Kineo | Atilla Barutçu
A Performance That Says More Than It Seems: Köçeklik
Atilla Barutçu
 ,
 ,
As someone who has lived in Zonguldak for over a decade, I must unfortunately say that köçeklik is a tradition on the verge of being forgotten. Not too long ago—before the pandemic—it was quite common to come across a köçek performance while traveling through cities in the Western Black Sea region, including Zonguldak, or to hear köçek music drifting in from outside while sitting at home, especially during wedding season. That’s why, back then, I had no difficulty conducting fieldwork for a research project on köçeklik. I was able to easily reach out to many köçeks for interviews and had the opportunity to observe various performances. However, even at that time, some köçeks expressed during our conversations that the demand for their work had significantly declined, that many of their peers and younger generations could no longer pursue köçeklik, and that they feared the tradition would eventually fade away.
 ,
A few years ago, when I tried to help Claire—a researcher who had come from France to carry out a project on köçeks (and who gave me permission to share her photos within this piece)—get in touch with köçeks for her photography work, I sadly realized that the köçeks’ concerns were well founded. It was no longer easy to find performers of this tradition. Not only did young people no longer want to become köçeks, but even during wedding season, the number of people willing to make space for such performances had drastically declined. The days when “a wedding isn’t a wedding without a köçek,” once common in this region, were long gone, and köçeklik was slowly fading into oblivion. Today, when I talk to my students about köçek performances, many of them don’t know what a köçek is.
I believe that keeping köçeklik alive and conveying what a köçek performance is to new generations is quite important, especially in terms of the meanings this performance signifies. While it is often said that the construction of masculinity as a gender category is constantly sustained through the rejection, exclusion, and degradation of femininity and feminine traits, the fact that köçeklik has survived as a (partially) accepted tradition to this day is noteworthy. Considering that its history dates back to the 16th century, we are talking about a performance tradition that has lasted for 500 years. However, despite this long history, we do not often come across writings that focus on köçek performances. Initially mentioned in travelogues, köçeks have more recently appeared in history books, Ottoman studies, or theatrical literature. Unfortunately, some of the texts in which we encounter köçeks are written in a masculine tone and contain sexist and homophobic expressions. And again unfortunately, the approaches of prominent researchers such as Metin And and Refik Ahmet Sevengil are examples of this.
The basis of these approaches stems from the historical process in which köçeks emerged and the characteristics of the performance during that time. Interpretations regarding the origins of köçeks are shaped within almost the same framework across different sources. In a social order heavily influenced by Islam, where women and men could not entertain together, many performances performed today with costumes and bodily movements attributed to the “opposite sex” are considered to have their origins. It is noted that in male-only entertainments where there was no place for women, dressing boys in costumes attributed to women and making them dance filled this gap and formed the foundation of the köçeklik tradition. Since this performance involves a form of imitation, not only the costumes but also bodily beauty and agility come to the forefront. Therefore, it is said that in the period when it first appeared, köçeks were chosen as bright-faced boys who had not yet reached puberty, and their köçeklik ended as they entered puberty. There are also sources mentioning that köçeks provided sexual services as part of male entertainments both in the palace and in the streets, taverns, and coffeehouses.
The discriminatory approaches of researchers like And and Sevengil are rooted in viewing the characteristics of the period when the köçek performance emerged through a modern lens and labeling them with terms such as “deviance.” However, it is certainly incorrect to evaluate how concepts of femininity and masculinity were shaped within the dynamics of that era, how sharply the gender binary between women and men was differentiated, what qualities defined notions of beauty, to what extent the boy’s body was equated with the female body, and the context in which köçeks provided sexual services by using today’s concepts and perspectives.
 ,Moreover, negative attitudes toward köçeklik were not absent even during the historical period when köçeks moved from the palace to the streets and became popular in various neighborhoods of Istanbul. In fact, köçeklik was even banned by a law in 1857. However, it is emphasized that the reason behind this ban was less about the ideas of perversion, obscenity, or incompatibility with male identity as understood today, and more about disturbances caused by audiences in places like taverns, as well as a desire to transition from traditional performing arts to a European-style aesthetic. Unlike these emphases, recent discriminatory texts and prohibition attempts have been shaped more by discomfort with how köçek performances challenge normative gender roles. One of the latest such attempts can be seen in 2018, when the mayor of Kastamonu claimed that such a tradition did not exist in their culture and banned köçek performances at weddings and festivals.
Therefore, the fact that negative attitudes toward köçeks throughout history have been based on different motivations provides clues about the perspectives on köçeks and even on gender during those historical periods. The characteristics and social impacts of the köçek performance have not remained constant over time but have shown variation. The köçeklik performances we see in the last century—and which still continue, albeit to a lesser extent today—do not contain many of the features present in the early periods when the tradition first emerged.
It can be said that today’s versions of the köçeklik performance proceed with very different dynamics. Nowadays, the bodily beauty of köçeks no longer stands out with the old perception of “feminine beauty.” Forms attributed to masculinity, such as beards and mustaches, do not hinder köçeklik. Therefore, transitioning into adulthood does not pose any disadvantage for the köçek performance, on the contrary, it is significant as it indicates the experience gained over many years. Instead of bright-faced boys, the performance is carried out by men of all ages. Providing sexual services is not part of this performance. The master-apprentice relationships, in which the father-son bond is especially important, are highly valued. Today, the purpose of köçeks in continuing the köçeklik performance is to preserve this tradition, which they consider a legacy from their ancestors, to be an important part of the entertainment industry by entertaining people on their special occasions, and to earn money through the profession they practice.
Although it has evolved from its original period, today köçeks still appear to challenge one of the most controlled spheres of power—the normative perceptions of body and identity—through their performances. Today, köçeks are often described in the traditional sense as “men dancing in women’s attire.” However, the köçek performance, which may cause discomfort to some because of this definition, actually deserves to be understood beyond this description and to be read through its qualities that point to much more than what is visible, emphasizing the importance of its provocative nature.
While contemporary interpretations of köçeklik may agree that it is a performance that disrupts normative masculinity roles, the discussion often continues by framing the performance in terms of femininity and feminine traits, frequently resulting in a degrading portrayal similar to earlier examples. Alternatively, with better intentions, the focus is limited to the problematic presence of masculinity expressed in a non-masculine domain through the relationship between dance and masculinity, emphasizing a different kind of masculine performance. However, if köçeklik is to be considered on the basis of gender norms, it actually signals a radical form of resistance. Rather than merely referring to the traditional definition of köçek as male imitation of women or as a destruction and reconstruction of masculinity, I believe it is far more essential to focus on the idea that this ambiguous performance creates a space beyond gender categories. Because this performance, which breaks the boundaries of gender categories, simultaneously constructs a separate identity beyond these categories—the köçeklik identity. Therefore, attempts to explain köçeklik solely through gender categories, as in its traditional definition, prove insufficient.
During the performance, köçeks create a state of being on a threshold through the gender norms they challenge and the bodily boundaries they overturn. This subversive performance and the liminality that emerges during it construct köçekliknot through other categories but as a distinct identity that can only be explained by köçeklik itself. Moreover, this identity construction offers insights into the construction processes of all identity categories, including gender. Because the embodiment of köçeklik during the performance, and its cessation at the end of the performance, provides a way to understand how all identities are constructed and performed through performance. Furthermore, it implies that these performances do not follow a fixed progression, are constantly open to change, and even have an eventual end.
My decision to conduct an academic study on köçeklik stemmed from my belief that the köçek performance should be understood as pointing to a distinct identity category independent of masculinity. It is a cultural heritage with a long historical background that, when viewed through the lens of gender norms, may not seem very acceptable, yet has persisted throughout history. This heritage is notable for its destabilizing effect on established gender categories. The accounts shared by the köçeks I interviewed supported this interpretation. According to them, köçeklik had nothing to do with masculinity or femininity. The köçek performance was not a man’s performance of womanhood but a performance of köçeklik itself. The clothes they wore were not women’s skirts but köçek costumes. The dances they performed were not belly dances associated with women but köçek dances. In other words, what the köçeks performed was köçeklik—constructed during the performance through their unique costumes, choreography, music, and audience—not anything else.
The fact that köçeks appear to challenge normative gender categories through their performance and construct a new identity beyond these categories makes it more feasible to approach köçeklik as a form of radical resistance. This approach opens new avenues for thinking about the köçeklik tradition, which is rarely encountered in written texts and has only recently been addressed from a gender perspective in limited studies. Greater attention needs to be given to such a performance and the meanings it signifies, especially in the current political climate. The discomfort caused by what köçeks dismantle and build through their performance on the threshold is therefore quite valuable.
Köçeks, with their performances that resist norms, break boundaries, deconstruct existing categories, and build a new identity, have already secured their place in history—even if they were to disappear entirely in the near future due to the discomfort they cause some people. And this place in history deserves much more than a simple definition of the performance as a man dressed as a woman. Because through its radical opposition, the köçek performance implies a meaning far beyond what is visible by destabilizing the categories idealized and naturalized by today’s imposed identity politics. While emphasizing that the centuries-long presence of köçeks on the historical stage should not be forgotten, it is critically important to highlight the performance’s ability to shake categories and reveal the construction processes of all identities.