A policy of environmental adaptation, or a necessity?

Humans are shaped by the geographical conditions into which they are born; their skin structure, color, and even the color of the iris in their eyes are formed (or constructed) according to these geographical conditions. While modern genetics is still in its early stages, it is inevitable that biological appearances adapted to geographical conditions are accepted as a necessity.

The concept of “neighborhood culture” is also perceived and understood as a situation, perhaps even a condition, of sociological phenomena adapting to the social environment. Although the concept of neighborhood culture, put forward by a famous sociologist, is not bound by conditions as rigid as the biological necessity of adapting to geographical conditions, it can be seen as a personality issue forced to adapt to the environment, or as a social necessity. In the politics of the AKP era, the phenomenon of beards and mustaches for men, and the hijab (as opposed to the ordinary headscarf in Anatolian tradition!) for women—much like a party badge—has entered the field of sociology as an economic-social necessity. This is because it not only opens many doors in politics but also creates job opportunities in the private sector that the political sphere covers or can even reach. By keeping symbolic signs in play—like a kippah—as a distinguishing feature that separates partisans from other groups, and simultaneously creating visual contact with institutions that prioritize attire, such as religious sects, the path toward the “Middle Easternization” of the public has been taken.

The phenomenon that Marx described, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly in both the Grundrisse and Capital, is explained as the implicit imposition of the system on all segments of society: on one hand, capitalism’s constant urge for capital growth, and on the other, the willingness of labor, which becomes impoverished through dispossession, to allow a portion of its labor to be capitalized as “wage slavery” under the ownership of others. While society experiences this process unconsciously, it feels neither discomfort nor unease; the exploiter-exploited relationship functions within its own comfort zone across different segments of society, and the social march continues in tranquility.

Now let us come to the football players, our “boys,” and on the other hand, the “Sultans of the Net” who play ball with bare legs. It is as if they balance each other out—one at the peaks, the other at the depths! Let us congratulate those at the peaks and wish for them to set a behavioral example for society, and even for their brothers. As for the other side, let us be angry, but let us not attack. Let us not view our non-attacking behavior as a shield of compassion or protection, but rather by connecting it to a very deep cause that leads not only to this defeat but to the total collapse of society. We must see—and think deeply about—not just the football defeat, but the legal defeat in the country, the educational defeat, the moral defeat, the political defeat, the defeat of becoming a town while urbanizing, and many other social defeats that I cannot even count, which are very difficult, perhaps impossible, to reverse. Leaving the story of how the “Sultans of the Net” emerged from this mud as a legend for future articles, I want to say a few words here about the “our boys” football incident.

If I must say my final word first, a segment from the interviews conducted with our only pride ambassador, Prof. Dr. Aziz Sancar, after he received his award, tells us everything.

The most important sentence in this segment is the picture of work and perseverance, sometimes reaching 15 or 18 hours a day. Yes, work, work, work, and perseverance! So, why are men’s teams not as persevering and disciplined as women’s teams? This is where social psychology and behavior come into play. Let us bring to mind how a boy and a girl are treated from birth to their later years, and let us try to understand the different behavioral reflexes they develop in response to this treatment. The photos in the family album from the first months after birth, the traditional practices directed at boys and their memories, the treatment in the family and in parks during childhood, and the general practice, the attitude of fathers and brothers toward the girl child in the family—the picture revealed by all these formations, which I can and cannot remember, is that the comfort of the male leads him to complacency, while the intense and meaningless control over the girl pushes her toward different behavior, diligence, protection, and even toward rising with ambition for success by developing clever ideas. Apologizing to your psychologist friends, I want to express that the treatment boys and girls face during their developmental stages drags them into different areas. In this drift, girls are luckier, using the reflexes they develop to achieve success, while boys, seemingly lucky but essentially hollow, turn toward brute force and violence.

The factor that is built upon this infrastructure and dominates your individual or team behavior is the symmetrical reflection of childhood. Let us look at the politicians, let us look at those who see themselves as world leaders. While Italian Prime Minister Ms. Meloni shakes the world over a remark by Trump, the world heard not a sound even though His Excellency Trump accused certain politicians of election fraud.

As long as society is in the malignant grip of male (thought to be strong!) politicians, and as long as nepotism, cronyism, partisanship, sectarianism, etc., are widespread, people live their comfort in their own peaceful caves without feeling almost any responsibility, and the result is formed and shaped accordingly. When law, education, morality, politics, economy, etc., collapse in a society, why would we think we can produce a world-class team in football!

Let us not be too hard on our boys, but let us embrace the “Sultans of the Net” with pride and honor!