A series of armed attacks targeting schools in recent days has sparked deep concern and public debate. While the repercussions of the armed attack on Ahmet Koyuncu Vocational and Technical Anatolian High School in Siverek (Sêwereg), Urfa (Riha), where 16 people were injured, are still unfolding, another armed attack on a school in Maraş (Maraş) left 9 people dead.
The fact that these two attacks targeting educational institutions occurred within a short period and were carried out by minors has shifted the focus of discussions directly toward the government’s child policies, the education system and social policies concerning youth.
Sociologist Ezgi Sıla Demir, who spoke to ANF, said that the increasing incidents of violence in schools cannot be understood merely as individual cases, pointing instead to a broader social framework.
The attack is rooted in a long history
Demir opposed the characterization of the attacks as “individual deviation” and said: “Defining this situation merely as an individual deviation actually renders the real problem invisible. Because when a child picks up a gun in a school corridor and pulls the trigger, that finger does not carry only the anger of that moment. In that finger are the accumulated suppressed emotions of years, unheard voices and unseen childhoods. At the same time, that finger bears the traces of the harsh, destructive and domineering language through which society conveys its power relations to children.
In other words, we are not witnessing just a single moment, but the outcome of a long history. Violence is not individual; it is socially produced. It is not a sudden eruption, but a legacy passed down from generation to generation, and today we are seeing the consequences of this legacy in the hands of children.”
Protective mechanisms have weakened
Demir drew attention to the weakening of structures that protect children in society and said: “These incidents tell us something very clearly: society’s protective shields have significantly weakened. The safe spaces that should be provided by the family, school, social environment, and public institutions are no longer sufficiently protective for children. In this vacuum, children look for other ways to express themselves. And unfortunately, violence comes at the forefront of these ways. Because violence is no longer just an outcome; it has also become a learned and transmitted form of behavior.
Boys are placed into certain molds from a very early age. Crying is coded as weakness; vulnerability is suppressed, and anger is made into almost the only legitimate form of expression. This is a highly problematic form of socialization. Because a child who cannot express their emotions begins, at a certain point, to believe that they can only express themselves through action, often through violence.”
What we see is only the tip of the iceberg
Demir explained the attacks using sociologist Johan Galtung’s “iceberg” metaphor and said: “What we are seeing right now is only the part of the iceberg above the water. In other words, we see physical violence, the attack, the very moment the trigger is pulled. But the main mass lies beneath the surface. That mass consists of what we call structural violence and cultural violence. Economic crises strain family relations, the education system pushes children’s emotional development into the background, violence becomes normalized in everyday language, and it is constantly reproduced in the media and digital spaces. All of these are factors that enlarge that iceberg. Children do not grow up outside this atmosphere; on the contrary, they are shaped within it and begin to reproduce its language.”
The child is both perpetrator and victim
Demir drew attention to the fact that in recent years children have increasingly appeared in such incidents as both perpetrators and victims, emphasizing that this creates a cycle: “Today, we see that children are involved in similar incidents both as perpetrators and as victims. This is a striking situation. Because it shows that violence reproduces itself in a cyclical manner. The child witnesses violence, is exposed to it, internalizes it, and after a while turns into an actor who reproduces that same violence. Unless this cycle is broken, it becomes inevitable that similar incidents will continue.
Each incident feeds another. Violence is not only an individual act; it is also a social atmosphere, and as that atmosphere intensifies, the frequency of such incidents increases.”
The issue is a public matter
Ezgi Sıla Demir stated that violence cannot be reduced solely to families and pointed to a broader sphere of responsibility, concluding: “Seeing this issue only as the responsibility of parents would be an extremely reductionist approach. Of course, the family is important, but it is not the sole determining factor. We see how the law functions, what kind of language the media uses, how politics speaks, and how the public sphere is organized. All of these shape the world of children. Therefore, there is a multi-layered responsibility here, and a significant part of that responsibility belongs to public authorities.
Today, we see traces of violence everywhere, from inside the home to the streets, from traffic to social media. This clearly shows that what we are facing is not isolated incidents but a structural crisis.
If the language of politics, the functioning of the law and the approach of the media are not oriented toward reducing violence, it will not be possible to change this picture. For this reason, we must address the issue not only as a security problem but as a matter of social reckoning. Otherwise, each new incident will continue to become a link in a chain that feeds the previous one.”
Leave a Reply