ABSTRACT
As I started to study in the Introduction, political violence and social movement constitute two distinct but intermingled processes. I criticized social movement studies because for a long time they handled political violence as a marginal phenomenon. This chapter aims at studying interdependency between violence and mobilization of the PKK. What is the role of political violence in the mobilization of this organization? How does political violence produce structuring effects on mobilization of the militants? How do armed groups organize themselves within society? It is relevant to explain what mobilization means since the term remains quite vague in the works of social movements. Mobilization herein signifies the whole mechanisms and processes whereby a movement is being formed, maintains itself and moves to violence. Given the observation of this phenomenon in the case of the PKK, one may notice three interdependent dynamics, that is to say the use of violence, militant habitus and proximity. First, the use of violence impacts PKK mobilization and even becomes one of its central dynamics. This implies that violence is neither a simple product of mobilization nor a mere process of accumulation of resources which enables the actors to use various repertoires of collective action. In fact, political violence might itself create and maintain resources, networks, structures as well as political organizations. More precisely, it may serve to mobilize, politicize and radicalize individuals. The second factor deals with the links between political violence and formation of a militant habitus.1 Radicalism is one of the characteristics of the Kurdish political field. The PKK militants develop a radical habitus. It is indeed suggested that a militant logic is institutionalized within the form of habitus, namely a whole of dispositions more or less shared by militants and cadres of the organization, which is historically constituted.2 Habitus as a militant culture seems to be one of the conditions of violence. Recognized by Kurdish militants and
inscribed in their practices, it permits the persistence of mobilization in favor of political violence. The third one deals with organizational dynamics of violence which refer to relations between the PKK and Kurdish society. The phenomenon of organization is a broad topic to study; I will limit it to ties between a civilian population and a guerilla force, a relationship which has been quite neglected in social sciences. The role of society matters in the guerilla force’s mobilization. In this respect, I will use the concept of social base which helps to explain the support and attachment to the PKK as well as local logistics. Likewise, I will question the relations between guerilla and social base through the mechanism of proximity. The concept by Simmel which I started to define in the Introduction enables one to study reciprocal action or socialization taking place between guerilla and social base.3 As a principal modality of relations between actors, proximity seems to have a major influence on mobilization.
