Epstein and the Attempt to Import Scandal, Decontextualization, Violence
The Epstein case is a cautionary example, demonstrating how mechanisms of meaning-making operate globally during times of crisis.
A satirical statue depicting U.S. President Donald Trump and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a “Titanic”-themed pose is displayed on the National Mall in Washington, DC, on March 10, 2026. Photo by Anadolu Images.
I
n modern societies, in addition to being a crime or moral deviance, scandal also functions as a complex political communication tool that shapes collective perception.
While scandal narratives recount ‘what happened’ in the collective memory, they also determine ‘how it should be understood’. This process of production goes far beyond the mere transfer of information; through techniques such as discursive framing, selective visibility and contextual detachment, symbolic maps of meaning are constructed that can obscure or distort power relations.
The Jeffrey Epstein case, which began in the US and quickly evolved into a global scandal, is one of the most significant and intricate crisis cases of the modern era. Numerous renowned figures have been implicated, and new information, documents, and testimonies are being revealed daily.
Beyond its legal dimension, this case is an exceptional example of the interaction between political power structures, global capital networks, intelligence relationships and media systems. In this respect, the Epstein case is not merely an isolated criminal case, but rather a structural indicator revealing how power networks operating globally, immunity mechanisms of the elite, regimes of directed silence and intelligence systems are institutionalized.
The handicap of not questioning the system
The nature of the case goes far beyond that of a typical criminal investigation. Epstein cultivated relationships with various political power circles, financial centres, cultural elites and intelligence structures over many years. These relationships have revealed the permeable boundaries between the state, the market and the media, demonstrating the mutual protection and invisibility they create.
This suggests that the scandal is not confined to individual crimes, but rather indicates how certain individuals, due to systemic privileges, have been able to evade legal and social oversight for extended periods. It also suggests that individuals within the realm of immunity can be manipulated and controlled at will. Consequently, the Epstein case serves as a striking example of the fragility of the principle of accountability in modern democracies.
However, the way this case has been discussed internationally has often deliberately narrowed the focus to individual moral deviations rather than revealing the dark structural dimensions of the event intertwined with intelligence agencies. While the Epstein case has been presented in the global media as a narrative of great ‘moral decay’, the deep and continuous relationships that those involved have established with transnational capital, intelligence networks, the media and political decision-making mechanisms have been relegated to the sidelines instead of being framed within a systemic critique.
This narrow focus has served to define the boundaries of legal responsibility and the direction of public outrage. Consequently, rather than questioning the structures that should be investigated, public attention has been directed towards specific individuals.
Political and economic context
When the criminal acts at the heart of the scandal — particularly those relating to the intelligence network — are detached from their political and economic context, the resulting narrative frames them as the moral decay of ‘a handful of evildoers and paedophiles’. This reveals that the institutional and network structures that protect individuals and render them invisible for extended periods are consciously or unconsciously relegated to the background.
A selective visibility regime then comes into play within the media-economy-politics triangle, determining which names are highlighted, which connections are considered secondary and which relationships are completely silenced. This is often not determined by legal criteria, but by political, economic and ideological balances. Consequently, the scandal is transformed from a moment of rupture that questions the system itself, into a narrative framework that reproduces existing power relations.
In this respect, the Epstein case is a cautionary example, demonstrating how mechanisms of meaning-making operate globally during times of crisis and how public debate is constrained within the scope of a criminal case.
The way this global narrative translates into the Turkish context is also interesting, representing much more than a simple ‘localization’ process. It points to a deep and problematic recoding mechanism at the discursive level.
One point requires particular attention here. While no negative issues that could be ‘used as material’ against the Republic of Turkey and its government emerge in the files, correspondence is found showing Epstein targeting President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan directly or through various channels.
This issue should have been addressed within the context of transnational power relations, intelligence networks and elite immunity regimes. However, in Turkey, it has been positioned atop existing ideological tensions and transformed into a tool of local identity politics.
In this process, some legally isolated and exceptional cases have been taken out of context and used to make systematic generalizations. With an Islamophobic understanding, attempts have been made to present these cases as representative of all religious and conservative social groups and their civil society structures. Some have even attempted to tarnish the name of the late, martyred Grand Vizier Talat Pasha, the embodiment of honor, with such disgraceful accusations. These efforts, each of which is a separate lie and slander, create the impression of a causal link between individual criminal acts and collective cultural identities, and this impression is increasingly being circulated in public discourse as a natural and inevitable reality.
The crime is personal, but the perspective is general
In the literature of communication and discourse analysis, this mechanism is referred to as ‘representative generalization’. It relies on presenting singular or exceptional events as examples that reflect the ‘essence’ of a particular social group. Rather than claiming statistical majority, this method relies on the power of symbolic representation. In other words, the prevalence of the event is not important here, but rather the identity it represents. Representative generalization is a powerful tool for simplifying complex social realities and making them ‘meaningful’; however, this simplification often prioritizes ideological functionality over analytical accuracy. In this context, consistently associating specific cases with the same cultural identity can lead to that identity becoming synonymous with potential crime. Consequently, the collective identity becomes associated with crime in a symbolic rather than legal sense.
This type of discursive construct aims not only to marginalize specific social groups, but also to structurally erode the principle of individual legal responsibility.
The principle of ‘individual responsibility for crime’, a fundamental pillar of the modern legal order, becomes ineffective in the face of such generalizations. Individual actions are presented as a natural extension of group identity. Ultimately, social identities are redefined under the shadow of crime, becoming fragile grounds shaped by mutual distrust and symbolic exclusion. This fragility deepens cultural polarization and points to a long-term structural problem that undermines the legitimacy of the rule of law and democratic pluralism.
Clean society effort
It is important to note that generalizations are not always expressed in overtly hostile language, but rather through more sophisticated and indirect discourse. This hierarchy, based on concepts such as ‘moral superiority’, ‘modernity’ and ‘progressiveness’, perpetuates the traditional secular-religious divide under the guise of scientific claims. However, this approach is an ideological construct that positions social groups not as rational subjects, but as potential threats. This kind of discourse not only excludes certain segments of society, it also obscures real criminal networks and structural problems, diverting public energy towards the wrong targets.
Nevertheless, the policies and security strategies recently implemented with great success in Turkey are based on a holistic governance approach centered on combatting organized crime networks and strengthening institutional capacity to protect the social fabric. The security, justice and social policy components developed within the framework of a ‘clean society’ perspective rely on long-term strategies that aim for preventive, rehabilitative and structural transformation, alongside reactive interventions.
Extensive operations against multi-layered criminal structures, such as those involved in drug and human trafficking, prostitution, and gambling and betting, demonstrate that the state has asserted its presence in these areas. They also reveal that the state has developed significant institutional coordination, intelligence, and legal enforcement capabilities. This determination shows that these problems are not being ignored; quite the contrary, there is a systematic will to protect public order and social security.
However, overshadowing this institutional and operational success with ideological generalizations and cultural targeting not only renders the efforts of those working in the field invisible, it also carries the risk of transforming the fight against crime from a rational and legal arena into a cultural and identity-based conflict zone. It also carries the risk of transforming the fight against crime from a rational, legal arena into a cultural, identity-based conflict zone. This type of discursive manipulation implies an underlying strategy to both question the legitimacy of operations and create a public perception of ‘systemic failure’ by overshadowing the government’s structural successes in this area. Consequently, the focus shifts from combating specific criminal networks to cultural polarization, and the multifaceted and transnational nature of organized crime is relegated to a secondary or even subordinate position.
In this respect, the discourse in question is not merely an attempt to shape the perceptions of specific social groups; it is also part of a broader politics of meaning. This politics aims to narrow the scope of policies by portraying the state’s ability to combat crime and its commitment to establishing public order as questionable. Relegating the issues to a symbolic level serves to ‘dilute’ the real problem areas and weaken the possibility of finding solutions. Instead of deepening public debate and strengthening legal and institutional achievements, the discourse becomes trapped in a realm where ideological antagonisms are reproduced. In the long run, this damages both the capacity for democratic governance and social trust.
Therefore, if the global and local narratives constructed around the Epstein case are to be addressed within the framework of universal principles such as justice, human dignity and the rule of law, a systemic inquiry is required to reveal the structural and institutional context of the event and transcend individual deviations. Explaining the scandal through examples of personal immorality or cultural identities provides a reductionist interpretation that obscures the true causes of the problem. However, when such cases are evaluated from the perspectives of political economy, the sociology of law and media studies, they should be read as structural indicators revealing how certain power networks create areas of immunity and institutional gaps that pave the way for such criminal practices and reproduce them.
Justice becoming an ideological tool
Although transforming scandals into tools for creating collective enemies can produce short-term symbolic gains and reinforce specific ideological positions, it ultimately undermines the rational functioning of public opinion, erodes critical thinking capacity and erodes social trust in the long term. Such discursive strategies reshape public debate around identity, belonging, belief and ideologically driven divisions, moving it away from legal and institutional solutions. The consequence is that the demand for justice ceases to be a universal norm and becomes an ideological tool.
In this context, intellectual responsibility involves more than taking a critical stance; it also entails constantly questioning the conceptual framework, epistemological assumptions and normative goals within which the critique is produced.
Rather than amplifying scandalous narratives, the intellectual subject must maintain an analytical distance that reveals the power relations within which these narratives are produced, the interest groups they serve and the social segments they exclude. This distance enables public debate to be shaped by evidence-based assessments and proposed institutional solutions rather than emotional reactions.
Ultimately, interpreting events through the lens of cultural othering and the symbolic attribution of guilt exacerbates societal divisions; conversely, viewing them as opportunities for institutional reform, legal reinforcement, and the development of democratic oversight mechanisms paves the way for a more inclusive and sustainable political culture. Scientific reason and critical thinking require us to treat scandals as analytical tools for structural transformation and renewal, rather than as objects of identity conflict. This approach is also a fundamental pillar of the capacity of democratic societies to reproduce their own legitimacy.
(Orginally published in Turkish by Kriter)
