and buy a snack or a tea. They take off their masks, talk with people passing by, and then they show a bit of personality, but every action of brutality is sanctioned, asked for, by the government. You would think, then, that the government would be held responsible for the injuries on the streets, and the continuing of the riots. Granted, the government is harder to pin down than an individual, but still, there should be some level where accountability can be found. But, in the modern nation state that accountability can apparently be spread to the people. From what I understand is that about 50 percent of the vote went to AKP last election, and what Erdogan apparently thinks this means is that he can act in the interest of these 50% and call the rest of the people minority, marginal, riff raff. Basically the law he set was that all "good" citizens would evacuate the park and anyone who was left there could only be a terrorist or a member of a "marginal" organization that does not represent "Turkey." Maybe the question should not be whether these groups and even individuals represent Turkey, but whether Turkey is representing them. From what I can understand, the later is not happening. The sovereign power just blatantly created a state of homo sacer (someone who is outside of protection, who can be killed without consequence or ritual).

Okay, killing might be a bit far. But people ARE being injured, and arrested, for expressing dissent.

Now, the question that my husband asked of how these people could walk proudly down the street today, carrying banners for the AKP, when this is obviously just going to make things worse, and no one is handling this situation well? The answer is obvious to me. If the sovereign has the power to declare a state of wild homo sacer, then the only 'safe' place to be is with him. If he is going to favor only the people who support him then they benefit by supporting him more, because they will ultimately get more at the cost of everyone else getting less. It isn't honorable, but it is unfortunately how the modern state seems to work.

Tonight there is a thick cloud of smoke hovering over Taksim. Small skirmishes and the banging of pots and pans, what has become the symbol for this resistance. It is somehow heartwarming to see the continuance today after the brutality last night. It could have, honestly, began to end this weekend. But now, it has the potential to drag on for quite some time, and hopefully, not be forgotten. 

Romancing Resistance: the takeover

How long does it take before a motion of resistance is hijacked? Two, three days? Maybe it can live for a week. I am more skeptical than that though. I think that on the moment of action, the motion becomes more than its intention. Because, the truth is, that for most of our actions we actually lack any intention whatsoever. Those actions- the yelling in the streets, the camping out, the throwing of stones, had very little intention, and in some ways they were quite pure. But then groups started coming in, trying to make sense of things. The communists, the anarchists, the i-am-not-sure-who-but-they-definitely-have-a-flags. I guess that is the problem with a platform- everyone wants to stand on it.

Last night Nikola and I were walking home from dinner when we were hit by a particularly strong sensation in the air. I described it as if someone was cutting onions directly in front of me. He was a bit more accurate, saying that it felt like hot peppers. For about a minute we were genuinely confused, and I was looking around for some sort of barbecue. I saw two boys pass by in the guy fawkes masks that have become standard street gear, and a small girl about to be sick. It was then that we realized the wind was blowing down from Taksim, and what we were experiencing was a very mild form of the dissipating tear gas. I just re-measured the map and realize that as the crow flies we are only 4km away from Taksim (The 7km that I originally stated involves streets and bridges- I had never stopped to think about how freely air moves within such a constrained grid), but 4km still seems rather removed from the heart of the activity to me. I never expected to be hit with tear gas so far away. Within five minutes the irritation, which came in light waves, was getting to be unbearable. I can't imagine how thick and painful it was in Taksim. So I went online to see what had happened. I had thought the protests in Istanbul were peaceful and the police were out of the square.

Apparently this week two things happened:

1. The prime minister agreed to meet with the organizers of the protests. 
2. The prime minister claimed that the protests would be over by the weekend, called the protesters vandals and swore that the square would be open to, "the people." 

Now, I consider both of these things to be tragedies as far as resistance is concerned. First of all, meeting with the organizers of the protests is problematic as the protests are very organic. He can meet with the organizers of the original Gezi park protests, but it is obvious this has gone well beyond the construction of a shopping complex, and if he hears only those complaints he is missing a LOT of the public grievance. Similarly, any already formed group that steps forward to claim this protest is going to cause the exclusion of some protesters. Figuring this out through the leadership of the protests requires some sort of coalition to be formed and sorted out- a large gathering of ideas and possibilities, and a continuation of the open forum that the park floor has become. By allowing the prime minister to choose the group he wishes to work with in formal discussions much of the general, organic process of this protest is lost. Maybe this coalition leadership has already been formed, although I am very interested to see how these discussions play out, and who will be there. 

The second point is just offensive. The prime minister is basically claiming that everyone at the protests is destructive and a public nuisance. It is true that there have been many acts of vandalism, some in response to police brutality and some from the sheer glee of chaos. Some people believe that the more violent protesters have been placed by the government to incite riots and to legitimize the use of force. I am not sure about that. I know there are plenty of people who have a lot of pent up anger and are probably destroying public property of their own volition. But the fact is that the majority of the protesters remain peaceful. The park fills with students, children, parents etc. These people are sitting and talking. They are singing. They are dancing. They are drinking and eating. They are living there, in a public space, peacefully. What is particularly offensive is that the PM claims the space will be open to the people by the weekend. The space IS open to the people, now. The PEOPLE are there!!! What people could he possibly be talking about? Tourists? Only the people who elected him? They are all welcome to go down there. I was there several evenings and did not feel threatened or uncomfortable. It was exhilarating. The space was open to the people, and by denying that he basically is denying that those people, occupying the park, are actually Turkish citizens, thus confirming that he only works for his own constituents, and is not representative of the whole country. Add to that the force used to empty the park last night? It was supposedly unexpected, and if it came so strongly all the way here all that I can think it must have been like there is the fumigation of rats. Tragic, bad move on the part of the Turkish government.