Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T12:27:55.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Homemaker or professional? Girls' schools designed by Ernst Egli and Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky in Ankara, 1930-1938

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2015

Kıvanç Kılınç
Kıvanç Kılınç*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Department of Architecture, Izmir University of Economics, Sakarya Caddesi, No: 156, 35340, lzmir, Turkey, kivanc.kilinc@ieu.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the early years of the Turkish Republic, modern architecture became an active tool in the representation of the bourgeois ideal of domesticity. The most significant component of the new Turkish family was the image of the “republican woman” as a nationally-constructed icon. By comparatively examining Ernst Egli's İsmet Paşa Girls' Institute (1930) and Ankara Girls' High School (1936) with Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky's unbuilt annex project for the latter (1938) this paper argues that girls' technical schools and girls' high schools contributed to the making of this much idealized image in considerably different ways. Such diversity enabled the governing elite in Turkey to make a class-based and spatially constructed categorization of women as economic actors: enlightened housewives specialized in one of the so-called “female arts” and upper-class professional women who would participate in public life. It is further argued that this categorization allowed Schütte-Lihotzky, in her design for the unbuilt high school annex in Ankara, to rework the broader “redomestication” issue which marked her earlier career in Weimar Germany.

Keywords

GenderClassrebulican womanMargarete Schðtte-LihotzkyErnst EgliAnkara
Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 48 , Spring 2013 , pp. 101 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akçan, Esra. Çeviride Modern Olan: Şehir ve Konutta Türk-Alman İlişkileri. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2009.Google Scholar
Akçan, Esra. “Modernity in Translation: Early Twentieth Century German-Turkish Exchanges in Land Settlement and Residential Culture.” PhD Dissertation, Columbia University, 2005.Google Scholar
Akşit, Elif Ekin. Kızların Sessizliği: Kız Enstitülerinin Uzun Tarihi, İstanbul: iletişim Yayınları, 2005.Google Scholar
Alpagut, Leyla. Cumhuriyet’in Miman Ernst Arnold Egli: Türkiye Yılları, Anılar ve Ankara için Yapılar. İstanbul: Boyut, 2012.Google Scholar
Alpagut, Leyla. “Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi’nde Ankara’daki Eğitim Yapıları.” PhD Dissertation, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2005.Google Scholar
AnkaraKız Lisesi 1935–1937 Yıllığı. Ankara: Ulus Basımevi, n.d.Google Scholar
Ankara Kız Lisesi: Bir Okulun 80 Yılı. Ankara Kız Lisesi, 2008.Google Scholar
Arat, Yeşim. “The Project of Modernity and Women in Turkey.” In Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey. Edited by Bozdoğan, Sibel and Kasaba, Reşat, 95–112. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Arat, Zehra F. “Educating the Daughters of the Republic.” In Deconstructing Images of the Turkish Woman.’ Edited by Arat, Zehra, 157–180. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Bozdoğan, Sibel. Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Brenne, Winfried ed. Bruno Taut: Meister des farbigen Bauens in Berlin. Berlin: Verlagshaus Braun, 2005.Google Scholar
Bullock, Nicholas. “First the Kitchen - then the Façade.” Journal of Design History 1, no. 3/4 (1988): 177–192.Google Scholar
Cengizkan, Ali. Ankara’nın Ilk Planı: 1924-25 Lórcher Planı. Ankara: Ankara Enstitüsü Vakfı & Arkadaş Yayınları, 2004.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, Choi. Soviet Heroines and Public Identity, 1930–1939. Carl Beck papers in Russian & East European studies, no. 1402. Pittsburgh, PA: Russian and East European Study Program, University of Pittsburgh, 1999.Google Scholar
Cindoğlu, Dilek and Şule, Toktaş. “Empowerment and Resistance Strategies of Working Women in Turkey: The Case of 1960-70 Graduates of the Girls’ Institutes.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 9, no. 1 (2002): 31–48.Google Scholar
Doğramacı, Burcu. Kulturtransfer und nationale Identitat: Deutschsprachige Architekten, Stadtplaner und Bildhautr in der Túrkei nach 1927. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2008.Google Scholar
Duben, Alan and Cem, Behar. İstanbul Households, Marriage, Family and Fertility, 1880–1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 2002.Google Scholar
Durakbaşa, Ayşe. “Kemalism as Identity Politics in Turkey.” In Deconstructing Images of‘the Turkish Woman.’ Edited by Arat, Zehra, 139–155. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Elsaesser, Martin. Bauten und Entwürfe aus den Jahren 1924–1932. Berlin: Bauwelt-Verlag, 1933.Google Scholar
Franck, Oya Atalay. “Politik und Architektur: Ernst Egli und die Suche nach einer Moderne in der Türkei (1927–1940).” PhD Dissertation, ΕΤΗ Zürich, 2004.Google Scholar
Gürol, Pelin. “Building for Women’s Education during the Early Republican Period in Turkey, İsmet Pasa Girls’ Institute in Ankara in the 1930s.” MA Thesis, Middle East Technical University, 2003.Google Scholar
Helvacıoğlu, Firdevs. Ders Kitaplarında Cinsiyetçilik, 1928–1995. İstanbul: Kaynak, 1996.Google Scholar
Henderson, Susan. “A Revolution in the Women's Sphere: Grete Lihotzky and the Frankfurt Kitchen.” In Architecture and Feminism. Edited by Coleman, Debra et al., 221–253. New York: Princeton ArchitecturalPress, 1996.Google Scholar
Henderson, Susan. “New Buildings Create New People: The Pavilion Schools of Weimar Frankfurt as a Model of Pedagogical Reform.” Design Issues 13, no. 1 (Spring, 1997): 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helsler, Martina. “The Frankfurt Kitchen: The Model of Modernity and the ‘Madness’ of Traditional Users, 1926 to 1933.” In Cold War Kitchen, Americanization, Technology, and European Users. Edited by Ruth, Oldenziel and Karin, Zachmann, 163–184. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Hirdina, Heinz. Neues Bauen, neues Cestalten: Das neue Frankfurt, die neue Stadt, eine Zeitschrifl zwischen 7926 und 1933. Dresden: Verlag der Kunst Dresden, 1991.Google Scholar
Höpfner, Rosemarie and Volker, Fischer, eds. Ernst May und das neue Frankfurt, 1925–1930. Frankfurt: Deutsches Architektur Museum, 1986.Google Scholar
“Industrial Opportunities and Training for Women and Girls.” Bulletin of the Women’s Bureau, no. 13 (1922): 48.Google Scholar
Izmir Cumhuriyet Kız Enstitüsü Enstitü Yıllığı, 1933–194°• no. 6 (1940).Google Scholar
Kaes, Anton, Martin, lay, and Dimendberg, Edward eds. The Weimar Republic Sourcebook. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Kız Enstitüleri ve Sanat Okulları Sergisi. Ankara, Devlet Basımevi, May 21, 1938.Google Scholar
Kız Teknik Öğretim. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1945.Google Scholar
Lamberti, Marjorie. The Politics of Education: Teachers and School Reform in Weimar Germany. Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2002.Google Scholar
May, Ernst. “Die neue Schule.” In Dos neue Frankfurt, Monatsschrififurdie Probleme moderner Cestaltung. 2 (November-December, 1928): 232–233.Google Scholar
McDowell, Linda. Gender, Identity and Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Meyer, Erna. “Technik und Wirtschaft: Rationalisierung der Verbrauchswirtschaft im Haushalt.” Technik und Wirtschaf 15 (February 1922): 116–120.Google Scholar
Mohr, Christoph and Müller, Michael. Funktionalitat und Moderne: Das neue Frankfurt und seine Bauten,7925–1933. Frankfurt am Main: Fricke, 1984.Google Scholar
Naci, Sadullah, “Selçuk Kız Sanat Mektebi’nde Bir Saat,” Yedigün 54 (1934): 14–16.Google Scholar
Necip, Ali. Kadın Hukuku. Ankara: Hakimiyeti Milliye Matbaası, 1931.Google Scholar
Nicolai, Bernd. Almanca Konuşulan Ülkelerin Mimarları Türkiye’de, 1925–1955. Translated by Pöğün Zander, Yüksel. Ankara: Mimarlar Odası Yayınları, 2011.Google Scholar
Noever, Peter ed. Margarete Schütte-Uhoteky, Soziale Architektur, Zeitzeugin tines Jahrhunderts. Weimar: Böhlau Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
Nolan, Mary. “‘Household Made Easy’: The Taylorized Housewife in Weimar Germany’s Rationalized Economy.” Feminist Studies 16, no. 3 (Fall 1990): 551–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ongun, Cemil Sena. Yeni Kadın. İstanbul: Vakit Kütüphanesi, 1936.Google Scholar
Özaloğlu, Serpil. “Transformation of Ankara between 1935–1950 in Relation with Everyday Life and Lived Spatiality.” PhD Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, 2006.Google Scholar
Özbay, Ferhunde. “Houses, Wives and Housewives.” In Housing Question of the ‘Others.’ Edited by Komut, Emine M. Ankara: Chamber of Architects of Turkey, 1996.Google Scholar
Reagin, Nancy R. Sweeping the German Nation: Domesticity and National Identity in Germany, 1870–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Sami, M. “Kadın Jimnastiği.” Yedigün 2, vol, 3, no. 73 (August 1934): 1–l2.Google Scholar
Şemsi, Mahmud. “Mutlu Evliler, Kadının Sosyal Yükselişi ve Evlilik.” Yedigün 3, no. 109 (1935): 16.Google Scholar
Schütte-Lihotzky, Margarete. “Rationalisierung im Haushalt.” Dos neue Frankfurt 1, no. 5 (1926–1927): 120–23.Google Scholar
Schütte-Lihotzky, Margarete. Erinnerungen aus dem Widerstand: Dos Kampferische Leben emer Architektin von 1938–1945. Wien: Promedia Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
Schütte-Lihotzky, Margarete. Warum ich Architektin wurde. Salzburg: Residenz Verlag, 2004.Google Scholar
Schütte-Lihotzky, Margarete. Yeni Köy Okulları Bina Tipleri Üzerinde Bir Deneme. Translated by örs, Hüseyin. Ankara: Maarif Vekilliği, 1939.Google Scholar
Selim, Tevfik. “Kız Muallim Mektebi’nde.” Yedigün 64 (1934): 9–11.Google Scholar
Tafuri, Manfredo. “The Attempts at Urban Reform in Europe between the Wars.” In Modern Architecture 1, Manfredo Tafuri and Francesco Dal. Co., 153–174. London: Electa, 1986.Google Scholar
Taut, Bruno. Die neue Wohnung, die Frau als Schopferin. Leipzig: Verlag Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1928.Google Scholar
Technical Education for Women and Girls at Home and Abroad. London: Women’s Industrial Council, 1905.Google Scholar
Toktaş, Şule and Cindoğlu, Dilek. “Modernization and Gender: A History of Girls’ Technical Education in Turkey since 1927.” Women’s History Review 15, no 5 (2006): 737–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tüzel, Gökçe Bayrakçeken. “Being and Becoming Professional: Work and Liberation through Women’s Narratives in Turkey.” PhD Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, 2004.Google Scholar
Vaka, Demetra. The Unveiled Ladies of Stamboul. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1923.Google Scholar
Yılmaz, Ali. “The Preparation of Elementary Teachers during the Early Years of the Turkish Republic.” PhD Dissertation, Leigh University, May 1994.Google Scholar