Abstract
Modernization theory, which dominated academic studies from the early 1950s until the late 1970s, attributed a “special place” to the Turkish case among many other non-Western countries, with a special emphasis on the Kemalist modernization of the Early Republican Period. This paper seeks to explore the reasons for Turkey’s special place and the ways Kemalist modernization is positioned vis-a-vis other non-Western countries by tracking the scholarly works by Walt Rostow, Dankwart Rustow, Daniel Lerner, Bernard Lewis and Shmuel Eisenstadt. Without ignoring the particular reflections of disciplinary perspectives they have, their analyses of the Turkish case are investigated with a focus on a number of common themes. Thus, this study does not only shed light on the historical origins of the so-called “Turkish model”, it also seeks to provide a basis for future studies in making a more empirically grounded critique of modernization theory’s analysis of the Turkish case.
Highlights
Classical modernization theory, hereinafter referred to as modernization theory, developed a paradigmatic understanding of modernity that dominated academic studies on modernization from the early 1950s until the late 1970s
Eisenstadt in the early stage of his academic career gave a sociological account of the nature and dynamics of modernization with a particular emphasis on the vital role of cultural transformation. In their references to the Turkish case, all of these names are seen to have necessarily dealt with some critical questions such as the beginnings of modernization in Turkey, the nature and major characteristics of the Kemalist experience, the role of elites in social change, secularism in a Muslim-majority society, the role of foreign aid, and the level of development in comparison mostly with the Middle Eastern countries
Modernization theory was a politically motivated intellectual creation shaped by the US interests in the early years of the Cold War
Summary
Hereinafter referred to as modernization theory, developed a paradigmatic understanding of modernity that dominated academic studies on modernization from the early 1950s until the late 1970s. This paper seeks to explore the significance of Kemalist modernization for modernization theory through a detailed analysis of published scholarship of modernizationists For this purpose, the references to the Turkish case in the scholarly works of five prominent representatives of the theory, namely, Walt Rostow, Dankwart Rustow, Daniel Lerner, Bernard Lewis and Shmuel Eisenstadt are scrutinized. Eisenstadt in the early stage of his academic career gave a sociological account of the nature and dynamics of modernization with a particular emphasis on the vital role of cultural transformation In their references to the Turkish case, all of these names are seen to have necessarily dealt with some critical questions such as the beginnings of modernization in Turkey, the nature and major characteristics of the Kemalist experience, the role of elites in social change, secularism in a Muslim-majority society, the role of foreign aid, and the level of development in comparison mostly with the Middle Eastern countries. The revealed significance of the Kemalist modernization is hoped to help to make a more empirically grounded critique of modernization theory by allowing to detect false causalities, anachronisms, and neglect of backtracks, disruptions and “roads not taken” in the references of the pioneers of the modernization theory to the Turkish case
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
