Turkish Female Child Labour In Domestic Work
Transkript
Turkish Female Child Labour In Domestic Work
TURKISH FEMALE CHILD LABOR IN DOMESTIC WORK: PAST AND PRESENT FERHUNDE ÖZBAY Project Report prepared for ILO/IPEC 1999 Istanbul F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey CONTENTS INTRODUCTION The aim of the study Studies on child labor Data and the plan of the final report: PRE ISLAMIC, ISLAMIC AND CIVIL CODES ON ADOPTION Adoption According to the Turkish Customary Law Adoption According to the Islamic Law Adoption in the Civil Law HISTORICAL ROOTS OF CHILD DOMESTIC LABOR Slavery in Turkish Society Slaves, Servants, and Evlatlıks in Istanbul Households Evlatlık Institution CURRENT CHILD DOMESTIC LABOR IN ISTANBUL Size and Basic Characteristics of the Girl Population The Field Work Daughters Girls Living with Relatives Paid Child Servants CONCLUSION Policy Recommendations APPENDIX 1: The 1885 and 1907 Ottoman Population Censuses APPENDIX 2: Projections for Girl Population In Turkey 1990-2005 REFERENCES Notes on Contributers 1 INTRODUCTION The exploitation of child labour in domestic work is not new in Turkey or elsewhere. On the contrary, it was one of the oldest traditions in human societies. In the past, their labour was so valuable that many slaves were indeed children at around 6-7 years old. One of the main aims of child adoption was the need for an extra labour. Parents have used and abused their children in domestic work in the name of socialization of them for centuries. Serious measures to improve situation of children began in most of the societies during the early 20th century1. Using children in domestic work did not end at present. We all were indifferent to the exploitation of children in domestic sphere for a long time. Only after the early 1990’s Anti Slavery International became actively interested in the situation of children in domestic work (Black, 1997). So, an old problem finally has become a current issue in social science research. The Aim of the Study The main purpose of this study is to upraise the social consciousness on this issue by exploring the social and cultural values, which normalize the abuse of child labour in domestic sphere. The historical roots of child domestic labour in Turkish society are analysed with the aim of establishing the link between the past and the present conditions of children working in domestic chores. The emerging questions and problems in child domestic work, which cannot be attributed to the past practices, are differentiated as well. Ultimately, it is aimed to produce possible solutions to eradicate the exploitation of child labour in domestic work. 1 For example, compulsory education certainly have had a positive impact on children’s development and have reduced their abuse in domestic work to a large extend. F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Studies on Child Labour The discussions on the problems of child labour in Turkey confines mostly to agriculture and urban informal sectors, in which the visibility of child labour is quite apparent. In agriculture, the use of child labour concentrates in production of cash crops, such as cotton, tobacco, tea where the manual labour is vital (Özbay, 1982). Moreover, recent growing interest on hand made rugs let to an increase of the number of young female weavers in villages (Ayata, 1987; Berik, 1987). Mechanization of agriculture, increasing schooling and out-migration from rural areas, on the other hand, caused an overall decline of child labour in rural areas (DIE, 1995, Özbay, 1991; Ertürk, 1994). Child labour is widely used in rapidly developing informal sectors in urban areas. In recent years, even though number of female child labour has been increasing in the manufacturing sector and particularly in the textile industry, males constitute the majority of total child labour in urban areas (Erder and Lordoğlu, 1993). Therefore, studies concerning child labour in cities concentrated mostly on male children. Practically, no study exists about female child labour in Turkey working in domestic chores in their own family or engaged in domestic work as bonded, unpaid or wage labourers2. In fact, a recent survey research done by the State Institute of Statistics reveals that female child labour in urban areas is mostly used in 2 Here, a typology developed by Rodgers and Standing (1981) on child labour is referred. According to them, child labour in domestic work covers only those who live with their own family. Other children who work in domestic work are categorized according to their economic status, namely unpaid, bonded or wage labourers. Fyfe (1989:22-23) further developed a typology of child labour. According to his typology, child labour in domestic work can be categorized in three groups: (1) within the family (unpaid), (2) with the family but outside the home (eg. assisting the maid mother), (3) Outside the family. 2 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey domestic work (Bulutay, 1995, DIE, 1995). According to the results of this survey, while only 1 percent of female children, at ages between 6 -14, participates in non-domestic work, 35 percent of them work in domestic chores in urban areas. This survey finding however does not differentiate the status and the workload of female child labour used at homes. In fact, it may include children who contribute very little to the housework in their family, such as making their own bed or setting the table for dinner etc. Nevertheless, because they are socialized to their gender role through these tasks, female children work more than male children do in domestic chores. Male children who participate in domestic work in urban areas are only about 5 percent of total male children at ages between 6-14 (DIE, 1995: 6). According to Fyfe, “Domestic duties form part of the socialization process and cannot, according to ILO, be termed child labour. But, domestic work as it has been defined, becomes ‘social exploitation’ if it denies children their right to play, to learn and to enjoy a normal childhood “(1989:14). Fyfe’s definition given above, though was a widely accepted perspective a decade ago cannot be acknowledged as an agreeable viewpoint: The above definition implicitly normalizes child exploitation within family with a silent acceptance of differential socialization of children in domestic work. Equal treatment and socialization of children through equal division of labour at homes is a necessary step toward gender equality. Therefore, no matter how easy the tasks female children do at homes, the subject needs an attention. Female child labour, outside of home is considered as culturally unacceptable. Whatever they do is identified with prostitution or is 3 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey in danger of leading to it3. Therefore, their labour preferably is used in home environments and their work in domestic chores outside of their primary family either as unpaid, bonded or wage labourers are often disguised. Such children are referred to as guests, distant relatives or adopted children - evlatlıks4. Their labour is legitimized since domestic work is considered a necessary activity for the socialization of girls. As Rodgers and Standing point out, “The employment of children is a complex issue and despite rapidly growing literature, there are gaps in our knowledge. Among the crucial, but under-researched analytical issues, they give the priority to the historical analyses of the evolution of the child activities through transitions in the mode of production. Such analyses are considered essential, particularly in the course of more rapid and recent development of industrial capitalism” (1981:40-41). The above mentioned concern typically defines the aims of the proposed study. Data and the Plan of the Final Report The research has three stages. The legal and cultural norms and codes about girl domestic labour are studied at the first stage. At this stage, basically past and present laws about child adoption are reviewed. As it is explained below, laws on adoption indirectly 3 Erder & Lordoğlu (1993) point out this as the major problem of female child workers in industrial sector. 4 According to the AnaBritanicca Encyclopedia, evlatlık is “a girl or a boy who is taken to the family in an early age, either with a legal child rights or not, to care or to use her/his service” (1994:22). As this definition shows, it is a broad concept referring both to fostered/adopted children as well as to unpaid domestic servants taken to the house during their childhood. 4 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey define state’s position on bonded and unpaid child labour in domestic spheres. At the second stage, a descriptive study on past practices of child domestic labour is discussed. For that purpose, (a) a textual analysis of the existing fiction is presented. There are more than a hundred short stories/novels/memoirs where the lives of domestic slaves and evlatlıks were described. The majority of these stories were placed in Istanbul. (b) In-depth interviews with evlatlıks and with individuals who lived with evlatlıks are collected in Istanbul. (c) Duben and Behar (1993) transcribed and sampled the 1885 and 1907 Ottoman Population Census Records for Istanbul Muslim households. Households having domestic workers in these census records are selected and analysed to understand households using different types of domestic workers at the beginning of the study period. At the third stage, the current situation is the focus. For that purpose, (a) the latest population census conducted in Turkey (in 1990) is analyzed to show social and demographic characteristics of girls in the country as well as in Istanbul. Moreover, population projections are used to show the possible changes in actual and relative sizes of girl population in the country. (b) 36 in- dept interviews with children who are working in domestic chores, their mothers and employers are analyzed. At this stage, the selected families are interviewed with the purpose of discussing the problem of their children and formulating alternative solutions to ameliorate their condition together with the family. Existing institutional organizations and their practices are studied and policy recommendations are formulated for female children who participate to domestic work with different status and work load in the conclusion. 5 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey PRE ISLAMIC, ISLAMIC AND CIVIL CODES ON ADOPTION There were/are no well-defined rules and regulations on child domestic labour in the form of real children of the family. Parents are expected to protect their children, to provide their basic needs and to socialize them. Children of both sexes have equal rights to inherit property from their parents. They have to protect and care their parents in old ages. The state can not directly intervene into family affairs. Child domestic labours in households, aside from slavery, have been in the form of adopted children. Therefore, laws and customs regarding adoption are important in the discussions of child domestic labour. In Turkey these laws have radically changed several times in the past. These laws as well as practices of adoption and the use of child domestic labour have affected cultural norms. Adoption According to the Turkish Customary Law Caferoğlu shows that the adoption is a very old custom by noting that it existed among the ancient Turkish tribes. He argues that the practice of adoption, which generated from the slavery later, developed as an institution by itself (1939: 99). Adoption in some tribes is done for humane reasons, whereas in some others, personal and material benefits are sought. For example, Caferoğlu notes that among the Yakut5 and the Kirghiz6 peoples, childless 5 For the Yakut marrying means the perpetuation of the race. Not having a child is an important defect. The adoption has been considered as an appropriate way to recompense this familial defect and adopting a child has been seen as natural. Usually children under ten years are adopted, because children of these ages would adapt the new family more easily. Those with daughters but without a son could adopt a child as a son-inlaw. Restricted for the eldest daughters, these evlatlıks would be real heirs (Caferoğlu, 1939: 105). 6 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey families practiced adoption and also that high infant mortality contributed to adoption7. On the other hand, he argues that among the Uygurs where slave trade is widespread, adoption is based on personal and material benefits, different from the Yakuts. Among the Uygurs it is observed that the sons are permanently or temporarily sold to other families and used in agriculture (1939: 108). However, a male child being sold to another family on a permanent base obtains all the legal rights of the real son of the family and his real family then has no rights over him8. According to Caferoğlu, the adoption customs of the Kirghizes are the most humane ones among others, for the evlatlık can be a male or a female child. These children “have share in all affairs of the family and also have equal rights of inheritance”. Moreover, “the evlatlıks can not marry a close relative of their new family” (Caferoğlu, 1939: 108). Caferoğlu draws attention to the usage of girls as evlatlıks and the verb terbiye vermek (socialization) together, however he gives no explanation of this latter’s meaning. Nevertheless, in these societies where male children are employed in agriculture, it would not be a mistake to think that the girls are prepared to assume their sexual roles in the houses. Briefly, in the ancient Turks, whatever the purpose of obtaining, the adopted 6 Among the Kirghizes, the evlatlık ceremony includes a sacrifice in the presence of witnesses. What’s more, evlatlık is bound to touch his/her breast in order to obtain all rights of the real children (Caferoğlu, 1939: 102). 7 Because of the high rate of infant and child mortality, the Yakuts accept giving their children to other people for adoption with the purpose of saving them from death. In that way, families think that they cheat the bad souls according to Shaman traditions. They prefer to let their real children become evlatlık instead of seeing them die (Caferoğlu, 1939: 103). 8 The Soyots also have a similar evlatlık institution, however for the male children, the vendor and buyer family should belong to the same “Somo”. It is noted that among the Mongolians, classes belonging to the high stratum adopt a distant relative as evlatlık (an adopted child) in order not to be left heirless (1939: 112, note 40). 7 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey child’s rights of inheritance are equal to those of the real children. What’s more, in the Kirghiz, the prohibition of marriage with family members are equally valid for evlatlıks as for the children. Adoption According to the Islamic Law The custom of adoption existed in the pre-Islam Arabian communities. “The evlatlık became the heir for the property of the adaptors at their death” (Emre, 1981: 134). The prophet, before the revelation on this issue, had manumitted the male slave Zeyd who was a present from one of his wives, and adopted him. The evlatlık thus acquired the name Zeyd bin Muhammed (Zeyd son of Muhammed) and married to a woman seen as appropriate by his father, but later divorced from her. After the divorce, for Zeyneb who was the daughter of the Prophet’s aunt, the only way of saving her dignity was to marry the Prophet himself. However, as the evlatlık had equal rights with the real sons according to the old customs, it would not be appropriate for the Prophet to marry Zeyneb who was considered as his son’s wife. At that moment arrived the verse saying that the evlatlıks could not bear the family’s name and that there would be no prohibition of marriage with those children9. With this verse, once again Zeyd began to be 9 Fatma Aliye narrates this event as the following: “Zeyd bin Hârise (Zeyd son of Hârise) of the Kuzaa tribe has been enslaved as a small child and sold in Mecca. Hazreti Hatice bought him and gave him to Hz. Muhammed as a present (Resûl-i Ekrem); he then manumitted and adopted him, so people began calling him Zeyd bin Muhammed (Zeyd son of Muhammed) Resûl-i Ekrem helped him to marry Zeyneb, daughter of Emine bin Abdülmuttalip. But Zeyd bin Hârise was of Arab origin but not Kureyşi. Kureyşi girls would not consider him as suitable for marriage. And though Zeyneb (Hz.) personally liked Zeyd, because of the problem of inequivalence, for Zeyd it was natural to think that he would confront hostile and arrogant behaviours of Zeyneb’s enemies. Zeyd came one day to Resûl-i Ekrem complaining from Zeyneb’s arrogant attitudes generated from her nobility that he would divorce her in order not to 8 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey called with the name of his real father, Zeyd bin Hârise. Thus, adoption was legally abolished10. Nevertheless, looking after the orphans, nourishing them, growing them up and marrying them have been regarded as a pious act (sevap). What’s more, polygamy is a recommended means to avoid the orphan girls falling into misery11. In a way, Islamic law suggests the implication of “foster family” and marriage institutions instead of adoption. The reason being that the brought-in child has no legal connection with the new family12. Therefore, leaving inheritance to the evlatlık encounter these attitudes of her and to save her from an unsuitable husband. Resûl-i Ekrem told him he should abandon this idea and fear God for it was not good to divorce a woman because of that reason. However if Zeyneb divorced her, then only prophet Muhammed would be suitable for such an honourable woman. To contemplate her and to secure her rights the Prophet thought of marrying her but did not say this explicitly, since in the people’s eyes an evlatlık was believed to be equal to a real son and marrying his divorced wife would not be appropriate. The sharia principles regarding this kind of issues had not been revelated yet. Zeyd, saying that he could no more bare Zeyneb’s arrogant attitudes, divorced her. After Zeyneb’s iddet (period necessary for her become suitable for a new marriage) the sharia principles necessary for this issue were revelated and according to these principles Zeyneb became the wife of the Prophet. Thus it is ordered that the evlatlık was differentiated from the real children and that they should belong to their real father’s lineage. Thereafter, Zeyd bin Muhammed began to be called as Zeyd bin Hârise.” 10 Sura of Ahzab 4-5 (quoted by Emre, 1981: 135). 11 “If you fear that you would not be able to treat orphan girls just, then marry two, three or four women who would be appropriate for you. If you still fear that you will not be just, then content with one wife.” Sura of Nisa 3 (quoted by Emre, 1981: 82). 12 “The Islamic religion abolished this custom and the legal relations concerning it (Tecrit-i Sarih Tercümesi c. 11, p. 290) that’s why, adoption would not bring real lineage. Therefore, if the adopted child is male, the person can let him marry his real daughter. If this is a female, he can then marry her or let her marry his son. The adopter can marry the divorced family of the adopted child after the iddet (Hukuk-i İslamiye ve Islahat-ı Fıkhiye Kamusu c. 2, p. 431). As this child would have the status of a 9 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey within legal ways is very hard13. Briefly, although evlatlık as a term still existed, the institution of adoption is abolished in the Islamic law in the legal sense. The Islamic law also brought significant changes to slave practices as well to adoption. Manumitting the slaves after a certain working period and even helping them marry are considered as pious acts (Kızıltan, 1993: 67-83). The need to treat them in a humane manner is stressed. Because of these changes, the Islamic law the “evlatlık” status is brought closer to the slaves than the real children. However, it is suggested that the non-kin members of the family (slaves and evlatlıks) should receive a good treatment. The non-existence of the prohibition of marriage with evlatlıks, and the necessity for the women to pay attention to their veiling (tesettür) in the houses sheltering male evlatlıks have contributed to have predominantly female children as evlatlıks during the Ottoman and Republican periods. In other words, while among the ancient Turks evlatlıks consisted mainly of male children, in the Ottoman and Republican periods they were mostly girls. It would not be appropriate to give an exact date for the treatment of adopted daughters as slaves rather than offspring; the reason being that it is possible to encounter bits of information related to this practice only after the 19th century. In Europe, the development of laws and customs concerning adoption according to its relations with religious rules has astonishing similarities with Islamic law. Goody tells that adoption has been a common practice in the classical Roman law, whereas with the genesis of Christianity the church first issued articles stranger, the women in the household should be careful for their veiling” (Emre, 1981: 135). 13 In the Ottoman period, the “evlatlık vakfs” are considered as the institutions which make the property owners able to leave their heritage to other people than their real heirs (Barkan, 1980). 10 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey restricting the adoption rules, and then totally abolished the legal foundations of adoption. According to Goody, the church disliked all the non-kin members in the household, but could only have an effect on evlatlıks, because adoption is an institution that has its definition in the laws more than other institutions (1981). The church obtained the right to seize the properties of the families without children, and even without male children after the abolition of inheritance rights of the adopted. Goody argues that in that way, in the Medieval Europe the church became powerful to a great extent. In the Occidental world, adoption’s legalisation is quite recent. USA pioneered in this issue and legalised the adoption in 1851. The European countries, on the other hand, have put laws concerning adoption into force mostly during the 20th century. The factor lying behind the legalisation of adoption in the leadership of Europe is the concern to find a home to the thousands of orphans after the First World War. Some argue that the 20th century is the century of children and that the value given to children increased and their rights defended. These are important facts that contributed to the legalisation of adoption. Adoption in the Civil Law In the Republican period, adoption is legalised with the Civil law of 192614. According to this law, person(s) over 35 years who have no children can adopt a person 18 years younger than them after having got a permission from the court and signing an authenticated contract of the notary public15. Thus, an artificial lineage is established between the adopter and the adopted. As the Islamic law does not necessitate a court permission and signature of an authenticated contract, the adopted can not bear 14 Articles of the Civil Law related to adoption are articles between 253258. 15 The minimum age required for adoption was 40 in the first law, but then was decreased to 35. It is suggested to be decreased to 30 years in the new propositions. 11 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey the name of the family. Court permission provides the legal regulation and control of the rights and obligations between parties, thus is a decision for the child’s favour. It is obvious that the acceptance of this decision is due to the fact that the evlatlık taking practices took a form similar to slavery before 1926 and carries a purpose of preventing these practices. The court judges are expected to be sure that the child would not be employed as a servant (Öztan, 1979). The Islamic law had rules concerning the non-establishment of lineage with adoption that’s why some articles of the Civil law related to adoption are regulated in the way that they would not contradict the aforementioned law. The first of these articles concerns the prohibition of marriage between the adopted and the adaptor (Cin, 1967). Although the Civil law prohibits that marriage, in the case when the parties are willing to marry, it would be enough to cancel the adoption contract (Saymen, 1948; Öztan, 1979). Moreover, since the lineage is established only between the parties, legally the adopted can marry the other members of the family. According to the Islamic law, the adopted has no inheritance rights (Cin, 1967). Whereas according to the Civil law, the child is entitled this right along with his/her inheritance rights from the real family. If the adaptor is not willing to give the inheritance rights, with a contract prior to the adoption contract, he/she has to declare that the child would not be his/her heir (Saymen, 1948). Saymen states that the differences between the Islamic law and the Civil Law of Turkish Republic are settled to an important degree (1948). However, in the 1990’s, the religious circles did not consider this tolerance of the Civil law as sufficient16. 16 In 1996, the Directorate of Religious Affairs issued a fatwa declaring that “the child who has been grown up as evlatlık can be the spouse, but cannot be the heir of the people who have grown him/her up”. It has been stressed that adopting someone else’s child was religiously forbidden, but looking after abandoned and orphan children would be considered as good by the religion. This fatwa based on Islamic law met reactions and was later withdrawn by a court decision. (Hürriyet Journal, 1996) 12 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey HISTORICAL ROOTS OF CHILD DOMESTIC LABOUR17 Aside from the women members of the family, there were basically three types of domestic labour in Ottoman society: Slaves, evlatlıks and waged servants. The majority of them were women. Often they started to work at very early ages; when they were 6–7 years old18. This was particularly true for slaves and evlatlıks. Again, girls and young women were more among the residential waged servants than those who did not stay with the family. In this study, the focus will be on the residential servants, among which the exploitation of girls’ domestic labour seems to be higher. The period that I will elucidate this issue broadly covers about a century. The history of domestic servants in Turkey is deeply related to the state policies on traditional institutions of slavery and evlatlık practices. These policies were sensitive about the interests of different parties rather than revolutionary in nature. The mid 19th century is taken as the starting point. This corresponds to the beginning of anti-slavery policies in the Ottoman society. Practice of having evlatlıks as residential servants was common until the mid 1960’s. This date corresponds to the abolition of slavery and slavery like practices in Turkey. 17 MEAwards supported the detailed analyses and interviews with aged people on historical aspects of domestic labor. 18 There are numbers of important studies concerning slavery (Toledano, 1994; Erdem, 1993), and on imperial harem where female slaves of the Ottoman palaces were discussed (Uluçay, 1971; Peirce, 1993). Duben and Behar (1990) mention the proportion of households having domestic slaves and servants in Istanbul households in 1907, but they did not elaborate on this issue. Information about domestic slaves take often place in memoirs, such as Saz, 1994; Kızıltan, 1993; Adıvar, 1992, Uşaklıgil, 1981, 1987, or in fiction (Kudret, 1967a; Nabi, 1967). Similarly, literary fiction is the only source of written information on evlatlıks (See the section of “fiction” in the References). 13 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Many people in the country would not know the date of anti-slavery law in Turkey. Erdem points out that the demise of slavery took place gradually, without having strong protest movements or conflicts in society. When the law passed, virtually there were no more slaves (1996). Considerable amount of studies on Ottoman slavery exists, but there is hardly any study focus on the history of domestic servants. Looking at the same historical events from the perspective of domestic servants reveals that “slavery as an institution” disappeared, but not “the slavery” itself in domestic work. It transformed to other practices such as evlatlıks, in which the nature of the master-slave relation was reproduced19. The antislavery law, passed in 1964, prohibited the use of evlatlıks as domestic servants too. This practice was already fading away. So, it cannot be claimed that the prohibition was the main reason of its demise. Development of capitalism, together with adaptation of western way of life brought along changes in the nature and organization of housework. Transformation of the society from basically rural agrarian structure to urban, industrial one initiated mass labour migration from rural to urban areas; wars, political unrest and the present globalization of labour accelerated the mobilization of masses. The impact of all these changes were significant on the emergence of new forms of domestic servants. Slavery in Turkish Society Ottomans abolished the slave markets with the pressure of Europeans, particularly of the British government, as the first step to the prohibition of the slavery in 1846 (Toledano, 1994). Ubicini claims that the use of domestic slaves slowed down after this prohibition even though he did not give evidence for it (1998). 19 This argument was mentioned before by several writers, see for example, Neyzi, 1985. 14 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Slave trade continued in the informal sector long after the ban of slave markets. In fact, former slave dealers complained about the injustice and illegality of slave trade mostly done by women in their homes. Toledano computed the number of slaves, black and white, who were imported to the Empire, excluding Egypt, at 11,000 – 13,000 per annum for the third quarter of the nineteenth century and he estimated it around 10,000 per annum for most of the 19th century (Erdem, 1996: 55). The majority of them were girls or young women who were used as domestic slaves. There were many fermans (Imperial edicts) and irades (sanctions) against slave trade which finally culminated in the passing of a formal law against the black slave trade in 1889, a similar one against the white slave trade in 1908 (Erdem, 1996: xx). Erdem stresses the fact that the Ottomans never dared to abolish slavery, since it would be against Şeriat and would disturb the existing social order, but only took some measures to end its trade. The ban of black slave trade was stricter as to satisfy British government. The serious measures taken to end the import of black slaves to the country was effective. In return, British government did not insist seriously for the abolition of white slave trade. Mass immigration of the Circassians to the Empire after the Crimean war in 1857 and onwards, was an important turning point of the Ottoman policy toward white slave trade. They put serious restrictions to end the Circassian slave trade as well. According Şen, with this mass migration reappraisal of slave trade was witness (1994). Existence of a hereditary slave cast among Circassians, loss of control by the chiefs, desire of parents to secure a better life for their children and themselves, and poverty were given by Erdem as the reasons of continuos supply of Circassian slaves to the Ottoman lands. These were not seen as an issue by the Ottomans provided that slaves were imported (1996:48). But after this mass immigration these activities were seen as threatening for social order. Poor immigrants were selling their own daughters or relatives in order to survive, by claiming 15 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey that they were born as slaves20. Ottomans started to give away orphans to the families as evlatlıks in order to restrict their sale as slaves (Şen, 1994). Distribution of female orphans to the families for the purpose of their protection became a policy afterwards. This policy may be effective in restricting slave trade, but it let to a custom of using evlatlıks as domestic servants. I will discuss this issue later at length. There were some novels where slaves runaway from their master’s home claiming that the slavery was ended anyhow21. Erdem documents such cases by using the judicial archival data (1996). Despite this evidence, domestic slaves in Ottoman society persisted through out the 19th century and until the abolition of Şeriat in the Republican period in 1926. Slavery lost its legal grounds by accepting civil law, but a special law for the abolition of slavery was not passed during the early years of Turkish Republic. In Ottoman social history the institution of slavery was not presented as a “real” exploitation. On the contrary, by comparing western tradition of slavery, humane relations between the master and the slave was over-emphasized22 Manumission of slaves after nine years of service was a merit (Erdem, 1996). However, it would not be beneficial for a female slave since she could not find a job and a house. Therefore, manumission through an arranged marriage (çırak etmek) was the custom. Those who did not marry 20 Topuz mentions about the disastrous conditions of these migrants and how they were bought as slaves in his recent book about the life story of his grand mother, Meyyale (1998). “..helpless poor (biçare) and orphans were living in the courtyard of Nusretiye Camii in Tophane.. “ A conversation between the mother of a one-year girl and a woman who wanted to buy the baby is told: “how can a mother sell her baby? But, her father died in the war. I do not know how to take care of these three children. You seem to be a good woman. I won’t bargain with you on the money but take good care of my baby..” (Topuz, 1998:24). 21 See for example, Samipaşazade, 1978. 22 Lately, Timur seriously criticised this perspective (1991). 16 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey or became widows would have a right to stay in the master’s house all their lives. The lucky ones (!) even can marry with their masters or their sons (Parlatır, 1992). Moreover, it is believed that if slaves had some problems, they had during the period of capturing and travelling. Survivors would live much better life than their place of origin since they live mostly in affluent households. Slave dealer clean, fed and train small children in order to sell them with a good price in formal or informal markets. They thought them how to read and write, in addition to various skills of entertainment, such as playing an instrument, singing, dancing etc. An ordinary middle class woman in Istanbul could not get such a special training (Goodwin, 1998). Slaves had a right to complaint about their master’s misbehaviour to Kadı (to the court). The negative aspects of slavery could best be find in Fermans. Illicit sexual intercourse with the slave girls was the major problem of many of them. Exploitation of their domestic labour is mentioned specifically with respect to the black slaves (Parlatır, 1992). It was a custom to buy a slave girl as young as possible, yet when their life were told in the fiction, they were presented often as adults, young or old. We know very little about their childhood experiences. Slaves, Servants and Evlatlıks in Istanbul Households: 18851907 In this section, an analysis of five percent sample of the 1885 and 1907 Ottoman censuses covering only Muslim population in Istanbul is presented. Data include slaves, servants, evlatlıks and those relations to the household head are unknown. The latter are selectively included if there were some clues that they were slaves, servants or evlatlıks. All of them are called as the non-kin members of households. We assume that these non-kin members constitute different forms of domestic servants. Further methodological explanation about the data is given in Appendix 1. 17 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey The proportion of domestic servants did not radically changed between 1885 and 1907. In both dates about 18-19 percent of the Istanbul households had domestic servants (see Table 1). Duben and Behar (1990) estimated this number as 8%. The difference between their and our estimations stems from the differences of emphasis. They were not particularly interested with domestic servants. Therefore, probably did not make any correction on the data concerning individuals with an “unknown” relation to the head. Secondly, they might have included evlatlıks as kin, whereas here they all are categorised as non-kin, and are all assumed to be domestic servants. Among evlatlıks some of them, especially boys, might be truly treated like “adopted children” rather than servants. Hence, our estimation might have an upward bias in estimating the total proportion of domestic servants in Ottoman households. On the other hand, their estimation seems to carry a downward bias as well. Our categorization helps to compare the changing proportions of slaves, servants, and evlatlıks between these two census dates. Such a comparison reveals important points, and overall, it supports the qualitative information presented earlier. The number of households with domestic servants was considerably high in Istanbul even at the beginning of this century (Table 1). However, the number of residential servants per household was not large in 1885 as well as in 1907. The mean number of servants, including the unknowns, was 2.3 and declined slightly to 1.7 between 1885 and 1907. There were a few households having more than ten residential servants in both censuses. An overall decline in slave use might be the reason of this rather modest number of servants per household by the end of the 19th century. The small number of servants used by notably high proportion of Muslim households indicates that not only elites, but also middle class households had residential servants in the town. 18 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Table 1 The Non-Kin Members of Muslim Households in Ottoman Istanbul 1885-1907 Years Total Households Percent of Total Number of Having Households Number of Households Non-Kin Having Non-Kin Members Non-Kin Members Members Mean # of Non-Kin members per Household (A) (B) (B/A) (C) (C/B) 1885 941 172 18 387 2.25 1907 1,183 225 19 380 1.69 Source: The five-percent sample of the Istanbul Muslim Households in the 1885 and 1907 Census Rosters. In Table 2 some characteristics of domestic servants are presented. These simple percentages support the general picture I draw about history of domestic servants. The majority of them were females in both censuses. Slaves were in the majority in 1885 (58%), but this percentage declined sharply to 21% by 1907. Whereas waged servants doubled, and evlatlıks tripled within this 22 years. These figures clearly support the changing nature of domestic servants at the turn of the century. In both dates, girls and young women constituted almost about a half of the total domestic servants. Older ones were probably started to work at their early ages as well. Place of origin of the domestic servants are grouped into six categories: the native-borns, Istanbulites were mostly among the waged servants. Their proportion increased within the given 19 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey period. Those coming from northern region include Circassian, Caucasian, and Crimean. They were often registered as slaves. However, among the “unknowns” there are some Circassian as well. Decline in their proportion is consistent with the overall decline of slaves. The third category covers slaves too, but those who were coming from the South, namely from Arabia, Africa, Sudan, Tripoli, and Ethiopia. Similar declining trend is observed among them as well. Note that the second category covers white, and the third category covers black slaves. As expected, the proportion of black slaves was smaller than the white ones in both censuses. A radical increase is observed in the fourth category among those coming from different regions of Anatolia. They were evlatlıks, unknowns and waged servants. Those coming from Europe are categorised as the fifth group. In 1885 they were coming from former Ottoman periphery, such as Bosnia, Philippe, Salonika, Crete etc. No Western Europeans were observed among them. They were mostly waged servants and unknowns. In general, information about the place of origin of domestic servants was ambiguous. Households tended to register white slaves as from “Çerkezistan”, and black slaves as from “Arabistan”. It was more difficult to guess the place of origin of an evlatlık or a waged servant. The last category of place of origin unknown covers mostly them. In general, those coming from the north and the south declined from 63% to 20%, while others increased from 37% to 80% in 1885 and 1907, respectively. Evlatlık Institution As slavery was fading away in Ottoman tradition, the number of live-in servants and of evlatlıks increased. At the turn of the century, evlatlıks were rare as compared to live-in servants and slaves, and hence they had somewhat higher status. One of the stories of Gürpınar, which was first published in 1901, was about a servant who migrated from Balkan. She was pretty and literate. 20 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey The housemistress announced that she would have her as an evlatlık, so that her husband would hesitate to have a sexual affair with this pretty servant (1995). However, these examples also indicate that the differences among slaves and evlatlıks were so negligible that the terms could be used interchangeably. In Ottoman Islamic culture the term evlatlık has been used to cover almost all children in the household who did not have blood relations with the head, but live under his protection. For example, stepchildren were also called evlatlıks. If a slave child were favoured, (s)he would be called evlatlık as well. A slave child who was called evlatlık would certainly have a higher social status than being just a domestic slave (eg. halayık)23. It meant that (s)he was considered as one of “us”, as “the daughter of the house”. Although Islamic law forbade legal adoption, in practice evlatlık institution was used to overrule this restriction. Barkan mentions that families could also overrule inheritance rules through using private wakf arrangements (1980). Having evlatlıks as domestic servants was closer to the practice of domestic slaves. Firstly, both of these practices were based on unpaid labour and were allowed by Islamic law. Slaves and evlatlıks shared similar advantages and disadvantages in front of the Law: family members could marry with them, and they did not have inheritance rights. These two criteria were put to differentiate evlatlıks from legally adopted children. There are no reliable data on evlatlıks before the 19th century. We do not know if it was widely used practice or not. Neither Kınalızade nor Ubicini specified evlatlıks as a special form of servants. Despite the norms about the good intentions in having evlatlıks, fiction writers increasingly criticised this institution as being misused Islamic charity throughout the 20th century. 23 For example, in one of the short stories of Uşaklıgil written in 1900, the good intentions of the master to the slave girl are mentioned in terms of his considering her as an evlatlık (1967:21). 21 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Table 2 Characteristics of Non-Kin Members of Muslim Istanbul Households 1885-1907 Types of Non-Kin Evlatlıks Slaves Waged Servants Unknown Unknown Relative TOTAL Sex Female Male Unknown TOTAL Age Groups Less than 6 6-19 20-49 50 and more Unknown TOTAL Place of Origin Istanbul North (Circassian) South (African) 1885 Number 23 224 51 82 7 387 Percent 06 58 13 21 02 100 1907 Number 68 80 103 101 28 380 Percent 18 21 27 27 07 100 330 54 3 387 85 14 01 100 318 60 2 380 84 16 01 100 22 153 178 33 1 387 06 40 46 09 00 100 9 163 156 49 3 380 02 43 41 13 01 100 60 143 99 16 37 26 82 47 30 22 12 08 East (Anatolian) 24 06 119 31 West (European) 19 05 33 09 Unknown 42 11 69 18 TOTAL 387 100 380 100 Source: The five-percent sample of the Istanbul Muslim Households in the 1885 and 1907 Census Rosters. 22 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey As mentioned above, distribution of girl orphans to the families by the state was first witness during the influx of Circassian immigrants in the 1860’s. This became a strategy of the state during the war years. Karabekir, who was the chief commander of the army in the east, during the War of Independence mentions that girl orphans were distributed to the families, while boys were raised in the army and in boarding schools during these upheaval years (1995). Duru confirms Karabekir, by telling that the orphanages in Anatolia were closed and children were sent to Istanbul by train in 1922. However, on the station, most of the children were taken by Armenians claiming that they were Armenian orphans (Duru, 1960). Aside from these two written materials, in an informal interview, it was stated that girl orphans were gathered on the station, families came and selected them to use as evlatlıks. No matter how good intention had the state, mass distribution of girls as free servants to the middle class families certainly had an impact on the degeneration of evlatlık institution. Füruzan tells about a girl given as evlatlık in her short story entitled “Haraç”: The 10-year-old girl who was given as evlatlık to a mansion at Horhor in 1916 and whose name was converted from Hacer to Servet was brought from a village of Erzincan. Her mother does not approve letting her daughter go and says: “…I don’t give my child. Even if she is nude and hungry. She would rather die here than live a rich life with strangers. Where does this whole thing of carrying girls to Istanbul come from? I don’t care about its money.” (1971: 123) But apparently she could not persuade the men. The woman is surrounded with lots of children of all ages. The man who takes the girl to the mansion leaves her at the court of entrance and runs away. Aziz Nesin by telling about the story of his mother who was born in the Andaç village of Ordu in 1900 shows that this kind of practices are not to be seen only in large mansions of Istanbul. Her mother 23 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey had given birth to another girl and because of this her father married a second wife and he is always outside of the village for work. The villagers pitied little Hanife who suffered from her stepmother. Already “all men have been gone to the army, the village is being threatened by death and poverty” (1975: 60). One of the elders of the village had learnt that the port-chief, the navy commander was looking for an evlatlık. He proposes Hanife’s father to give her. “…the mother of Hanife cried and cried; the pressure of the second wife was already unbearable, nobody knew where her Hanife has been taken to, to whom she has been given to… (that’s why) she leaves her husband as well as her village and starts living in another village” After many years the stepmother would say to Nesin that she had “never wanted to give her as evlatlık and said to the child’s father to go get her” (1975: 61), but that the child did not come along and run away to hide at that house (1975). Nesin would not learn that his mother’s real name was Hanife and not İkbal until her funeral. The practice of having evlatlıks has become an institution during the first half of the 20th century. A set of positive and negative norms was developed about their characteristics and treatment in middle class households. During the interviews, too, the interviewees stressed the fact that the evlatlık institution was a widespread practice. The following is told by a 88-year-old woman and is very illuminating: “Until 1940s the evlatlık institution was very common especially in Istanbul and Ankara. Although now it seems very unpleasant to me, then in every house there was one (or more) evlatlık(s). While I felt very sorry for these little girls and wanted to see that tradition come to an end, there was nothing wrong for my mother to have a girl in the house to help her in the housework. The poor people coming from the villages, especially from the Rumeli villages (after the exchange of populations) sold their children to the wealthy 24 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey families. Little girls were working in every house: in ours, in my friends’, in my relatives’…” Initially many evlatlıks were either war orphans or poor migrant children. Therefore they were often dirty and had lice. A common cleaning practice developed as an initiation of these girls to the family. They were washed in boiling water. All their clothes were burned. Their hair was cut very short and soaked with gasoline to prevent from lice. In fiction this process often has given in detailed24. Sometimes the girl is washed and dressed by her real family before sending her to the family as an evlatlık (Bener, 1994). Nevertheless she cannot avoid having these cleaning processes, which in a sense is a kind of an initiation of her new role. They forced evlatlıks to wear some old fashioned clothes, which radically differentiate them from the actual children in the family. Physically they are not only different from the rest of the family members but also are not attractive young girls at all. Some of the fiction writers commented that they looked like clowns (Ulunay, 1995; Füruzan, 1993; Celal, 1991; Kutlu, 1986). These children are often taken to the families when they are 6-7 years old. At first, they do nothing, but play with younger children of the family. They may be in charge of some but not heavy duties as well such as washing dishes, running to the grocery, comforting the master or the mistress such as doing massages, washing their feet, serving coffee or tea etc. (Füruzan, 1993; Bener, 1994) 24 Vüs’at O. Bener describes the evlatlık in the house from the mouth of the daughter of the house as the following: “My hair is soft, Havva’s hair is like felt. My mother razed her hair twice in order to make her have long hair, but her hair did not get longer, her hair always remained short. Her nose too is very ugly! It’s flat and looks like the nose of the monkey on our schoolbooks. I don’t like her at all. Filthy, thief!” (Bener, 1993: 72). 25 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Somehow, many of them do not like to get educated. In fiction they sometimes were sent to school, but girls drop out soon (Anday, 1992; Güntekin, 1995). Often family never thought of sending them to school. If they show a sign of eagerness to get education, housemistress or her daughter teaches them to read and write at home. When they get 12-13 years old, they start to take more responsibilities. Control over their time and body increase at this stage. A common belief, which was spelled out in fiction as well as in interviews that these girls are not “normal” sexually. They were very skilful finding men to flirt outside of the family and seduce men in the family as well (Güntekin, 1995; Neyzi, 1985; Madra, 1991). In fiction the male members of the family, old or young sometimes rape them. They marry off her with someone outside of the family circle if she became pregnant (Tanpınar, 1967; Kutlu, 1986). Many evlatlıks run away with men with low socioeconomic status instead of waiting for their arranged marriage. In fact, often the marriage promise and the guarantee bridal gifts were largely delayed by the families (Esenbel, 1982). As they get older, the tension between the girl and the family increases. She wants to demand some spare time for herself, wants to go to the movies, to the park, to outside, or wants to have friends. These demands were often considered “immoral” or examples of “misbehaviour” of evlatlıks. One informant told that it was very difficult to keep her home and therefore conflict and violence never ended. Evlatlıks were institutionalized form of bonded labourers. Their birth certificates were kept by the foster family in return some amount of money were paid to their parents (Güntekin, 1995). They had to work without having time to play, to get education or to rest during their childhood and in some cases until they get old. 26 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey However, there were exceptions; in some families, evlatlıks were treated like adopted children. They enjoyed similar rights of other children in the family. Love and affection was given. They were sent to school and arranged good marriages for them with valuable bridal gifts. Even in these households, evlatlıks were supposed to do domestic work, simply because they were trained to be good housekeepers. This last point differs them from slaves and residential servants. Housework is seen like a job or an occupation for the latter whereas for the formers it was often considered as a part of their socialization. A 90-year-old interviewee who loved her evlatlık very much showed how warm a relation could be established through this institution: “…the very night she arrived we had tickets for the movie…we took her along as soon as she came…she was left with her tiny package in the hand…how glad she was about the movie!…I didn’t wash her that day… we went to the cinema, how could I wash… the following day I prepared warm water and washed her…I bought her clothes, shoes, other things, I dressed her very well, very clean…she had extraordinarily nice hair, her face was beautiful. She had such big eyes… If I could find a photo of her to show you… From the day she arrived, we didn’t leave her eat anywhere else than our table. No question of eating separately. Whatever we eat, she will be at the table. She called grandpa as grandpa and myself as aunt, all is OK. What for would she call me mistress, do I look like a mistress? She said “alright” to everything I told her… I taught her everything slowly, and she said “alright”, always “alright”… She got used to the housework. She made perfect dishes, perfect cakes, still she does. She had interest in everything, but I made a mistake… If it had been today, I would have let her get education. She was very clever. But I 27 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey couldn’t think of it… Now she missed it. I could have sent her to school then… But she had a problem, she wanted to get our family name. (And what happened then?) I made her marry with my husband’s brother’s son!” In sum, the use of female child labour in domestic work in the form of adoptive child or bonded labour has a long tradition in Turkey. This institutionalized form of female child labour emerged with the prohibition of slave trade in the Ottoman Empire in the second half of the nineteenth century. Therefore, beside the differences, there are also similarities as concern the treatment of domestic slaves and evlatlıks. The spread of evlatlık practice is also related to the protection of orphans and poor children. Therefore, they were treated like adopted children in some households as well. Evlatlıks were neither slave nor adopted children, but were treated as both slaves and adopted children. This paradoxical treatment of them makes this institution unique during the Republican period. CURRENT CHILD DOMESTIC LABOUR IN ISTANBUL In order to eradicate female child exploitation in domestic work, it is very important to initiate public discussions on this institution. Because, the use of female children as unpaid labourer in domestic work did not absolutely disappear, but transformed to various different arrangements. Through these changes the traditional name, evlatlık, has been dropped as well. Today, it is common to suggest to those who are in need of domestic help, but do not have any other support system, such as, adult relatives or paid servants, “to take a girl”. The term “taking a girl” replaces the old term of “taking an evlatlık” with fewer obligations from the foster family side, ie. They do not have to prepare a dowry and marry her with someone nor they have to keep the girl lifetime. 28 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey The operational definition of a “girl child” covers a rather large range of ages; between 6 to 18. Those above age 15 are taken, because they may have started to work earlier. The study focuses on never married girls only, and the study area is Istanbul. In Istanbul the households are extremely heterogeneous in terms of social, cultural and economic status therefore, variations in female child labour in domestic work is found there. Size and Basic Characteristics of the Girl Population Demographic transition from high rates of fertility and mortality to lower levels started in the 1950’s in Turkey. During this period, fertility (TFR) declined from 7.5 children to 2.3 children. Mortality transition took place earlier, resulting high rates of population growth up until the recent decades. Population growth rate was as high as 2.8 percent per year in the196o’s, whereas in the latest census in 1990, it dropped to 1.6 percent per year (SIS, 1995). According to the projections Turkish population will soon reach to replacement level (NRR=1). The recent experience of demographic transition affected to the age structure of the population. High proportions of children under age 15 are declining, population at productive ages (ie. 20-54) are increasing. In the future, an increase in old aged population is expected. State Institute of Statistics prepared four alternative population projections for Turkey (SIS, 1995). The two extreme projections are used to give an idea about the actual and relative sizes of the girl population in the country (see Appendix 2: Tables A - 1 and A 2). Note that population projections refer to 7-17 years of age, rather than 6-18 years, as it was originally planned for this study. Recent changes in age structure have an impact on the relative size of the girls at ages 7-17. In Appendix 2, in Table A-1 and Table A-2, future changes of actual and relative sizes of girl population in Turkey are presented. In 1998, there are little over seven millions girls at ages between 7-17 in Turkey and their 29 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey number will not radically change in the near future. Their proportion among the total female population is around 22%, and it will slightly decline to 20% by the year 2005. In other words, one out of five women in Turkey are at these ages. The proportion of girls in total population is about 11% in 1998 and this proportion will slightly decline to ten percent in the near future and most probably will stabilize at this level. Demographically it may be claimed that in the future, child labour in domestic work will not radically change in numbers if no measures were taken to eradicate it. They may increasingly be used in care of old aged people rather than in child-care, since the major shift is from a “young” to an “old” population in the country. No similar projections exist on the study area, Istanbul. The results of the latest Census of 1990 are presented in Table 2. In Istanbul the proportion of girls at these ages was slightly less than the nation-wide figures. However, Istanbul is a rapidly growing province due to migration. Therefore, the proportion of girls might have even increased since 1990. Table 3 Girl Population in Istanbul, 1990 Number of Female Population Percent of Total Female Population 7-11 12-14 15-17 Subtotal (7-17) Female total 383,290 218,094 211,845 813,229 3,510,429 10.92 6.21 6.03 23.17 100.00 Total Population 7,309,190 Age Groups Source: SIS, 1993: 23. 30 Percent of Total Province Population 5.24 2.98 2.90 11.13 48.03 100.00 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Due to different age categorization, characteristics of girls living in Istanbul cannot be given for the whole age group, but for those at ages 12-14. This age group is important for several reasons: Officially, questions regarding economic activity and marital status include this age group. In labour statistics, this age group represents the “child labour”25. In short, officially the state admits that child labour existed in society, but confined only to 12-14 years old children. Age 12 corresponds broadly the age of completion of five years of primary school. Until this year (1998) five years of primary school was compulsory. This year compulsory education increased to eight years. Primary school and junior high school are grouped together as “basic education”. The impact of this change on child labour will be observed in the future. During the fieldwork, this age group is found to be the modal age for child domestic labour as well. There were few children younger than 12 and their parents did not allow us to do the interview. It may be claimed that in Istanbul, children under age 12 are not widely used in domestic work or even if they were, it was not a socially accepted practice. Table 4 indicates that early marriage among 12-14 years of girls in Turkey is not common at all. More than 99% of them were single in 1990. Among the illiterates however, this proportion declines to 96%. In other words, if all girls had literacy, early marriages would not exist in the country. About two thirds of girls were going to school in 1990. This is rather a low percentage at this age. Little over ten percent of the girl population at ages 12-14 were registered as “active” in 1990 census, and 21% were said to be “housewives”. It may be 25 In demographic studies they represent the “child marriage”, “child fertility”. 31 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey assumed that almost all “housewives” were involved in domestic work. As it became clear in our research that those who attend school were not necessarily free from child-care and housework activities either. Table 4 Marital Status, Educational Attainment and Labour Force Participation of Girls at Ages between 12-14 in Istanbul Educational Attainment by Marital Status The last School Graduated illiterate literate primary school junior high TOTAL Active employed unemployed Inactive housewife student other TOTAL single total (1)/(2) percent (1) (2) (3) (4) 3,313 3,448 96.08 8,643 8,722 99.09 184,660 185,659 99.46 20,184 20,241 99.72 216,800 218,070 99.42 Participation to Economic Activity Number Number Percent 22,924 100.00 20,429 89.12 2,495 10.88 195,151 100.00 46,231 23.69 145,349 74.48 3,571 1.83 218,075 218,075 Source: SIS, 1993:80,96 Note: Unknowns are excluded from the calculations. 32 1.53 3.99 85.18 9.31 100.00 Percent 9.37 1.14 21.20 66.65 1.64 100.00 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey The Field Work The fieldwork on child domestic workers in Istanbul was conducted in 1996-1997. Total of 36 interviews was conducted with children, their mother and employers. Basically three groups of children were targeted in the field: (a) daughters, (b) relatives, (c) outsiders. The last two groups are further divided into two as paid and unpaid. During the fieldwork various methods are used to locate these targeted girls. Some institutions, such as Children Foundation, Protection of Children and Their Environment Foundation, Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Association, UNICEF, Girls Orphanage, Labour and Employment Office, private labour and employment firms, primary schools in low-income districts were visited and asked their collaboration. None of them could help us to locate girls. Labour and employment firms insistently claimed that they do not find jobs to young girls (whereas during the fieldwork we found out that some firms are involved in finding jobs to these girls). Snowball technique is used after having one or two interviews. That is, we asked if informants knew other girls working in domestic work. Friends and students helped locating some of these girls. These networks seem to be very successful. Furthermore, it is assumed that a girl relative or a daughter who are involved housework heavily are mostly in lower-middle class households where the mothers or adult female relative are working. Previous surveys done on women in informal sector are used to select several districts such as Küçükbakkalköy, Gültepe, Çeliktepe, Kartal, Feriköy, Gaziosmanpaşa, where these types of households are known to be clustered. Other districts such as Kurtuluş, Suadiye, Gayretttepe, Ulus were selected to find out residential girl servants. Interviewers asked if muhtars (district 33 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey officers) and apartment gate keepers in such districts knew such households where girls were working. At the first stage of the fieldwork, a short form is prepared to scan households. The interviewers filled about forty forms where they found girls who said to be working in domestic chores26. They were younger than 18 years old and started to work before age 15 and all were unmarried. There were so many refusals. Approximately in one out of fifty households, interviewers were able to fill the scanning form. The refusals were mostly from the employers of paid labourers. Only through the networks of friends and students such girls were interviewed. We observe working girls in the parks, in fast-food restaurants, in private swimming pools together with small children. Their outfit, behaviour to the children or conversation with adult women gives away their identity even without talking. In Ulus, for example, a district where the well-to-do families live in private housing complexes, households with small children have young (12-15 years old) maids. We could not convince them for an interview at the scanning stage. The research team contacted with the households affirmed to have girls working in domestic chores during the scanning stage for an in-dept interview. Some of these households refused to have an interview for the second time. The majority of the refusals at this stage were those girls who stay with their relatives. An example for a refusal is given below: Refusal type 1 Ö.G. stays with her grandmother (father side), grandfather, uncle, uncle’s wife and his small son in Küçükbakkalköy. Her family is also in Istanbul living in 26 34 The scanning was done with the collaboration of Trio Research Firm. F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey another district, Pendik. She is 14 years old and helps her grandmother in doing housework and child-care, since her uncle’s wife is working. During the second visit her grandmother said that she does not want to talk to us. Some of these girls were not found after the scanning: Refusal type 2 8 years old C.Ö. stays with her father and grandmother in Feriköy. She helps to her grandmother in housework. Her parents were divorced. During the second contact, she was gone; her mother took her. These cases are chosen to indicate how mobile could the girls be in helping domestic work and hence, how invisible they are. As it will be exemplified below, permanent work is rare, especially among those who were working in their relative’s houses. Nevertheless we were able visit some households selected from the scanning forms. A set of Interview guideline forms is prepared for the girls, their employer, and their mothers. In some of the households, they did not allow tape recording. Many of them were suspicious about the aim of the study. One mother commented that “Why are you interested with girls doing housework? Isn’t it natural that all girls do housework at home? ” At the first day of the fieldwork we (with two of my assistants) visited a family composed of a father, a mother and five daughters ages between 14-2027. None of them went to formal school and all 27 The mother said that they have two more daughters younger than these girls. They were staying in Fethiye, a small town in the south, with their aunts. She first said that her daughters were going to school there. But later, she said that their aunt has a lot of work to do (agricultural production). The girls were helping their aunt there. I suspected that 35 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey said to be involved in domestic work! The case was interesting methodologically. Therefore I want to discuss it in this section: Case 1 The mother accepted the interview because she was very keen on bringing up her daughters as ideal housewives. The first question she asked was “Şartlar nedir?” (What are the requirements?) Somehow she thought that there would be a contest among young girls on good housekeeping! The oldest girl who was told to be too old for this research did not come out, but watch us talking from a distance. She definitely was upset. The others who are younger than 18, compete to each other in showing their knitting, and talking about how skilful they are in cooking and cleaning. They served us tea and home made pastries, different kinds were said to be cooked by different daughters. The most prestigious one was the youngest girl during our visit: She was the only one under age 1528. Her sisters complimented that she is very good in knitting and start to cook as well. The family was very religious. Girls did not go out of their house alone. Only during the special days they visited some of their relatives in the city together with their parents. They were all exited about our visit. Because they said they did not have a chance to see people except few neighbours. Do we consider these girls abused by their family in domestic work? The answer to this question is not an easy one. There were these girls were having a special (illegal) religious training rather than going to formal schools. 28 Interviewers during the scanning stage particularly sought for girls under age 15. 36 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey six women in the house doing domestic work. So, no one was over burdened. Since they could not go out, housework was like a hobby for them. Domestic work was a substitute of a school or a work. It was a life style. On the other hand, they were kept at home like prisoners, did not have a chance to get educated, and engaged in domestic work at early ages simply because of their gender. Are we doing a research on the ideology of domesticity or on its manifestation as abusing child’s labour? What is the limit of our sensitivity? This case is not considered as the subject of the ongoing study, however, it certainly cleared our minds that the study focuses only on the top of the iceberg – girls who are overloaded with domestic work. However, policy recommendations must include altering the ideology of domesticity. Because girls were treated unfairly as compared to their peers even if they were not exhausted with housework and care of family members. Girls who were involved in domestic work, whether as daughters of the house or as outsiders shared some common problems and/or privileges, but first, I present these cases separately to point out the differences among them. Differences among them show distinct dimensions of the problem. In other words, even though the work they were involved was similar, girls’ perception about themselves, their treatment by the members was considerably different. Daughters Daughters who are in charge of domestic work in their own family were almost all from the households where the mother was absent or working. This simply indicates that domestic work was seen as a part of femaleness in these households. Gender roles were more effective than parent-child roles. There were one-parent families without mothers, unemployed fathers and working mothers, or both 37 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey parents working families, and hence men sometimes were available for taking some responsibilities of the housework. The idea of men doing domestic work was unacceptable by women and girls. I would like to give some examples from the field: Case 2 Kadriye was a 13 years old Gipsy girl. She finished primary school, then did not want to go to school afterwards. She said, “I get bored in school”. She worked in a “factory” (a workshop on metal work) for a short term. She did not want to work there either. So, she said she was happy at home. All the women in her family sold flowers on the streets of Istanbul. They often had problems with the police, since they did not have work permit. Men did not work regularly (may be they were watching their wives not to get in trouble), but they bought the flowers from the retail shop. Kadriye’s mother worked “from 8:00 -9:00 in the morning to 9:00-10:00 at night”. (But, since she was self-employed, she might not go to work if there were a problem in the house). Kadriye had a brother (10) and a sister (5). Her aunt was living downstairs. Her daughter (6) was in care of Kadriye too, since the aunt was working during the day. She did all the housework, cooking, cleaning and caring for the youngsters. Another aunt living close to them left her baby (7 months) to Kadriye when she went to work as well. (This aunt gave some money to her in return). Neither the father nor the brother helped Kadriye during the day. She said her father “bought the bread during the evenings, and fruits sometimes”. Did he do housework? With an astonishing smile she said: “Nooo…(giggles) he does not take a cup of water from here to there.. he would never do housework in his 38 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey life.. Besides.. My mother wouldn’t let him to do.. she doesn’t like such things.. besides now he is not very healthy.. ” Apparently, doing housework brought her a status at home. Kadriye said her father liked her cooking. He did not let her work in the factory even though her grandmother push her to do paid work. “He says Kadriye is doing housework.. this responsibility is enough for her.. we do not need the money she would earn..” In fact, she spends the money she earns from her aunt as she pleases. She told that she did not mind doing housework, because she was independent. Her friends visited her home in the afternoons, or she could go in front of the door to chat with neighbours. She listen music while working and did whatever she wanted to do at home. Case 3 Like Kadriye, Saniye (14 years old) was in charge of the housework and child-care at home. Her father was unemployed, her mother worked as a cleaning lady. Her father didn’t take any responsibility at home either. She gave an excuse for that “.. he is not healthy.. he cannot carry heavy things!”. Saniye was going to school at the same time. So, she did not have a spare time to chat with neighbours or friends. She worked and studied. She was lonely, but she said she was not unhappy. She was proud that she could manage to do all these responsibilities. That made her an important member of the family. She was a good student and determined to study further. Her mother encouraged her to get education. Case 4 39 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Gülcan (14 years old) was not as lucky as Saniye. She was a very good student in primary school, but could not continue, since her mother and her two older sisters were working and she had to take care of her sick (mentally) sister at home. Her aunt was looking after her sister when she was in primary school, but she started to work as well. Gülcan’s parents were divorced, and her father remarried. Gülcan had a brother who was in the military service. She was doing the cleaning and cooking too. She said housework did not bother her, taking care of the sister was. Her mother was fed up with her care, so she preferred to work outside. Gülcan said after a while she had to stay at home and let Gülcan work outside. Working outside was the second best alternative for her. She was so unhappy that she had to drop the school. She claimed those who continue to school looks down upon them now. I will give one last example among the “daughters” category that she is in charge of housework and child-care in their own house to show the variation in the attitudes of girls toward schooling and work. Case 5 Fatma (15) is the second oldest daughter of a family living in K. Armutlu, a gecekondu area nearby one of the richest districts of Istanbul. The family has five daughters, the youngest one is 4 years old, and the oldest one is 17. The mother is working as a cleaning lady. She has about a dozen houses to clean every week, works hard, and earns more than other cleaning ladies. The father is working as a bodyguard in nightclubs. He goes to work in the evenings, so he is at home during the day. However, frequently he either 40 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey goes to a jail or to a hospital for one or two weeks. The family accepts this routine as a negative aspect of his job. He is different from the many men in his class. He keeps eye on the small children, feed them, play with them when he is around. The oldest daughter goes to school and a very successful student. She used to do most of the cleaning and cooking tasks as well. However, recently she found a part time (white-collar) job. She has a very powerful position at home. Fatma “helps” her older sister in housework too. She just graduated from a junior high school, and plans not to go to high school but “to become a housewife”. She says that she now is old enough to take care of the domestic work by herself. She is ready to take her oldest sister position at home. Her parents however, want her to pursue her education in a vocational school. Fatma got seriously upset when the family members argued that they did not need her labour in domestic work! So, she had to go to school. The family even though needed money, never thought of sending her to work outside. The mother told me that she did not want her daughters to work in domestic service as she was. They had to go to school in order to find a “white collar” job. Fatma was not selected in our research until her mother asked my help in this family problem29. I visited their house twice to interview and to convince Fatma to pursue her education. She kept crying in the first meeting and said that she never got attention of their parents no matter how hard she worked at home. She claimed that she was the one who put a lot of time and care to her youngest sister. No one acknowledged her domestic labour. She was not as good as her older 29 I heard about this family through my own cleaning lady. 41 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey sister in school. So she could not compete with her in this area either. She told that the money her parents would spend on her schooling was a waste. I finally convinced her to register a vocational high school, went to school together and paid the registration fee. Here I particularly choose the cases where schooling, working outside and domestic work for girls were alternative options. Depending on the familial conditions one or the other was considered better for the girl. In all cases girls were aware of the fact that domestic work at home brings relative social status to them in the family environment. I have interviewed the three out of four mothers in these case studies– I did not see Gülcan’s mother. These girls were substituting their mother at home. Women were expressing paradoxical feelings toward their daughters’ ”help” in domestic work: they were proud that their daughter could successfully manage the housework and child-care; at the same time they were feeling some what “guilty” letting girls do their own responsibility. A tension between the mother and the daughter was clear. Fatma’s and Saniye’s mother tried to reduce this tension by encouraging girls to continue their education. Kadriye’s mother on the other hand, did not see education as a real option, in her case her daughter was safe and happy since she did not work outside. Fathers became important decision-makers on girls’ plan to work outside. For example, Kadriye was very proud of her father that he did not let her work outside – for cash. This was considered a protection of a daughter. Domestic work, as the informants told their story, consciously or unconsciously was an important obstacle for schooling and child development. 42 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Girls Living with Relatives A cleaning lady who became pregnant told me that she planned to bring a girl relative from their village to care for the new born baby. The girl was deaf and needed an operation. The cleaning lady was planning to bring her Istanbul, to pay the operational costs and in return to ask her to stay with them for the child-care and housework while she was out working until the girl becomes at a marriage age. I do not know if she did her plans. May be it was just a dream, but nevertheless for lower class women who need help in child-care and domestic work, almost only alternative is a female relative if she did not have a daughter above age 10. Why do girls live in their relative’s house? They may not have parents. In this study, girls in this category were not orphans. They had families, but they often were poorer than their relatives. This by itself was a factor affecting the lower position of girls in these households. Some came to Istanbul to get education, but some others came to help to the housework and child-care. It may be a way of chain migration for those coming mostly from the eastern provinces. The other members would come after the pioneer had settled and had a “success” in city life. In earlier studies on migration such cases were exemplified in details for the young boys (Erder, 1996). Similar motives are observed among the girl migration, which is relatively a new phenomenon. Do relatives start to prefer girls to boys if both were going to school or to work? It is difficult to give an answer to this question with a limited data at hand. The following case study is about such a girl who came to her relative’s house to get education. Case 6 Ayla was 15, migrated from the eastern part of the country and started to live with her aunt in Istanbul. She was going to a high school. Ayla’s family had nine 43 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey children and lived in the village; they were very poor. Her aunt said that she wanted to help them, so first she took Ayla with her to give her a proper education in the city. Recently, older sister of Ayla also joined to the household. The older sister was working and bringing cash money to the household. They occasionally send money to the village as well. So, they manage to survive and let her get educated. The story from Ayla’s part is somewhat different: the aunt was a housewife and had a baby. Ayla was in a boarding school in their hometown. Her father decided to send her to Istanbul when her aunt had a baby. While going to school, and studying at home, she was helping to her aunt in domestic work as well. Her contribution to the housework was limited, such as preparing the breakfast, washing dishes, and helping her aunt in house cleaning during the weekends. She did not complain about the workload and said the housework in the village was more difficult since it included taking care of the animals as well. Ayla was the most educated member of the family. She was a Kurdish girl, learnt Turkish in school, and wanted to be a Turkish teacher in the future. Her father wanted her to become a lawyer. Some other girls were not as lucky as Ayla. They were particularly brought to the relative’s house from the village for a help to domestic work. Case 7 14 years old Fadime came to the house of uncle’s son in Istanbul from the eastern Turkey a year ago. She was Kurdish too and was learning Turkish. She did not have a chance to get education, because there were no teacher in her village. Her family was very poor in 44 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey the village, whereas her cousin and his wife were both working in “white collar” jobs. They had a 13 months old baby. The former paid nanny asked an increase in her salary. So they decided to have Fadime instead. In return to her service, the cousin sent 20 million TL. per month to her family in the village. Fadime was not very good in housekeeping and child-care, she told us that she did her best, but was basically unhappy because there were nobody around her to talk during the day, because she could not adjust to the new life style. When she came to her cousin’s house for the first time, they cut her hair because lice infested her. She did not cut her hair in her life before, its length was about a meter. Instead of her old village cloths and headscarf, they bought her outfits proper for the girls living around. In the first interview, she was not happy with her new look either and desperately wanted to go back to her village. Fadime was like a “modern evlatlık” in her cousin’s house. Her physical outlook was changed. Her new identity was not as degrading as in the earlier evlatlıks, on the contrary, evlatlıks in the past were dressed to look different from the rest of the family members. Whereas this family wanted to give a middle class city girl image to Fadime as they themselves were. However, they treated her more like a paid-maid than a relative or a daughter. She did not gain a special status in the house because she was doing domestic work. On the contrary, because she was doing domestic work, she had a lower status. In our sample, girls staying with their relatives – including Fadimedid not really were exhausted with work load as much as those working in their own family. Yet, they were not as independent and 45 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey as happy as the daughters who were responsible for domestic work of their own household. Paid Child Servants It is not surprising to find that paid child servants were in higher social-economic status groups than the other girls. Some of them were living in a luxury; going to the resort areas with the family once or twice a year, nice outfits good food etc. But, none of them were happy about their position and life. They worked much harder than those who lived with their relatives or with their own families. They were not specifically complaining about the workload, but all of them mentioned that they were like prisoners. Huriye who came to the house when she was 13 and worked for about eight years, mostly complained about the 12 years old boy who almost tortured her by kicking, beating or simply ordering one thing and reversing his order immediately after she gave what he wanted. The younger girls did not give detailed maltreatment examples. The mother of another girl, Sıdıka, said that because she broke a plate, her former employers locked her up in the kitchen for a day. So, she was taken from this house. Nazlı, politely mentioned that they did not like her to eat extras when she was alone at home during the day. Again the girls did not mention sexual harassment directly, but by the adults. One of the employers mentioned that her husband often petted the ass of the girl, or kicked her, but the girl liked this kind of treatment, she liked him more than her. The same girl complained about the housemistress: “..she did not want her husband to know that I cooked the dinner, because he would make compliments to me rather than to her”. They did not complain about the housework. Often they were proud about themselves in talking about cleaning, washing, 46 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey cooking. Number of them commented that “It is easy, there are machines”. When it was probed some accepted that could not go to bed in time when the guests came in the evenings. Almost all of them were hired principally to care for child(ren). Girls are not particularly finding this task “easy”. “It requires a lot of responsibility,” one said. They were taking care of mostly small boys, who were active and spoiled. Was it just a coincidence that we found girl domestic workers always taking care of small boys? Since the research covered a small number of cases it is impossible to generalize, it seems that mothers having sons need more help from others than those having daughters. Girls who were paid worked hard, but they had limited tasks as compared to those who work in their own family. None of them had a right to make plans for cooking or shopping, they could not invite guests to the house, or went out without the permission of the house mistress. If the employer were working, they had to call and ask permission to do certain activities, and particularly for going out. The controversy was that they were expected to work like an adult, but to live like a child! Some girls were from Istanbul. They had work experiences even though their ages were at most 15. Some worked in textile workshops, before they worked at homes as domestic servants. Nazlı was one of them. Case 8 14 years of old Nazlı was a Kurdish girl who was born in Istanbul. She finished primary school. She wanted to continue, but had to earn money: her father was sick and unemployed, her mother was a housewife, taking care of four other siblings at home. She worked in a textile workshop for six months, could not get her wage because the workshop had a bankrupt. She accepted 47 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey the offer of the employer that she would pay Nazlı if she stayed with them and looked after her son (6-7 years old). She said, “I accepted the offer to get some of my earned money”! She got 20 million TL. per month for being a maid, she has given all of that to her mother. She was more like a “worker” rather than a small girl. She said “my job starts at 9.00 in the morning. I go to bed after I wash the dishes at night. but if there were guest.. of course I had to stay till at midnight or even later”. As compared to factory work, being a maid was boring for Nazlı because during the day there were nobody to talk. She was not planning to stay in this job for a long time. Nazlı quit her job soon after this interview. Some volunteers collect 20 million TL: per month for her family. She is back to school now. Those who attend to school worked in domestic services sometimes as a part time employee, mostly during the summer months30. Case 9 Yayla (12) was one of these part-time employees in domestic work. Their neighbour, who had a newly born baby in addition to two small sons, worked in her house as a “fortune teller” asked her mother if she stayed with them during the summer. She mostly took care of children when their mother was busy, washed the dishes, and helped her in house cleaning. 30 This is a custom in the southern cities where well to do families go to their summerhouses and have “a girl” from nearby villages to care for the small children and housework. I am told that the village girls were happy with this part time work. They save their money for their marriage expenses. 48 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Yayla’s mother was a housewife, had seven children. Her father was a retired worker. The oldest son was in his military service. The second oldest son was working as an apprentice. 14 years old sister of Yayla who “became a housewife” after primary school helped her mother. If Yayla did not have an older sister, she probably could not go to junior high school. Paid girl servants we interviewed were not illiterate but always made a comment that they did not get education “okumadım”. This shows that they take primary school education for granted. As is seen in the statistics given above, the overwhelming majority of girls had a primary school diploma at ages between 12-14 years old. In fact, they often start working after they graduated from a primary school. Being able to go beyond primary school was seen as a status symbol for some girls (see Case 4). They all made comment that they wished they attended junior high school instead of working as a domestic servant. Nuriye too wanted to get higher education, but she had to work. Her story gives us information about their inner world, dreams, expectations as well as inevitable consequences of poverty: Case 10 Nuriye was 17 when she was interviewed, but started to work earlier. This was her second house. She resigned from the first one because of highly spoiled boys she had to look after. She said that her employer cried when she declared that she was quitting and got angry with her sons, “but, I could not stand any more“ she said. Her family lived in a small town near by Istanbul. She visited them once in a while, but not too often. As she told her story we learnt that they were poor and unhappy. Fighting with each other, going to jail, moving from one town to another.. full of family 49 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey tragedies.. They are from a large family as well: nine children ranging between 19 years old to 2 months old31. Except those under 12, they all were working. None of them pursue their education after primary school. Nuriye said that she was very eager to attend junior high. Her aunt promised that she would support her. But, her uncle met a family who wanted to have a live-in girl servant. First he offered his own daughter, they did not like her. Then he offered Nuriye. So, she started to work. Again when she resigned and went back to her family, her uncle found her this place. Did she want to work? NO! She wanted to go to school. Nuriye wrote poems and had a diary. Her poems were basically dealt with love addressed to one of the popular singers. She read some of them. Loneliness, helplessness, sadness, longing for affection were major themes. She had a flirt in her hometown, not a serious one, she wanted to get engaged, but she did not want to get married and had children soon. She wanted to go out with her fiancee. Nuriye went out to concerts, super markets, resort areas together with her employers. She have met some girls like her among the friends of her employer, and remembered that she was out alone twice to go to the grocery within two years. In general, she did not complain about her life. But, when it was probed the things she liked about the house she worked as compared to her own house. She said “nothing... I wouldn’t miss a single thing here”. Whereas, her employer commented they liked her very much, she was like a daughter of the house. She was obedient, hard working, and well mannered. 31 If we did not know the low level of fertility in Turkey, we would have a totally different perspective about the fertility level of the country through these case studies. 50 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey One of the employers categorized girl servants into two groups: those coming from the villages and those from the city. The latter were spoiled and useless she said, because they asked an increase to their salary all the time, they want to have a day off every week, and frequently complained about not being able to have their own time.. they were never fully integrated with the family. They worked at most one or two years.. they learned things and they left.. According to her it was a waste of time to get a girl from Istanbul. Whereas those coming from the villages were obedient, they did not see their family frequently, and knew the importance of being “trained” in such a house. So, eventually they became like a member of the family. They were like “evlatlıks” of the past. In our small research project we also found two different types of employers: housewives and working mothers. Housewives who hired residential girl servants were aware of the past practices of evlatlıks. They treat girls in similar manner, but they were less reluctant to arrange marriage for them. The actual family always had the last word when the marriage of these girls was the concern. Working mothers treat these girls more like a paid servant. These women for some reason lost/rejected their traditional female support system. No mothers or mother-in-lows were around. Some of them hired live-in girl servants as permanent babysitters. Their children would go to child-care centers, during the day, they might have a cleaning lady once a week in addition to the girl in the house. But, they could go out at nights without thinking of a baby sitter, School children would safely be at home until their parents came home etc. Some others could not afford to have an adult nanny, or to send their children to child-care centers, so they had “girls” who are the cheapest solution to child-care. They do not consider the 51 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey relationship a permanent one. Actually, some of them complained that these girls did not stay more than two-three months. CONCLUSION The practice of using child labour in domestic work has a long history. In addition to using their own children, Turkish families had a tradition of using female child labour at homes in the forms of slaves and evlatlıks. Wide spread use of domestic slavery in Ottoman society certainly added to the legitimisation of using child labour in domestic chores. Evlatlıks were like adopted daughters who did not have legal rights of actual children. Restriction of legal adoption in Islamic law, let families abuse particularly orphans’ labour at homes. Slaves and evlatlıks persisted in Turkish society for a long time. At the beginning of this century, domestic slaves started to diminish, and evlatlıks substituted the institution of slavery. A comparison of 1885-1907 Ottoman censuses for Muslim households reveals this shift clearly. Evlatlık institution developed partly because of the demise of slavery, but also because of the emerging large numbers of orphans due to the series of wars, epidemics, poverty, forced and voluntary population movements. Protection of orphans became an important issue for the state and families during the first part of the 20th century. The overwhelming numbers of poor orphans were taken to the households as evlatlıks. Poor peasants began to sell their daughters as a survival strategy. These practices continued without any prohibition until 1964. Transformation of Turkish society from basically an agrarian to an industrial one, and related changes in social structure eventually ended “traditional” practices of child labour. But, cultural values 52 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey about using child labour in domestic tasks still prevail. Though their number is not large any longer, there are households who bought small girls as evlatlıks to use in domestic work. They prefer to obtain these girls directly from the villages. Aside from this traditional form of child domestic labour, new forms emerged: rural migrants from the eastern provinces appear to be the major part of child domestic labour in Istanbul in the 1990’s. They either stay with their relatives and work in domestic activities in their house, or became wage domestic worker. They do not give long years of service as was/is the case of evlatlıks. On the contrary, turn over rate must be very high that during the fieldwork, our informants have changed their place frequently. As compared to the past, housework became easier with the advancement of household technology and food industry. Therefore, girls in the sample did not specifically complain about the workload of housework. The research project itself may create a bias here as well. Our young informants were so proud that we interviewed them on domestic work. Their complain were basically on (a) not being able to continue their education, (b) boredom in the house and not being able to have friends, boy friends, (c) not having spare time for themselves and recreation, (d) child-care responsibilities, (e) degrading and problematic relations mostly with male children at homes. Those who worked as unpaid labour were either the daughters or relatives of the households. Some of the relatives were treated like maids, and were paid as well. Their wage was extremely low, it varied between 5-20 million TL. per month. Almost none of them were able to use their earnings for themselves. The money directly went to the parents of these paid workers. During the interviews with adults (with mothers and employers) the problems of these girls were discussed. They basically were concerned about chastity and sexual honour of the girls. Only 53 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey some mothers or relatives, but none of the employers were keen about girl’s education. None of the adults worried about the psychological development of these children. The prevalence of patriarchal values was quite apparent within almost all of these households. There are some changes in the conditions of child domestic labour in the past and present. Girls starting ages to domestic work appeared to increase from 6-7 years old to 12-14 years old. While in the past girls were in mostly large households, housemistresses or mothers were at homes. Nowadays, often working mothers and employers use child domestic labour. Hence, girls have to take serious responsibilities all by themselves. Moreover, they are left unprotected since adult females are not around during the day. Loneliness and not being together with their peer groups certainly affect their psychological development. This study did not intend to investigate the present and future size of child domestic labour in Turkey. Recent structural changes in society will have both a positive and a negative impact on the number of child domestic labour. Therefore, conscious measures to eradicate child domestic labour are important. Before a discussion on the possible policy recommendations for that end, socioeconomic and demographic factors affecting to their size will shortly reviewed: Factors affecting to its demise can be summarized as follows: (1) Demographic transition. (a) Fertility decline has a twofold impact, while it reduces the number of potential child domestic labour, it also have a negative impact on the need for child domestic labour, (b) Mortality decline especially among the adults lessens the proportion of orphans, and 54 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey consequently the proportion of children for protection declines. (c) Recent changes in age composition of the population have a negative impact on child domestic labour as well. The proportion of young adults increases. They compete with each other in the labour market. The disadvantageous groups among the youth (20 years old and over) also apply jobs available for children in domestic work. Abundance of cleaning ladies, adult nannies is alternatives for child domestic labour even today. If labour market opportunities did not increase as much as the growing number of young women, they would either stay at home and become “housewives”, or could lower their wage in domestic work to compete with girls. 2) Development of educational opportunities (a) (b) 3) Educational opportunities particularly at the primary school level, delayed girl’s age at entry to domestic work. Earlier, slaves and evlatlıks were taken at ages 6-7, whereas we hardly find child domestic workers below age 11 at present. The new law on eight years of compulsory education may have a negative impact on the use of girls in domestic work Changing value of children: Economic value of children declined and their psychological value increased. This shift affected even the poor families. This trend will seem to continue in the future as well. 55 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey 4) Increased proportion of upper and upper-middle class families lessen the employment of child domestic labour in particularly housework activities. There are factors, which encourages the use of child domestic labour as well: (1) Demographic factors Old aged people, especially aged women, will increase in actual numbers as well as proportionally. The need of domestic child labour to take care of old and sick members of households will increase. (2) Regional inequalities let to produce Large number of uneducated girls, limited employment opportunities, increased poverty, and accelerated mass migration from the eastern provinces to the western ones. All of these will elevate child domestic labour. (3) Female employment in urban areas in the west, and particularly in Istanbul, is increasing whether because of advancement in female education or increasing poverty and unemployment among men. As was demonstrated in this research, female employment is an important factor affecting child domestic labour. Policy Recommendations In our research the impact of ideology of domesticity and gender roles are found to be the most important factor for the persistence of child abuse in domestic work. Therefore, public training to alter this ideology is an utmost important policy. Formal schools adult 56 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey education programs and mass media must all be used for this purpose. The use and abuse of child domestic labour is a social problem. Initial training programs for parents, teachers, and journalists must be organized. However, as we know the ideology is not only reproduced within the family institution, but in other social institutions as well. Institutions, such as workers unions, political parties, and the military contribute to the reproduction of masculinity. Therefore, at the second stage public training must fucus on men in these institutions. The impact of new educational policy, ie. eight years of compulsory education on child domestic labour could be twofold: if it were closely followed, many girls can be saved from being domestic workers. However, dropouts may increase since they will not get a diploma after five years, but after eight years now. More boarding schools and fellowships at that level are necessary to establish eight years of compulsory education and save girls from the domestic duties. Community centers in low-income districts must be opened where free or cheap care for small children of working mothers could be provided. 57 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey APPENDIX 1: The 1885 And 1907 Ottoman Population Censuses Behar and Duben selected the sample for their own study on Istanbul Households (1990). They kindly let me to use the transcribed rosters in Latin alphabet. Households having domestic servants, slaves, evlatlıks were chosen from this sample and the analysis was carried on only with these selected households. There were some members added to the rosters after the census dates of 1885 or 1907. These individuals are not included to the analysis. Data have some defects particularly for the analysis of domestic servants. Domestic slaves and servants who live in dependencies of large konaks (mansions) were sometimes registered as separate households. In the sample, if all the members were domestic servants/slaves it is impossible to judge whether they were living in a dependency of a konak or not. These cases were necessarily excluded. They certainly brought a downward bias to the estimation of domestic servants. Domestic servants were the least important members of the households. Therefore, sometimes information about them is not complete or correct. In the five- percent sample, there are considerable amount of individuals whose relation to the head was missing. We included some of them in our analysis if we found some clues that they were slaves, servants or evlatlıks. For example, their place of origin as compared to the rest of the family members (eg. Africa), father’s and mother’s name (in the case of slaves it was Abdullah and Havva), titles (eg. zenciye Zehra – negro Zehra), their place in the listing (eg. at the end or among the other slaves) are used to judge about their position in the households. Some were redefined as slaves, servants and evlatlıks. 58 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Some individuals were registered simply as “a relative” (akraba, yakın). If there were no clues about their relationship with the rest of the household members (eg. place of origin), we consider them non-kin as well. Few of them were redefined as slaves, servants and evlatlıks. If their position was not obvious, they are included as a separate category, “unknown relative”. Note that no matter how carefully these judgements were done, additional bias is introduced with such corrections. Despite the defects, the data reveal important information about the changes in practice of domestic servants. In the rosters, relation to the head information was given in details, eg. evlad-ı maneviye, besleme, cariye, kalfa, hizmetçi, aşçı etc. Today we cannot find such detailed definitions of non-kin members of households in census records. In fact, as compared to the 1885 census, wording of non-kin terms was more ambiguous in 1907. For example, the term hizmetkar (servant) is often used to refer the slaves and the term cariye (concubine) was not used at all. 59 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey APPENDIX 2: Projections For Girl Population In Turkey 1990-2005 Table A-1: Population Projections of Girls in Turkey (Alternative 1: NRR=1 in 2000, no migration) 1990 1995 1998 N (‘000) 7-11 3,286 3,232 3,173 12-14 1,913 1,969 1,948 15-17 1,783 1,957 1,965 Subtotal 6,982 7,158 7,086 18 + 20,747 23,005 24,462 Total 27,729 30,163 31,548 Females Total Males 28,475 30,865 32,198 Grand Total 56,204 61,028 63,746 Percent of Total Female Population 7-11 11.85 10.72 10.06 12-14 6.90 6.53 6.17 15-17 6.43 6.49 6.23 Subtotal 25.18 23.73 22.46 18 + 74.82 76.27 77.54 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 Female Percent of Total Population (both sexes) 7-11 5.85 5.30 4.98 12-14 3.40 3.23 3.06 15-17 3.17 3.21 3.08 Subtotal 12.42 11.73 11.12 18 + 36.91 37.70 38.37 Total 49.34 49.42 49.49 Female Source: SIS, 1995: 117 60 2000 2005 3,156 1,920 1,955 7,031 25,400 3,075 1,889 1,899 6,863 27,770 32,431 34,633 33,079 65,510 35,216 69,849 9.73 5.92 6.03 21.68 78.32 8.88 5.45 5.48 19.82 80.18 100.00 100.00 4.82 2.93 2.98 10.73 38.77 4.40 2.70 2.72 9.83 39.76 49.51 49.58 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Table A-2 Population Projections of Girls in Turkey (Alternative 2M: NRR=1 in 2005, with migration) N (‘000) 7-11 12-14 15-17 Subtotal 18 + Total Female Total Males Grand Total 1990 1995 1998 2000 2005 3,286 1,913 1,783 6,982 20,747 27,729 28,475 56,204 3,253 1,985 1,971 7,209 23,261 30,470 31,174 61,644 3,213 1,968 1,988 7,169 24,898 32,067 32,719 64,786 3,219 1,943 1,981 7,143 25,948 33,091 33,744 66,835 3,231 1,939 1,934 7,104 28,457 35,561 36,150 71,711 10.02 6.14 6.20 22.36 77.64 100.00 9.73 5.87 5.99 21.59 78.41 100.00 9.09 5.45 5.44 19.98 80.02 100.00 4.82 2.91 2.96 10.69 38.82 49.51 4.51 2.70 2.70 9.91 39.68 49.59 Percent of Total Female Population 7-11 12-14 15-17 Subtotal 18 + Total Female 11.85 6.90 6.43 25.18 74.82 100.00 10.68 6.51 6.47 23.66 76.34 100.00 Percent of Total Population (both sexes) 7-11 12-14 15-17 Subtotal 18 + Total Female 5.85 3.40 3.17 12.42 36.91 49.34 5.28 3.22 3.20 11.69 37.73 49.43 4.96 3.04 3.07 11.07 38.43 49.50 Source: SIS, 1995: 123 61 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey REFERENCES Scientific Literature Ana Britanica (1994) Genel Kültür Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul. Ayata, Sencer (1987) Kapitalism ve Küçük Üreticilik - Türkiye’de Halı Dokumacılığı. Yurt Yayınları. Ankara. Barkan, Ömer Lütfi (1980) “ Şer’i Miras Hukuku ve Evlatlık Vakıflar” Türkiye’de Toprak Meselesi. Gözlem: İstanbul. (İlk baskı 1940). Berik, Günseli (1987) Women Carpet Weavers in Rural Turkey: Patterns of Employment, Earnings and Status. ILO. Geneva. Black, Maggie (1997) Child Domestic Workers – A Handbook for Research and Action. ASI Child Labour Series NO. 15. ASI. London. Bolak, Hale (1997) “When Wives Are Major Providers” Gender & Society. 11(4): 409-433. Bulutay, Tuncer (1995) “Türkiye’de Çalışan Çocuklar”. (Basılmamış Rapor). DIE. Ankara. Bulutay, Tuncer (1995) Türkiye’de Çalışan Çocuklar. DİE ve ILO. Ankara Burguiére, André & François Lebrun (1996) “The One Hundred and One Families in Europe” A History of the Family. Vol 2 The Impact of Modernity Burguiére et al (eds.) Polity press: Cambridge. Caferoğlu, Ahmet (1939) “Türk Taamül Hukukunda Evlatlık Müessesi” Türk Hukuk ve İktisat Tarihi Mecmuası. Cilt II: 97-113. DİE (1995) “Ekim 1994 Çocuk İstihdamı Anketi Sonuçları”. Haber Bülteni. Ankara. Eylül. Dördüncü Sosyal Hizmetler Konferansı (DSHK) (1995a) “Evlat Edinme Çalışma Grubu Raporu” 2000’li Yıllara Doğru Sosyal Devletin Gerçekleştirilmesinde Sosyal Hizmetlerin 62 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Yeri ve Önemi. Sosyal Hizmet Uzmanları Derneği Yayını. No.1. Ankara. Dördüncü Sosyal Hizmetler Konferansı (DSHK) (1995b) “Koruyucu Aile Hizmeti Çalışma Grubu Raporu” 2000’li Yıllara Doğru Sosyal Devletin Gerçekleştirilmesinde Sosyal Hizmetlerin Yeri ve Önemi. Sosyal Hizmet Uzmanları Derneği Yayını. No.1. Ankara Duben, Alan & Cem Behar (1990) Istanbul Households. Marriage, Family and Fertility, 1880-1940. Cambridge. 276 p. Duru, M. C. (1960) Istiklal Savaşı Anılarım. (Basılmamış rapor) SSYB arşivi. Ankara. Emre, Mehmet (1981) İslam’da Kadın ve Aile. Bedir Yayınevi. İstanbul. Erdem, Hakan (1996) Slavery in the Ottoman Empire and Its Demise. Macmillan: London. Erder, Sema (1996) İstanbul’a Bir Kent Kondu- Ümraniye. İletişim. İstanbul. Erder, Sema & Kuvvet Lordoğlu (1993) Geleneksel Çıraklıktan Çocuk Emeğine: Bir Alan Araştırması. Frederich Ebert Vakfı. Istanbul. Ertürk, Yakın (1994) Patterns of Child Labour in Rural Turkey. ILO - IPEC. Ankara. Fyfe, Alec (1989) Child Labour. Polity Press. Cambridge. Goody, Jack (1981) Production and Reproduction – A Comparative Study of Domestic Domain. Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology. Cambridge. Johnson, Clarence Richard (ed.) (1995) Istanbul 1920. (Çev. Sönmez Taner). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. Kağıtçıbaşı, Çiğdem (1996) Family and Human Development Across Cultures – A View from the Other Side. LEA: Mahwah, New Jersey. Kızıltan, Mübeccel (Yayına hazırlayan). (1993) Fatma Aliye Hanım (Yaşamı- Sanatı -Yapıtları ve Nisvan-ı Islam). Istanbul: Mutlu Yayıncılık. 63 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Kölelik, Köle Ticareti, Köleliğe Benzer Uygulama ve Geleneklerin Ortadan Kaldırılması Kanunu (1963). Millet Meclisi Tutanak Dergisi. Cilt 18, sayı 110, Birleşim 93-104. Onur, Bekir (Yay. Haz.) (1994) Toplumsal Tarihte Çocuk. 23-24 Nisan 1993. Tarih Vakfı, Yurt Yayınları. Istanbul. Özbay, Ferhunde & Nefise Balamir (1978) “School Attendance and Its Correlates in Turkish Villages 1975”. Hacettepe Üniversitesi ve IDRC ye sunulan basılmamış araştırma raporu. Ankara. 145 s. Özbay, Ferhunde (1982) "Women's Education in Rural Turkey" Sex Roles, Family and Community in Turkey. Çiğdem Kağıtçıbaşı (ed.). Indiana University Press. Bloomington, Indiana. Özbay, Ferhunde (1991) "Kadın ve Çocuk Emeği" Toplum ve Bilim. 23(3). Özbay, Ferhunde (1998) “The History of Domestic Servants in Turkey” MEAwards Study Group on Youth in the Middle East: Population Process and Cultural Construction. Cairo. November 19-22. Öztan, Bilge (1979) Aile Hukuku. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları. No. 444. Ankara Parlatır, İsmail (1992) Tanzimat Edebiyatında Kölelik. Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Kurumu Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları. VII. Dizi - Sa. 90. Peirce, Leslie P. (1993) The Imperial Harem - Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. New York: Oxford University Press. 374p. Rodgers, Gerry and Guy Standing (eds.) (1981) Child Work, Poverty and Underdevelopment. ILO. Geneva. Saymen, Ferit H. (1948) Türk Medeni Hukuku -Cilt 1 -Umumi Prensipler. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayını. İstanbul. SIS (State Institute of Statistics) (1993) Istanbul Census of Population. SIS: Ankara. SIS (State Institute of Statistics) (1995)The Population of Turkey, 1923-1994 – Demographic Structure and Development With Projections to the Mid-21st Century. SIS: Ankara. 64 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Sosyal Hizmetler ve Çocuk Esirgeme Kurumu Kanunu. 24.5.1983 No. 2828. TESEV (1998) İnsani Gelişme Raporu Türkiye 1997. İstanbul. Timur, Taner (1991) Osmanlı Türk Romanında Tarih, Toplum ve Kimlik. Afa Yayınları: İstanbul. Toledano, Ehud R. (1994) Osmanlı Köle Ticareti 1840-1890. Çev. Hakan Erdem. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. Istanbul. 254 s. Ubicini, M. A. (1998) Osmanlı’da Modernleşme Sancısı. Timaş: İstanbul (ilk baskı 1851) Uluçay, Çağatay (1971) Harem II. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu. US Department of Health and Human Services (1990) Child Abuse and Neglect: Critical First Steps in response to a National Emergency. Washington DC. Memoirs and Fiction Adıvar, Halide Edip (1992) Mor Salkımlı Ev. Atlas Kitabevi. Istanbul. Anday, Melih Cevdet (1992) Raziye. Adam Yayınları. İstanbul. (Birinci baskı 1975). (İkinci baskı). Andreadis, Yorgo (1993) Tamama - Pontus’un Yitik Kızı. Belge yayınları. İstanbul Bener, Erhan (1994) Elif’in Öyküsü. Bilgi Yayınevi. Ankara. (birinci basım 1980). Bener, Vüs’at O.(1993) “Havva” S. Gümüş(der.) Kısa Öyküler. Adam Yayınları: İstanbul.(ilk basım 1922) Celal, Peride (1991) Üç Yirmidört Saat. Can: İstanbul. (birinci basım 1977) Dayıoğlu, Gülten (1994) Fadiş. Altın Çocuk Kitapları. İstanbul. 20. baskı. Esendal, Mahmut Şevket (1985) “Bizim Nesibe” Bizim Nesibe. Bilgi Yayınevi. Ankara. Füruzan (1993b) “Haraç” Parasız Yatılı. Can Yayınları. İstanbul. 122-163 (10. basım). (birinci baskı 1971) Füruzan (1993e) “Günübirlik Ada” Benim Sinemalarım Can Yayınları. İstanbul. (10. basım). (birinci baskı 1972) 65 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Güntekin, Reşat Nuri (1995) Kızılcık Dalları. İnkılap Yayınları: Istanbul. Gürpınar, Hüseyin Rahmi (1995) “Nimetşinas” Nimetşinas. Günümüz Türkçesi: Kemal Bek. Özgür yayınları. İstanbul. 21-162. İlk basıldığı yıl 1901. Gürpınar, Hüseyin Rahmi (1995) Gülyabani. (Günümüz Türkçesi: Kemal Bek). Istanbul: Özgür Yayınları. (11. Basım). Hürriyet Gazetesi (1996) “Evlatlıkla Evlenilir – Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı Din İşleri Yüksek Kurulu, öksüz ve yetim yetiştirenlerin onlarla evlenebileceği yolunda fetva verdi” (8 Mart). Karay, Refik Halit (1990) Bu Bizim Hayatımız. Inkılâp Kitabevi.İstanbul. (Dördüncü Baskı) (ilk basım 1950) Karabekir, Kazım (1995) Çocuk Davamız. Emre Yayınları. İstanbul. (yayına hazırlayan Faruk Özerengin). Kemal, Orhan (1951) “Kamyonda” Sarhoşlar. (nakleden Cevdet Kudret (1990) Türk Edebiyatında Hikaye ve Roman. Cumhuriyet Dönemi 1923-1959. İnklap Kitabevi. İstanbul) Kudret, Cevdet (1967a) Türk Edebiyatında Hikaye ve Roman 1. İnceleme ve Örnekler - Tanzimattan Meşrutiyete 1859 1910. Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları. Kudret, Cevdet (1967b) Türk Edebiyatında Hikaye ve Roman 2. İnceleme ve Örnekler - Meşrutiyetten Cumhuriyete 1910 1923. Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları. Kulin, Ayşe (1998) Geniş Zamanlar. Remzi Kitapevi: İstanbul. Kutlu, Ayla (1986) Islak Güneş. Bilgi Yayınevi. Ankara. (ilk basım 1980) Kür, Pınar (1979) Asılacak Kadın. Bilgi Yayınları. Ankara. (Birinci Basım) Madra, Ömer (1991) Romanımla Sana Bir Ses… Remzi Kitabevi. İstanbul. Memet Fuat (1996) “Düşünceye Saygı”. Cumhuriyet Gazetesi (7 Şubat). Muhteremoğlu, Afet (1963) Ahmet Bey’lerin Bedriye. Yeditepe Yayınları: 131. İstanbul. 66 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Nabi, Yaşar, Mustafa Baydar ve M. Sunullah Arısoy (1967) Başlangıcından Bugüne Türk Hikaye Antolojisi. Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları. Nesin, Aziz (1975) (anı) Böyle Gelmiş Böyle Gitmez -Yol. Cilt 1 Tekin Yayınevi. İstanbul. Neyzi, Ali (1983) Hüseyin Paşa Çıkmazı No. 4. (Anı). Karacan Yayınları. İstanbul Neyzi,Ali (1985) Evlatlık Bir Kızın Gizli Güncesi - “Pafe”. Evrim Bilimsel Eğitim Araçları. İstanbul. Samipaşazade Sezai (1978) Sergüzeşt. Inkılap Kitabevi. İstanbul. (ilk basım 1889) Saz, Leyla (1994) The Imperial Harem of the Sultans - Memoirs of Leyla (Saz) Hanımefendi. Peva Publication. Istanbul. Seyfettin, Ömer (1967) “Tos” Başlangıcından Bugüne Türk Hikaye Antolojisi. (yay. haz. Yaşar Nabi, Mustafa Baydar ve M. Sunulalah Arısoy) Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları. Tanpınar, Ahmet Hamdi (1967) “Yaz Gecesi” Başlangıcından Bugüne Türk Hikaye Antolojisi. (yay. haz. Yaşar Nabi, Mustafa Baydar ve M. Sunulalah Arısoy) Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları 103-109 Topuz, Hıfzı (1998) Meyyâle. Remzi.: İstanbul. Tuğcu, Kemalettin (1992) El Kapısı Damla Yayınları. İstanbul. Tuğcu, Kemalettin (1993) Köyden Gelen Kız. Damla Yayınları. İstanbul. (Birinci baskı 1975) Ulunay, Refi’ Cevat (1995) Eski Istanbul Yosmaları. Arba: Istanbul. (ilk baskı 1959). Uşaklıgil, H. Z. (1935) “Onu Beklerken” Onu Beklerken. İstanbul. Uşaklıgil, Halit Ziya (1967) “Ferhunde Kalfa” Başlangıcından Bugüne Türk Hikaye Antolojisi. (yay. haz. Yaşar Nabi, Mustafa Baydar ve M. Sunullah Arısoy) Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları. : 21-30. Uşaklıgil, Halit Ziya (1981) Saray ve Ötesi- Son Hatıralar. Istanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi. Uşaklıgil, Halit Ziya (1987) Kırk Yıl - Anılar. (Haz. Şemsettin Kutlu) Istanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi. Yeğinoba, Nihal (1997) Sitem. Can: İstanbul. 67 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Zarakolu, Ragıp (1993) “Önsöz” Tamama - Pontus’un Yitik Kızı. Belge yayınları. İstanbul 68 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey Notes on Contributers Acknowledgments: I would like to thank everybody who have contributed with high intellect and effort to finalise this project. Without the initial encouragement and help of Aylin Göker, the former IPEC officer in Ankara, this research could not be done. The author has a gratitude to the present IPEC officer Şule Çağlar for her understanding of the problems encountered during the project period. Zehra Toska, the representative of WLIC Foundation, have always been very cooperative and encouraging. Cem Behar, and Jak Kamhi generously shared the problems I have faced during the project and offered valuable comments on the manuscript. Several assistants have contributions to this project. I particularly thank to Gül Ersan, Defne Suman, Hülya Tufan, Zeynep Türkyılmaz, and Bediz Yılmaz. About the Author Ferhunde Özbay is a professor in the Department of Sociology, at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. She is editor of Women, Family and Social Change in Turkey (UNESCO, Bangkok, 1990) and Küresel Pazar Açısından Kadın Emeği ve İstihdamı – Türkiye Örneği (KKSGM, İKGV, Istanbul, 1998) (from the global market perspective women’s labor and employment in Turkey). She published articles on gender, social history and demography. Her latest article is “Gendered Space: A New Look at Turkish Modernisation” in Gender & History (Blackwell, Oxford, 1999 11(3): 555-568). About the Responsible Institution The Women’s Library and Information Center Foundation (WCLIC) aim at collecting all works written by and/or on women was founded in 1990. The library collects manuscripts, audio-visual 69 F. Özbay – Child Domestic Labour in Turkey documents, books, periodicals from Ottoman period on. The library has more than 5,000 books, about 200 periodicals in Ottoman script, Turkish and foreign languages and a rich collection of articles on women’s studies as well as vertical files of ephermeralflyers, newspaper cuttings, leaflets, pamphlets etc. arranged in subject biography and organization. The WLIC Foundation also organizing conferences, panel discussions, exhibitions on topics related to women. The WLIC foundation informs the members about these events and a new acquisition through quarterly published “Newsletter” since 1992. The WLIC Foundation has launched several research projects on women and made number of publications. 70