Abstract

This article examines the Gezi Park protests in Türkiye by focusing on how the term "scum" (çapulcu), initially used by government representatives as a derogatory label, was reinterpreted and transformed into a collective identity by protesters. The study aims to analyze how competing sociological interpretations of the Gezi Park Movement relate to this process of symbolic reframing. The research adopts a qualitative approach based on thematic classification and document analysis of academic writings and social media content. Drawing on Erving Goffman’s frame analysis and a relational cultural sociology perspective, the study examines how meanings are constructed, contested, and transformed. The analysis identifies three main strands of interpretation—class/political, civil society, and culture/identity-based approaches—and shows that, despite their differences, all converge in recognizing the movement’s transformative impact. The findings demonstrate that the term "çapulcu" was successfully reframed through humor, creativity, and digital communication, becoming a unifying and empowering identity. The study highlights the importance of cultural processes, symbolic interaction, and social media in contemporary social movements, suggesting that meaning-making practices are as significant as structural conditions in shaping collective action. The article argues that contemporary social movements cannot be adequately understood without attending to cultural processes and symbolic interaction alongside structural conditions.

Keywords

Gezi Park MovementFrame AnalysisCultural SociologySocial MovementsTürkiye

References

  1. [1] Goffman, E., 1974. Frame Analysis. Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA.
  2. [2] Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Routledge: London, UK.
  3. [3] Weber, M., 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Gerth, H., Mills, C.W. (Trans.). Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA.
  4. [4] Bowen, G.A., 2009. Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal. 9(2), 27–40.
  5. [5] Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2), 77–101.
  6. [6] Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y.S., 2011. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
  7. [7] Edles, L.D., 2002. Cultural Sociology in Practice. Blackwell: Oxford, UK.
  8. [8] Mills, C.W., 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Penguin: Harmondsworth, UK.
  9. [9] Boratav, K., 2013. Korkut Boratav assessed the Gezi Resistance: A mature class uprising… Available from: https://sendika.org/2013/06/her-yer-taksim-her-yer-direnis-bu-isci-sinifinin-tarihsel-ozlemi-olan-sinirsiz-dolaysiz-demokrasi-cagrisidir-korkut-boratav-120919 (cited 10 February 2026). (in Turkish)
  10. [10] Özugurlu, M., 2013. Metin Özuğurlu assessed the Gezi Resistance: Humanity yearning for revolution and the working classes searching for their political identity. Available from: https://sendika.org/2013/06/metin-ozugurlu-gezi-direnisini-degerlendirdi-devrime-hasret-halkmis-insanlik-ve-siyasetini-arayan-halk-siniflari-124470 (cited 10 February 2026). (in Turkish)
  11. [11] İnal, K., 2013. Gezi Uprising Freedom Festive Opposition of the Street. Ayrıntı: Ankara, Turkey. (in Turkish)
  12. [12] Coşkun, M.K., 2013. Components of Gezi Park. Radikal. 2. (in Turkish)
  13. [13] Alpman, P., 2013. Gezi Park: Debates on the Right to the City and the Defense of Sociology. In Resist Sociology: Sociological Perspectives on the Gezi Events. Yalova Üniversitesi: Yalova, Turkey. (in Turkish)
  14. [14] Debord, G., 1994. The Society of the Spectacle. Zone Books: New York, NY, USA.
  15. [15] Lefebvre, H., 1996. The Right to the City. Blackwell: Oxford, UK.
  16. [16] Harvey, D., 2012. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. Verso: London, UK.
  17. [17] Göle, N., 2013. Gezi: The Anatomy of a Public Square Movement. CHP Çankaya District Newspaper. (7). Available from: https://t24.com.tr/yazarlar/nilufer-gole/gezi-bir-kamusal-meydan-hareketinin-anatomisi,6824?_t=1780883167194 (cited 10 February 2026). (in Turkish)
  18. [18] Akay, A., 2013. May 2013: The Molecular Revolution. Radikal. 13. (in Turkish)
  19. [19] Giddens, A., 1997. Sociology. Polity Press: Cambridge, UK.
  20. [20] Branaman, A., 1997. Goffman’s Social Theory. In: Lemert, C., Branaman, A. (Eds.). The Goffman Reader. Blackwell: Oxford, UK.
  21. [21] Lemert, C., 1997. Goffman. In: Lemert, C., Branaman, A. (Eds.). The Goffman Reader. Blackwell: Oxford, UK.
  22. [22] Sasson, T., 1995. Crime Talk: How the Citizens Construct a Social Problem. Aldine de Gruyter: New York, NY, USA.
  23. [23] Swindler, A., 1995. Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies. American Sociological Review. 51, 273–286.
  24. [24] Çelik, B., 2013. Who and What Instead of How?: Gezi Resistance and the Streets and Social Media. Birikim. 122, 291–292. (in Turkish)
  25. [25] Kuleli, M., 2016. Available from: Journo.com.tr/murat-belge-ile-meyhane-sohbeti-masumiyeti-kaybettik (cited 8 February 2026)
  26. [26] Varol, I., 2013. Available from: https://share.google/OSoRfRbJiInT7JBIB (cited 20 January 2026).
  27. [27] Gündüz, E., 2013. Available from: tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdem_Gündüz (cited 23 January 2026).
  28. [28] Çevik, N.K., 2022. The Millennial Generational Style: New Political and Economic Orientations. Journal of Economy Culture and Society. 65, 29–46.
  29. [29] Wikipedia, 2013. Gezi Park Events. Available from: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gezi_Park%C4%B1_olaylar%C4%B1 (cited 10 February 2026). (in Turkish)
  30. [30] Özen, H., 2009. Located Locally, Disseminated Nationally: Bergama Movement. Environmental Politics. 18(3), 408–423.
  31. [31] Tufekci, Z., 2017. Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA.
  32. [32] Castells, M., 2015. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Polity Press: Cambridge, UK.
  33. [33] della Porta, D., 2020. Social Movements in Times of Austerity. Polity Press: Cambridge, UK.
  34. [34] Alexander, J.C., 2017. The Drama of Social Life. Polity Press: Cambridge, UK.
  35. [35] Gerbaudo, P., 2018. The Digital Party. Pluto Press: London, UK.

How to Cite

Aytul Kasapoglu. Reframing ‘Scum’ (Çapulcu): A Frame Analysis of the Gezi Park Movement in Türkiye. Cultural Conflict and Integration. 24 June 2026. https://doi.org/10.55121/cci.v3i1.102401
Citation formats

Copyright & License

Copyright © 2026 Aytul Kasapoglu. Published by Japan Bilingual Publishing Co..

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Article Metrics

401Abstract views
202Downloads