Introduction

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Yves Besson, “Identity Crises as a Paradigm of Middle Eastern Conflictuality,” International Social Science Journal, Vol. 43, No. 1 (1991), p. 136. 2. Leonard Binder, Islamic Liberalism: A Critique of Development Ideologies (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1988), p. 83. 3. Arjun Appadurai, “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy,” Public Culture, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring 1990), p. 7. 4. Mike Featherstone, Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism and Identity (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995), pp. 102–103. 5. Mike Featherstone, Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism and Identity (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995), p. 14. 6. E. Fuat Keyman, Globalization, State, Identity/Difference (New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1997). 7. E. Fuat Keyman, Globalization, State, Identity/Difference (New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1997), p. 79. 8. Roland Robertson, “Mapping the Global Condition: Globalization as the Central Concept,” in Mike Featherstone, Global Culture, Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity (New York: Sage Publications, 1990), p. 21. 9. In line with Robertson's arguments, discussions about the effects of globalization on Turkish national identity in this study starts with the Tanzimat era and the late nineteenth century, when political Westernization of Turkey began. 10. Modernization theories were the first social scientific theories that dealt with global cultural flows (civilization as a process). However, the fact that these theories emerged during the 1960s does not indicate that the events that were theorized occurred simultaneously with these theories. For example, issues of cultural integration and national identity formation, which were subjects of modernization and development theories, go back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Theories that emerged during the 1960s studied the events that were in progress and started earlier. In other words, discussions in this study about the modernization era as the beginning of contemporary cultural processes do not imply that the 1960s marked the beginnings of globalization. 11. David E. Apter, The Politics of Modernization (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1965), p. 43. 12. Csaba Polony, “Editorial Statement: Tradition/Modernity/Postmodernity, the Commodity and Paradigmatic Shifts,” Left Curve, 1993, at: www.wco.com/ ∼ leftcurv/EdPosition.htm (March 3, 1999). 13. Lucien W. Pye, Aspects of Political Development (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co., 1966), p. 10. 14. The modernization era was the period of the establishment of nation states and their cultural bases in the Third World similar to their forefathers in Europe. Assimilation meant the homogenization of the national culture by dissolving differences. In that sense, what modernization claimed culturally for the nation state was claimed by globalization worldwide. While modernization dissolved national differences into a national culture, today globalization claims to dissolve national cultures into a global culture. Here, globalization arguments appear as a continuation of modernization arguments at a higher level. 15. Luis Roniger, “Public Life and Globalization as Cultural Vision,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 32, No. 2 (1995), p. 261 fn. 16. Pye, Aspects of Political Development, p. 8. 17. Featherstone, Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism and Identity. 18. Featherstone, Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism and Identity, p. 116. 19. Featherstone, Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism and Identity, p. 14. 20. M. Kearney, “The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and Transnationalism,” Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 24 (Oct. 1995), pp. 547–65. 21. Ulf Hannerz, “Scenarios for Peripheral Cultures,” in Anthony D. King, Culture, Globalization and the World System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), pp. 119, 123. 22. Featherstone, Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism and Identity, p. 3. 23. Abu-Lughod Janet, “Going Beyond Global Babble,” in King, Culture, Globalization and the World System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity, pp. 131–37. 24. Anthony D. King, “Introduction: Spaces of Culture, Spaces of Knowledge,” in King, Culture, Globalization and the World System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity, p. 8. 25. Claudio Lomnitz, “Decadence in Times of Globalization,” Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1994), p. 262. 26. Edibe Sözen, “Batının Öteki Yüzü,” Zaman, March 25, 1999. 27. Roland Robertson, Globalization, Social Theory and Global Culture (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1992), pp. 58–59. 28. Anthony D. Smith, “Is There a Global Culture?” Intermedia, Vol. 20, Nos. 4–5 (1992), pp. 11–12. 29. Kearney, “The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and Transnationalism,” p. 554. 30. Lomnitz, “Decadence in Times of Globalization,” p. 259. 31. Jonathan Friedman, “Global System, Globalization and the Parameters of Modernity,” in Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson, Global Modernities (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995), p. 250. 32. David McDowall, A Modern History of the Kurds (New York: I. B. Tauris, 1997), pp. 131–37. 33. Edward Said supports the argument about the clash of civilizations happening within nations. According to him, Huntington's error “is that he does not see the battle is not between civilizations but inside them.” Edward Said, “What is Islam?” An interview by Alexander Cockburn, New Statesman and Society, Vol. 8 (Feb. 10, 1995), pp. 20–22. 34. Philip Schlesinger, “Wishful Thinking. Cultural Politics, Media, and Collective Identities in Europe,” Journal of Communication, Vol. 43, No. 2 (1993), p. 7. 35. W.J.M. Mackenzie, Political Identity (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978), p. 130. 36. On the chart, there is no perfect match between the areas of a culture and of a national identity. Portions of a national identity are left purposefully outside the cultural area to indicate external influences and the effects of globalization on identity formation processes. Even though Schlesinger argues that a culture constitutes “the boundaries for versions of national identity,” the author contends that there are external influences affecting a national identity outside culturally defined boundaries. Philip Schlesinger, “On National Identity: Some Conceptions and Misconceptions Criticized,” Social Science Information, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1987), pp. 219–64. If we think of the circle of national identity as a soft water ball, external forces push and stretch that ball and change the overlapping areas between culture and national identity. As a result, a previously excluded identity can be included in the national identity, or the opposite. A national identity, apart from its internal dynamics, cannot remain constant because of the effects of globalization: external pushes and pulls. 37. Burkart Holzner and Roland Robertson, “Identity and Authority: A Problem Analysis of Processes of Identification and Authorization,” in Burkart Holzner and Roland Robertson, Identity and Authority: Explorations in the Theory of Society (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980), p. 5. 38. Ulf Hannerz, Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), p. 7. 39. Hannerz, “Scenarios for Peripheral Cultures,” in King, Culture, Globalization and the World System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity, pp. 112–16. 40. Anthony D. Smith, “The Formation of National Identity,” in Henry Harris, Identity: Essays Based on Herbert Spencer Lectures Given in the University of Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 129–53. 41. Anthony D. Smith, “The Formation of National Identity,” in Henry Harris, Identity: Essays Based on Herbert Spencer Lectures Given in the University of Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), p. 131. 42. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973), p. 314. 43. Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1963), p. 13. 44. Gabriel Almond, “The Intellectual History of the Civic Culture Concept,” in Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, Civic Culture Revisited (Boston, MA: Little Brown and Co., 1980). 45. Politicization of a culture does not necessarily suggest the institutionalization of a cultural movement, their representation in a political party, or political demonstrations. Any kind of public expression, especially through speeches and writings, of cultural traits, both within the members of that culture and the ones outside the assumed collectivity can be considered as politicization. In this way, an identity comes into existence through expression, and becomes politicized. Even though consciousness of people is crucial for an identity, unexpressed consciousness is insufficient to form an identity. Identity cannot exist unless its existence is felt both within and outside a group and this can only occur through public expressions. Tehranian argues that “our identities are thus formed through our primary culture (identification with significant others), secondary culture (language and cosmology), and tertiary culture (mediated communication). According to her, identities are formed through a public discourse in which these three elements interact. Katherine Kia Tehranian, “Global Communication and Pluralization of Identities,” Futures, Vol. 30, Nos. 2–3 (1997), p. 212. 46. Holzner and Robertson, “Identity and Authority: A Problem Analysis of Processes of Identification and Authorization,” in Holzner and Robertson, Identity and Authority: Explorations in the Theory of Society,” pp. 5–10. 47. Geoff Eley and Ronald Grigor Suny, “Introduction: From the Moment of Social History to the Work of Cultural Representation,” in Geoff Eley and Ronald Grigor Suny, Becoming National: A Reader (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 6; Holzner and Robertson, “Identity and Authority: A Problem Analysis of Processes of Identification and Authorization,” in Holzner and Robertson, Identity and Authority: Explorations in the Theory of Society, p. 14. 48. Kevin A. Hill and John E. Hughes, “Computer-Mediated Political Communication: The USENET and Political Communities,” Political Communication, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1997), pp. 3–27. 49. Tehranian, “Global Communication and Pluralization of Identities,” pp. 211–17. 50. Thomas K. Fitzgerald, “Media and Changing Metaphors of Ethnicity and Identity,” Media, Culture & Society, Vol.13, No. 2 (1991), p. 195. 51. John Nguyet Erni, “On the Limits of ‘Wired Identity’ in the Age of Global Media,” Identities, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1996), pp. 419–28. 52. David J. Elkins, “Globalization, Telecommunication, and Virtual Ethnic Communities,” International Political Science Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1997), pp. 139–52; and Tehranian, “Global Communication and Pluralization of Identities.”. 53. Nevzat Soğuk, “Transnational/Transborder Bodies: Resistance, Accommodation, and Exile in Refugee and Migration Movements on the US–Mexican Border,” in Hayward R. Alker and Michael J. Shapiro, Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), pp. 285–326. 54. Melucci's arguments are cited in Philip Schlesinger, “On National Identity: Some Conceptions and Misconceptions Criticized,” Social Science Information, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1987), pp. 236–38. 55. Actually, Habermas is the first person to discuss these two categories of an identity crisis in Legitimacy Crisis. A similar classification can be found in Roy F. Baumeister, Jeremy P. Shapiro, and Dianne M. Tice, “Two Kinds of Identity Crisis,” Journal of Personality, Vol. 53, No. 3 (1985), pp. 407–25. 56. Tehranian, “Global Communication and Pluralization of Identities,” p. 213. 57. Guy E. Swanson, “A Basis of Authority and Identity in Post-Industrial Society,” in Holzner and Robertson, Identity and Authority: Explorations in the Theory of Society, p. 191. 58. Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling Class, Hannah D. Kahn (trans.) (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1939), p. 72. 59. Roland Robertson, “Aspects of Identity and Authority in Sociological Theory,” in Holzner and Robertson, Identity and Authority: Explorations in the Theory of Society, p. 258. 60. Roland Robertson, “Aspects of Identity and Authority in Sociological Theory,” in Holzner and Robertson, Identity and Authority: Explorations in the Theory of Society, p. 249. 61. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (New York: Verso, 1996). 62. Philip Schlesinger, “A Question of Identity,” New European, Vol. 5 (1992), p. 11. 63. Erik Erikson, Identity, Youth and Crisis (New York: Norton & Company, 1968) p. 16; Andre Gunder Frank, “Crisis of Ideology and Ideology of Crisis,” in Samir Amin, Giovanni Aarighi, Andre Gunder Frank, and Immanuel Wallerstein, Dynamics of Global Crisis (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1982), p. 109; and Immanuel Wallerstein, “Crisis as Transition,” in Samir Amin et. al., Dynamics of Global Crisis, pp. 11–54. 64. Samuel Huntington, Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Touchstone, 1996), p. 245. 65. Hannerz, “Scenarios for Peripheral Cultures,” in King, Culture, Globalization and the World System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity, pp. 17–19. 66. Lucian W. Pye, Politics, Personality, and Nation Building: Burma's Search for Identity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1962), pp. 19–21. 67. Jonathan Friedman, “Transnationalization, Socio-Political Disorder and Ethnification as Expressions of Declining Global Hegemony,” at: www2.hawaii.edu/ ∼ fredr/friedman.htm (April 14, 1999), p. 6. 68. Seymour Martin Lipset, “Social Conflict, Legitimacy, and Democracy,” in William Connolly, Legitimacy and the State (New York: New York University, 1984), p. 90. 69. Seymour Martin Lipset, “Social Conflict, Legitimacy, and Democracy,” in William Connolly, Legitimacy and the State (New York: New York University, 1984), p. 88. 70. Philippe C. Schmitter, “Some Basic Assumptions About the Consolidation of Democracy,” in Takashi Inoguchi, Edward Newman, and John Keane, The Changing Nature of Democracy (New York: The United Nations University, 1998), p. 28. 71. Philippe C. Schmitter, “Dangers and Dilemmas of Democracy,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1994), p. 59. 72. Philippe C. Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl, “What Democracy is … and is Not,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Summer 1991), pp. 50–54. 73. Doh Chull Shin, “On the Third Wave of Democratization. A Synthesis and Evaluation of Recent Theory and Research,” World Politics, Vol. 47 (Oct. 1994), pp. 148–49. 74. Takashi Inoguchi, Edward Newman, and John Keane, “Introduction: The Changing Nature of Democracy,” in Inoguchi, Newman, and Keane, The Changing Nature of Democracy, pp. 15–16. 75. John S. Dryzek, “Political Inclusion and the Dynamics of Democratization,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 1 (1996), p. 486. 76. Chantal Mouffe, “Democracy, Power and the ‘Political,’” in Seyla Benhabib, Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 245–56. 77. Dryzek, “Political Inclusion and the Dynamics of Democratization,” p. 477. 78. Iris Marion Young, “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy,” and Joshua Cohen, “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy,” both in Benhabib, Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, pp. 102 and 126. 79. Dryzek, “Political Inclusion and the Dynamics of Democratization,” p. 481. 80. Sheldon S. Wolin, “Fugitive Democracy,” in Benhabib, Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, p. 34. 81. Alberto Melucci and Timo Lyyra, “Collective Action, Change, and Democracy,” in Marco G. Giugni, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly, From Contention to Democracy (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1998), p. 220. 82. Mouffe, “Democracy, Power and the ‘Political,’” in Benhabib, Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, p. 246. 83. Joshua Cohen, “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy,” in Benhabib, Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, pp. 95–97. 84. Larry Diamond, “Three Paradoxes of Democracy.” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 1 (Summer 1990), pp. 119–20. 85. Schmitter and Karl, “What Democracy is … and is Not,” p. 53. 86. Wolin, “Fugitive Democracy,” p. 42. 87. Schmitter, “Some Basic Assumptions About the Consolidation of Democracy,” in Inoguchi, Newman, and Keane, The Changing Nature of Democracy, p. 29. 88. Mouffe, “Democracy, Power and the ‘Political,’” in Benhabib, Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, pp. 247–48. 89. Arend Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977), p. 5. 90. Quoted by Ahmet Taner Kışlalı in Cumhuriyet, May 28, 1999. 91. The term “full democratization” should be read as “a consolidated democracy.” In the literature, consolidated democracies are defined as the political regimes where democracy becomes “the only game in town” and other alternatives are inconceivable. If a country is fully democratized, democracy in that country is consolidated. 92. Simten Coşar, “Liberalizmin Açmazlarına Bir Giriş: Ahmet Ağaoğlu,” in E. Fuat Keyman and A. Yaşar Sarıbay, Küreselleşme, Sivil Toplum ve İslam: Türkiye Üzerine Yansımalar (Ankara: Vadi Yayınları, 1998), p. 151. 93. Fred Dallmayr, “Democracy and Multiculturalism,” in Benhabib, Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, pp. 288–89. 94. Yehuda Amir, “Contact Hypothesis in Ethnic Relations,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 71, No. 5 (1969), pp. 319–42; Corinne Kosmitzki, “The Reaffirmation of Cultural Identity in Cross-Cultural Encounters,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 3 (1996), pp. 238–48; Walter G. Stephan, “The Contact Hypothesis in Intergroup Relations,” in Clyde Hendrick, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, Review of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 9 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1987), pp. 13–40. 95. Amir, “Contact Hypothesis in Ethnic Relations.”. 96. Amir, “Contact Hypothesis in Ethnic Relations.”, p. 330. 97. Nicolas Berdyaev, The Origin of Russian Communism (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1937), p. 18. 98. Hüsamettin Arslan, “Pozitivizm, Bir Bilim İdeolojisinin Anatomisi,” in Sebahattin Şen, Türk Aydını ve Kimlik Sorunu (İstanbul: Bağlam Yayıncılık, 1995), p. 567. 99. Hüsamettin Arslan, “Pozitivizm, Bir Bilim İdeolojisinin Anatomisi,” in Sebahattin Şen, Türk Aydını ve Kimlik Sorunu (İstanbul: Bağlam Yayıncılık, 1995), p. 568. 100. Baskın Oran, Atatürk Milliyetçiliği: Resmi İdeoloji Dışı Bir İnceleme (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1990), p. 240. 101. Baskın Oran, Atatürk Milliyetçiliği: Resmi İdeoloji Dışı Bir İnceleme (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1990), p. 251. 102. Baskın Oran, Atatürk Milliyetçiliği: Resmi İdeoloji Dışı Bir İnceleme (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1990), p. 253. 103. Baskın Oran, Atatürk Milliyetçiliği: Resmi İdeoloji Dışı Bir İnceleme (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1990), p. 140–241. 104. Orhan Pamuk, The Black Book, London: Faber and Faber, 1995, p. 54. 105. Taner Timur, Osmanlı Kimliği (Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 1998). 106. Victor Gecas, “The Self-Concept,” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 8 (1982), p. 6. 107. Victor Gecas, “The Self-Concept,” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 8 (1982), p. 14. 108. Henri Tajfel, “Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 1 (1982), pp. 24–25; Louk Hagendoorn, “Ethnic Categorization and Outgroup Exclusion: Cultural Values and Social Stereotypes in the Construction of Ethnic Hierarchies,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1 (1993), pp. 26–51; Yueh-Ting Lee and Victor Ottati, “Perceived In-group Homogeneity as a Function of Group Membership Salience and Stereotype Threat,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 6 (1995), pp. 610–19; and Claude M. Steele, “A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance,” American Psychologist, Vol. 52, No. 6 (1997), pp. 613–29. 109. Antronette K. Yancey, “Identity Formation and Social Maladaptation in Foster Adolescents,” Adolescence, Vol. 27, No. 108 (1992), pp. 819–31. 110. Kenneth E. Boulding, The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1961), p. 71. Even though Boulding uses the term “image” in the sense of knowledge about both ourselves and the things outside us, there is a great overlap between his use of the term and the author's. By image, the author means the perceptions of a group by outsiders. By the same token, perceptions can also be interpreted as knowledge about the perceived thing. These slight differences between the uses of the term “image” by Boulding and the author are negligible. 111. Charles Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” in Amy Gutmann, Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 32. 112. Charles Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” in Amy Gutmann, Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 64. 113. “Coherency” of an identity refers to its avoidance of internal tensions. A coherent identity might present itself to the nation as a more homogenous entity than it actually is. The issue of coherency is closely related to the confrontation between identity and the negative image as well. An identity exposed to its negative images loses its coherency. Lee and Ottati's research (“Perceived In-group Homogeneity as a Function of Group Membership Salience and Stereotype Threat”) shows that when groups confront their own negative images, members of that group defensively perceive their group as more heterogeneous, while, when the images are positive, they have a more homogenous view of their identity/culture. 114. Hagendoorn, “Ethnic Categorization and Outgroup Exclusion: Cultural Values and Social Stereotypes in the Construction of Ethnic Hierarchies.”. 115. Tajfel, “Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.”. 116. Dora Capozza, Emiliana Bonaldo, and Alba Di Maggio, “Problems of Identity and Social Conflict: Research on Ethnic Groups in Italy,” in Henri Tajfel, Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 322. 117. Tajfel, “Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,” p. 82. 118. Mehmet Şevket Eygi, “Kimliğimizi Korumak” Milli Gazete, Feb. 16, 2000. 119. Timur, in Osmanlı Kimliği (pp. 196–204), discusses the use of the term “Eastern Despotism” by European Enlightenment philosophers such as Montesquieu and Voltaire. He argues that even though Montesquieu described and criticized Eastern Despotisms, the regime he was living under was far from being based on individual freedom. According to Timur, European monarchies were not less despotic than the Ottoman Empire during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but outside pressures forced these thinkers in that era to keep quiet about their own regimes, and be in agreement with the monarch (p. 175). He suggests that it is historically unfortunate that Eastern Despotism has become a popular term in defining the Ottoman political system, as the writings accumulated throughout centuries in Europe suggest. 120. “Millet”, as a word, means nation, but it does not refer to modern nations, as we understand it. “Millet” referred to a group of people who were connected by a common religion and recognized by the Ottoman State as such. 121. Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Volume II: Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey: 1808–1975 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 118. 122. Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 340. 123. Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp. 78–83. 124. Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 122. 125. Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Volume II: Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey: 1808–1975, pp. 59–61. 126. Metin Heper, Bürokratik Yönetim Geleneği (Ankara: Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, 1974), pp. 55–56. 127. Şerif Mardin, The Genesis of the Young Ottoman Thought: A Study in the Modernization of Turkish Political Ideas (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1962), p. 4. 128. Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, pp. 234–38. 129. The word “Şeriat” is the Turkish spelling of the word “Sharia” – Islamic religious law. Throughout this paper, the Turkish spelling is used. 130. Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, pp. 239–42. 131. Questions about the Turks or Turkism were particularly important, because contrary to the common belief “Turks” were not a privileged ethnic group within the Empire and most of the time the term referred to uneducated, poor Muslim subjects living mostly in Anatolia (Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, p. 333). Even after Turkism appeared as an alternative identity and the focus of identity definition leaned towards linguistic requirements, there was still no consensus on who the Turks were. Some people understood it as Turkish-speaking Ottomans while others interpreted it as Turkish-speaking Muslims. Etyen Mahçupyan, Türkiye'de Merkeziyetçi Zihniyet, Devlet ve Din (İstanbul: Patika, 1998), p. 119. 132. Feroz Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey (New York: Routledge, 1993), pp. 33–35. 133. Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Volume II: Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey: 1808–1975, p. 313. 134. The word “Turkish” is used in quotation marks because a considerable number of these intellectuals were not ethnically Turkish or the ideology of Turkism had its origins outside Turkish boundaries. Even people who promoted the idea of “Turan” were from other Turkic countries. In a sense, the creators of the ideology of Turkism were not the Turks of Turkey. For example, Ziya Gökalp had a Kurdish ethnic origin, while Yusuf Akçura was from Kazan, which today is within the boundaries of Russia. Thus, while referring to these intellectuals as Turkish in an ideological sense is correct, they might not be considered as ethnic Turks. 135. Council Decision of 8 March 2001 On the Principles, Priorities, Intermediate Objectives and Conditions Contained in the Accession Partnership with the Republic of Turkey, p. L 85/19. 136. Turkey: 2003 Accession Partnership, p. 4. at: http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupa/ad/adc/AccessionPartnership2003.pdf. 137. Ziya Gökalp, Türkçülüğün Esasları (Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları, 1963), p.14. 138. Ziya Gökalp, Türkçülüğün Esasları (Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları, 1963), p. 15. 139. Ziya Gökalp, Türkçülüğün Esasları (Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları, 1963), p. 16. 140. Ziya Gökalp, Türkçülüğün Esasları (Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları, 1963), p. 27. 141. Ziya Gökalp, Türkçülüğün Esasları (Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları, 1963), p. 31. 142. Ziya Gökalp, Türkçülüğün Esasları (Istanbul: Varlık Yayınları, 1963), p. 46. 143. Sait Başer, Yahya Kemal'de Türk Müslümanlığı, Yahya Kemal'e Göre Türk Kimliği ve Görüşlerinin Kamuoyundaki Yansımaları (İstanbul: Seyran Kitap, 1998), p. 229. The original Turkish sentence is as follows: “Türk devleti aslı olan müslüman tabakanın hamuruyla tekrar yoğurulmadıkça tam bir sıhhatle yaşayamaz.”. 144. Başer, Yahya Kemal'de Türk Müslümanlığı, Yahya Kemal'e Göre Türk Kimliği ve Görüşlerinin Kamuoyundaki Yansımaları, pp. 223–29. 145. Başer, Yahya Kemal'de Türk Müslümanlığı, Yahya Kemal'e Göre Türk Kimliği ve Görüşlerinin Kamuoyundaki Yansımaları, p. 252. The original Turkish sentence is as follows: “Yarım Avrupalılaşan kozmopolit, tam Avrupalılaşanlar Türk, tam Türk oluyorlar ve biz bu anlamda Türklüğümüzü Garp'tan öğrenmiş oluyoruz.”. 146. İbrahim Kafesoğlu, Türk-İslam Sentezi (İstanbul: Aydınlar Ocağı, 1985). 147. Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (New York: Routledge, 1998), pp. 482–86; Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, p. 413. 148. Tanıl Bora, “Cumhuriyetin İlk Döneminde Milli Kimlik,” in Nuri Bilgin, Cumhuriyet, Demokrasi ve Kimlik (İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları, 1997), p. 58. 149. Binnaz Toprak, “Dinci Sağ,” in Irvin Cemil Schick and Ertuğrul Ahmet Tonak, Geçiş Sürecinde Türkiye (İstanbul: Belge Yayınları, 1990), pp. 242–44. 150. Davison argues that the main source of violent conflicts between the Kurds and the Armenians was land. In 1908, upon the return of the Armenians, who fled the country after the 1895 massacres, the Kurds refused to return those lands to them. According to Davison, the government was not powerful enough to intervene in the conflict, nor did it want to get involved in it. Roderic H. Davison, Essays in Ottoman and Turkish History, 1774–1923: The Impact of the West (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1990), p. 181. 151. Oran, Atatürk Milliyetçiliği: Resmi İdeoloji Dışı Bir İnceleme, pp. 122–25. 152. Metin Heper, The State Tradition in Turkey (Beverley, North Humberside: Eothen Press, 1985), p