Turkey Today Research Articles

AVRUPA DİL PORTFOLYOSU VE TÜRKİYE'DE YABANCI DİL EĞİTİMİ

Within the scope of globalization in the 21st century, it is becoming mandatory for each individual to learn one or more foreign languages and to be able to speak and write in these foreign languages. The European Common Language Criteria developed by the European Council, of which Turkey is also a member, and the practices of the European Language Portfolio can be seen in the field of foreign language training. The main issue of this study may be expressed in a single sentence as follows: What is the progress of the foreign language training in the primary and secondary level education in Turkey today as a result of the European Language Portfolio? The purpose of this study can be explained as follows: In this study, how the European Language Portfolio has effected study, the importance and contributions of the European Language Portfolio in terms of the foreign language education in Turkey is also mentioned. Keywords: European Language Portfolio, European Council, Turkey, foreign language education.

격변하는 현대 이슬람 세계에서 터키 이슬람이 가지는 역할

This paper examines the role of Turkish Islam in the dynamics of Muslim world. Today, the majority of the Muslim society suffers from clash due to the differences in denominations, nations, and ideologies. The vicious cycle of sanguinary collisions between Sunni and Shiites continues throughout Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Even within the same Sunni denomination, the clash between Kurdish, Arabs, and Turk continues throughout large portions of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. The recent armed protests of ISIS result the combination of both cases. North African Islam nations started a protest, the Arab Spring, in order to transfer power from dictatorial government to civil government, but they encounter a colder weather rather than spring as they expected.BR Problems of Muslims do not stop at the inside issue. Today, the active Islamic organizations form the Islamic society in both inside and outside of the society, and this phenomena expand problems of Muslims globally. This study finds that the possibility of Muslims for them to admit other religion, culture, and ethnic differences and coexistence is not only an Islamic concern, but also concern for non-Muslim countries. Researchers show that Muslim nations wish to have democracy, individual rights, and economic stability that does not deviate from Islam principles. This paper chose Turkish Islam among the Muslim world to show that such possibilities of Muslims are realistic and able to fulfill. Turkish Islam does what most Muslims wish to have; they do not give up Islamic principles while pursuing political stability and economic development by incorporating with the modern day. By looking at the case of Turkish Islam, this paper also suggest to other Muslims that it is possible to embrace Islamic principles while forming a political stability and economic development by incorporating with the modern day, and give assurance that is the best action to take for Islam and Muslim.BR In order to support this, this paper addresses four points. The first is the harmony of Islam and modernity that is formed in the Turkish Islam. Turkish Islam embrace modernism by “Islamization of modernity.” Instead of giving up the principles of Islam or rejecting modernity. Secondly, AKP party’s start as a political Islam and seizure of power through popular vote to its success show other Islam nations that “Islamic Democracy” is possible. Third point is the possibility of correspondence of Islam and capitalism. Turkish Muslim leaders have sublimated economic activities as dedication to Allah and created “Islam Protestant.” As a result, Turkey has become one of the fastest nations to grow and develop economically. Finally, Turkish Islam has shown that “Islamic pluralism” is possible to succeed. Turkish Islam leaders continue to debate in order to find ways to live within the boundaries of Islam foundations and practice individual rights. As a result, Turkey today is the most vigorous and free Islam country. Turkish Islam suggests other Islam nations a model through such experiences.

A Comparison of the National Early Childhood Curricula in Turkey and England

KEYWORDS Early Childhood Education. Curriculum. Comparison. England. Turkey ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast preschool education curricula and practices in Turkey and England, examine the cultural aspects and philosophical underpinnings of early childhood education in both countries, and investigate and discuss early childhood curricula in England and Turkey today. Turkey and England have contrasting educational systems. The early childhood education in England has been child-centered, whereas the Turkish early childhood education system is subject-centered and teacher directed. Earl y childhood education in England emphasizes individual children's interests, free play, firsthand experience, an d integrated learning. Turkish childhood education emphasizes egalitarian, direct instructor rather than facilita tor.

Migration as Movement and Multiplace Life: Some Recent Developments in Rural Living Structures in Turkey

ABSTRACTDiscussing recent trends and developments in migration and mobility affecting what may be referred to as a ‘reconstitution’ of villages, this paper discusses the changing character of rural settlement and settlement patterns in Turkey today. The binary division of rural and urban is questioned through a dialectical/relational approach to settlement formation, while settlement is defined by relation to (human) movement, itself understood as incorporating the modalities of migration and mobility. By focusing on the socio‐economics of increasing affluence, the advance of capital generally, and the introduction of neoliberalism into agriculture in particular, a number of contemporary rural‐oriented (migratory/mobility) movements and ‘living structures’ are investigated, which, taken together, suggest a growing development of ‘dual settlement’ and ‘multiplace hybrid’ life. The paper concludes with a typology of villages and some thoughts on the theoretical implications of this study. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Turkey Today: Headscarves and Women's Rights

Turkey Today: Headscarves and Women's Rights

Turkey Old and New – A Bibliographical Survey: Part 3. The Republic of Turkey Today

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. New York, Oxford University Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-19-973304-0. 2. London, Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern Politics, 2010. ISBN 0-415-66508-6; Tüekiye’de İslâmcılık, Demokrasi ve Liberalizm, Do&gcaron;an Kitap, Istanbul, 2010. ISBN 978-605-111-767-4. 3. New York, CUP, 2010. ISBN 978-0-521-76021-8. 4. Ankara, Angora, 2010. ISBN 978-975-287-075-8. 5. Istanbul, Ferfir YayInları, 2011. ISBN 8748-963-214. 6. Abingdon, Routledge, 2008. ISBN 978-0-415-39645-5. 7. Abingdon, Routledge, 2009. ISBN 978-0-415-47504-4. 8. Abingdon, Routledge, 2012. ISBN 978-0-415-44370-8. 9. From US$2,758 (in purchasing power parities) in 1980 to US$7,803 in 2002 and US$14,700 in 2011 (CIA World Factbook, quoted in Index Mundi). If one bears in mind the increase in population, the growth rate is even more impressive, total GNP increasing threefold under AKP rule (statement by finance minister quoted by InternetHaber, 17 Jan. 2013). 10. New York, Berghahn Books, 2009. ISBN 978-1-84545-562-0. 11. London, Zed Books, 2011. 978-1-84813-211-5. 12. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2013. ISBN 978-0-691-15518-0, 13. http://www.haber7.com (accessed 28 Jan. 2013). 14. London, Granta Books, 3005. ISBN 1-86207-790-8.

Turkey Today—A European Country? – Edited by Olivier Roy

Turkey Today—A European Country? – Edited by Olivier Roy

It's Time for the Direct Election of a European President

The future of the European Union has never been more in doubt than at the very moment it has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its historical accomplishments.When the heads of Europe's weakest institutions—the Commission, the Council and the Parliament—collected the prize in Oslo on December 10, 2012 they spotlighted the nub of the problem. Unless these institutions can garner the legitimacy of European citizens and transform into a real federal union with common fiscal and economic policies to complement the single currency, Europe will remain at the mercy of global financial markets and the fiscally authoritarian dictates of its strongest state, Germany.Moving beyond this state of affairs was the focus of a recent “town hall” gathering in Berlin sponsored by the Berggruen Institute on Governance. The meeting brought together current power brokers—such as the contending voices of German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and French Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici, who rarely appear in public together—as well as Europe's top former leaders, key thinkers and young people who will govern in the future.The peace‐building project of the European Union was born out of the ashes of World War II and the anguish of the Cold War. Yet, as George Soros points out, its current inability to resolve the eurocrisis by forging greater union is dividing Europe once again, this time between creditors and debtors. Former Greek premier George Papandreou has warned that this division is fomenting a new politics of fear that is giving rise to the same kind of xenophobic movements that fueled the extreme politics of the Nazi era.To avoid a repeat of the last calamitous century, Europe first of all needs a growth strategy both to escape the “debt trap” it is in—and which austerity alone will only deepen—and to create breathing space for the tough structural reforms that can make Europe as a whole competitive again in a globalized world. To sustain reform, it needs a clear path to legitimacy for the institutions that must govern a federal Europe.The proof that Europe can escape its crisis through a combination of growth, fiscal discipline and structural reform comes from the one country so many want to keep out of the union: Turkey.Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan rightfully boasts of Turkey's accomplishments that resulted from the difficult changes carried out after its crisis in 2001—ranging from quickly cleaning up the banks to liberalizing markets to trimming social benefits to make them more affordable in the long run. As a result, Turkey today is the fastest growing economy in the world alongside China with diminished deficit and debt levels that meet the eurozone criteria that many members states themselves cannot today meet. Turkey has even offered a 5 billion euro credit through the IMF for financial aid to Europe.Germany itself also provides some lessons for the rest of Europe. The obvious reason Germany rules today is because it is the most globally competitive country in the European Union. That is the result of a series of reforms that were implemented starting in 2003 under the leadership of then‐chancellor Gerhard Schröder.Aimed a bolstering Germany's industrial base and its collateral small and medium enterprises which are the foundation of its middle class society, those reforms introduced more labor flexibility and trimmed benefits to make them sustainably affordable while investing in training, maintaining skills and research and development.Even if Europe's individual nation states can shrink imbalances by following Turkey and Germany in getting their act together, the only ultimate way to save the euro, and thus Europe itself, is to build the complementary governing institutions at the European level. For those institutions to become effective, they must be empowered and legitimated by European citizens themselves. To this end, Tony Blair has suggested a bold move: the direct election of a European president.Symbolically, the Oslo ceremonies were a historical turning point for Europe. By recognizing the European Union's peace‐making past, the Nobel Prize challenged Europe to escape once and for all the destructive pull of narrow national interests and passions.

Europe is Divided Again: This Time Between Creditors and Debtors

The future of the European Union has never been more in doubt than at the very moment it has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its historical accomplishments.When the heads of Europe's weakest institutions—the Commission, the Council and the Parliament—collected the prize in Oslo on December 10, 2012 they spotlighted the nub of the problem. Unless these institutions can garner the legitimacy of European citizens and transform into a real federal union with common fiscal and economic policies to complement the single currency, Europe will remain at the mercy of global financial markets and the fiscally authoritarian dictates of its strongest state, Germany.Moving beyond this state of affairs was the focus of a recent “town hall” gathering in Berlin sponsored by the Berggruen Institute on Governance. The meeting brought together current power brokers—such as the contending voices of German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and French Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici, who rarely appear in public together—as well as Europe's top former leaders, key thinkers and young people who will govern in the future.The peace‐building project of the European Union was born out of the ashes of World War II and the anguish of the Cold War. Yet, as George Soros points out, its current inability to resolve the eurocrisis by forging greater union is dividing Europe once again, this time between creditors and debtors. Former Greek premier George Papandreou has warned that this division is fomenting a new politics of fear that is giving rise to the same kind of xenophobic movements that fueled the extreme politics of the Nazi era.To avoid a repeat of the last calamitous century, Europe first of all needs a growth strategy both to escape the “debt trap” it is in—and which austerity alone will only deepen—and to create breathing space for the tough structural reforms that can make Europe as a whole competitive again in a globalized world. To sustain reform, it needs a clear path to legitimacy for the institutions that must govern a federal Europe.The proof that Europe can escape its crisis through a combination of growth, fiscal discipline and structural reform comes from the one country so many want to keep out of the union: Turkey.Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan rightfully boasts of Turkey's accomplishments that resulted from the difficult changes carried out after its crisis in 2001—ranging from quickly cleaning up the banks to liberalizing markets to trimming social benefits to make them more affordable in the long run. As a result, Turkey today is the fastest growing economy in the world alongside China with diminished deficit and debt levels that meet the eurozone criteria that many members states themselves cannot today meet. Turkey has even offered a 5 billion euro credit through the IMF for financial aid to Europe.Germany itself also provides some lessons for the rest of Europe. The obvious reason Germany rules today is because it is the most globally competitive country in the European Union. That is the result of a series of reforms that were implemented starting in 2003 under the leadership of then‐chancellor Gerhard Schröder.Aimed a bolstering Germany's industrial base and its collateral small and medium enterprises which are the foundation of its middle class society, those reforms introduced more labor flexibility and trimmed benefits to make them sustainably affordable while investing in training, maintaining skills and research and development.Even if Europe's individual nation states can shrink imbalances by following Turkey and Germany in getting their act together, the only ultimate way to save the euro, and thus Europe itself, is to build the complementary governing institutions at the European level. For those institutions to become effective, they must be empowered and legitimated by European citizens themselves. To this end, Tony Blair has suggested a bold move: the direct election of a European president.Symbolically, the Oslo ceremonies were a historical turning point for Europe. By recognizing the European Union's peace‐making past, the Nobel Prize challenged Europe to escape once and for all the destructive pull of narrow national interests and passions.

The Politics of Fear

The future of the European Union has never been more in doubt than at the very moment it has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its historical accomplishments.When the heads of Europe's weakest institutions—the Commission, the Council and the Parliament—collected the prize in Oslo on December 10, 2012 they spotlighted the nub of the problem. Unless these institutions can garner the legitimacy of European citizens and transform into a real federal union with common fiscal and economic policies to complement the single currency, Europe will remain at the mercy of global financial markets and the fiscally authoritarian dictates of its strongest state, Germany.Moving beyond this state of affairs was the focus of a recent “town hall” gathering in Berlin sponsored by the Berggruen Institute on Governance. The meeting brought together current power brokers—such as the contending voices of German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and French Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici, who rarely appear in public together—as well as Europe's top former leaders, key thinkers and young people who will govern in the future.The peace‐building project of the European Union was born out of the ashes of World War II and the anguish of the Cold War. Yet, as George Soros points out, its current inability to resolve the eurocrisis by forging greater union is dividing Europe once again, this time between creditors and debtors. Former Greek premier George Papandreou has warned that this division is fomenting a new politics of fear that is giving rise to the same kind of xenophobic movements that fueled the extreme politics of the Nazi era.To avoid a repeat of the last calamitous century, Europe first of all needs a growth strategy both to escape the “debt trap” it is in—and which austerity alone will only deepen—and to create breathing space for the tough structural reforms that can make Europe as a whole competitive again in a globalized world. To sustain reform, it needs a clear path to legitimacy for the institutions that must govern a federal Europe.The proof that Europe can escape its crisis through a combination of growth, fiscal discipline and structural reform comes from the one country so many want to keep out of the union: Turkey.Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan rightfully boasts of Turkey's accomplishments that resulted from the difficult changes carried out after its crisis in 2001—ranging from quickly cleaning up the banks to liberalizing markets to trimming social benefits to make them more affordable in the long run. As a result, Turkey today is the fastest growing economy in the world alongside China with diminished deficit and debt levels that meet the eurozone criteria that many members states themselves cannot today meet. Turkey has even offered a 5 billion euro credit through the IMF for financial aid to Europe.Germany itself also provides some lessons for the rest of Europe. The obvious reason Germany rules today is because it is the most globally competitive country in the European Union. That is the result of a series of reforms that were implemented starting in 2003 under the leadership of then‐chancellor Gerhard Schröder.Aimed a bolstering Germany's industrial base and its collateral small and medium enterprises which are the foundation of its middle class society, those reforms introduced more labor flexibility and trimmed benefits to make them sustainably affordable while investing in training, maintaining skills and research and development.Even if Europe's individual nation states can shrink imbalances by following Turkey and Germany in getting their act together, the only ultimate way to save the euro, and thus Europe itself, is to build the complementary governing institutions at the European level. For those institutions to become effective, they must be empowered and legitimated by European citizens themselves. To this end, Tony Blair has suggested a bold move: the direct election of a European president.Symbolically, the Oslo ceremonies were a historical turning point for Europe. By recognizing the European Union's peace‐making past, the Nobel Prize challenged Europe to escape once and for all the destructive pull of narrow national interests and passions.

If You Want a Middle Class Keep Your Industrial Base

The future of the European Union has never been more in doubt than at the very moment it has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its historical accomplishments.When the heads of Europe's weakest institutions—the Commission, the Council and the Parliament—collected the prize in Oslo on December 10, 2012 they spotlighted the nub of the problem. Unless these institutions can garner the legitimacy of European citizens and transform into a real federal union with common fiscal and economic policies to complement the single currency, Europe will remain at the mercy of global financial markets and the fiscally authoritarian dictates of its strongest state, Germany.Moving beyond this state of affairs was the focus of a recent “town hall” gathering in Berlin sponsored by the Berggruen Institute on Governance. The meeting brought together current power brokers—such as the contending voices of German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and French Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici, who rarely appear in public together—as well as Europe's top former leaders, key thinkers and young people who will govern in the future.The peace‐building project of the European Union was born out of the ashes of World War II and the anguish of the Cold War. Yet, as George Soros points out, its current inability to resolve the eurocrisis by forging greater union is dividing Europe once again, this time between creditors and debtors. Former Greek premier George Papandreou has warned that this division is fomenting a new politics of fear that is giving rise to the same kind of xenophobic movements that fueled the extreme politics of the Nazi era.To avoid a repeat of the last calamitous century, Europe first of all needs a growth strategy both to escape the “debt trap” it is in—and which austerity alone will only deepen—and to create breathing space for the tough structural reforms that can make Europe as a whole competitive again in a globalized world. To sustain reform, it needs a clear path to legitimacy for the institutions that must govern a federal Europe.The proof that Europe can escape its crisis through a combination of growth, fiscal discipline and structural reform comes from the one country so many want to keep out of the union: Turkey.Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan rightfully boasts of Turkey's accomplishments that resulted from the difficult changes carried out after its crisis in 2001—ranging from quickly cleaning up the banks to liberalizing markets to trimming social benefits to make them more affordable in the long run. As a result, Turkey today is the fastest growing economy in the world alongside China with diminished deficit and debt levels that meet the eurozone criteria that many members states themselves cannot today meet. Turkey has even offered a 5 billion euro credit through the IMF for financial aid to Europe.Germany itself also provides some lessons for the rest of Europe. The obvious reason Germany rules today is because it is the most globally competitive country in the European Union. That is the result of a series of reforms that were implemented starting in 2003 under the leadership of then‐chancellor Gerhard Schröder.Aimed a bolstering Germany's industrial base and its collateral small and medium enterprises which are the foundation of its middle class society, those reforms introduced more labor flexibility and trimmed benefits to make them sustainably affordable while investing in training, maintaining skills and research and development.Even if Europe's individual nation states can shrink imbalances by following Turkey and Germany in getting their act together, the only ultimate way to save the euro, and thus Europe itself, is to build the complementary governing institutions at the European level. For those institutions to become effective, they must be empowered and legitimated by European citizens themselves. To this end, Tony Blair has suggested a bold move: the direct election of a European president.Symbolically, the Oslo ceremonies were a historical turning point for Europe. By recognizing the European Union's peace‐making past, the Nobel Prize challenged Europe to escape once and for all the destructive pull of narrow national interests and passions.

Turkey Fit EU Entry Criteria

The future of the European Union has never been more in doubt than at the very moment it has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its historical accomplishments.When the heads of Europe's weakest institutions—the Commission, the Council and the Parliament—collected the prize in Oslo on December 10, 2012 they spotlighted the nub of the problem. Unless these institutions can garner the legitimacy of European citizens and transform into a real federal union with common fiscal and economic policies to complement the single currency, Europe will remain at the mercy of global financial markets and the fiscally authoritarian dictates of its strongest state, Germany.Moving beyond this state of affairs was the focus of a recent “town hall” gathering in Berlin sponsored by the Berggruen Institute on Governance. The meeting brought together current power brokers—such as the contending voices of German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and French Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici, who rarely appear in public together—as well as Europe's top former leaders, key thinkers and young people who will govern in the future.The peace‐building project of the European Union was born out of the ashes of World War II and the anguish of the Cold War. Yet, as George Soros points out, its current inability to resolve the eurocrisis by forging greater union is dividing Europe once again, this time between creditors and debtors. Former Greek premier George Papandreou has warned that this division is fomenting a new politics of fear that is giving rise to the same kind of xenophobic movements that fueled the extreme politics of the Nazi era.To avoid a repeat of the last calamitous century, Europe first of all needs a growth strategy both to escape the “debt trap” it is in—and which austerity alone will only deepen—and to create breathing space for the tough structural reforms that can make Europe as a whole competitive again in a globalized world. To sustain reform, it needs a clear path to legitimacy for the institutions that must govern a federal Europe.The proof that Europe can escape its crisis through a combination of growth, fiscal discipline and structural reform comes from the one country so many want to keep out of the union: Turkey.Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan rightfully boasts of Turkey's accomplishments that resulted from the difficult changes carried out after its crisis in 2001—ranging from quickly cleaning up the banks to liberalizing markets to trimming social benefits to make them more affordable in the long run. As a result, Turkey today is the fastest growing economy in the world alongside China with diminished deficit and debt levels that meet the eurozone criteria that many members states themselves cannot today meet. Turkey has even offered a 5 billion euro credit through the IMF for financial aid to Europe.Germany itself also provides some lessons for the rest of Europe. The obvious reason Germany rules today is because it is the most globally competitive country in the European Union. That is the result of a series of reforms that were implemented starting in 2003 under the leadership of then‐chancellor Gerhard Schröder.Aimed a bolstering Germany's industrial base and its collateral small and medium enterprises which are the foundation of its middle class society, those reforms introduced more labor flexibility and trimmed benefits to make them sustainably affordable while investing in training, maintaining skills and research and development.Even if Europe's individual nation states can shrink imbalances by following Turkey and Germany in getting their act together, the only ultimate way to save the euro, and thus Europe itself, is to build the complementary governing institutions at the European level. For those institutions to become effective, they must be empowered and legitimated by European citizens themselves. To this end, Tony Blair has suggested a bold move: the direct election of a European president.Symbolically, the Oslo ceremonies were a historical turning point for Europe. By recognizing the European Union's peace‐making past, the Nobel Prize challenged Europe to escape once and for all the destructive pull of narrow national interests and passions.

Mavi Yolculuk (Blue Voyage): A Journey of Self-Discovery during the Early Decades of the Turkish Republic (1945–1969)

This article investigates the birth in the mid 1940s of Mavi Yolculuk, the Blue Voyage, which is a popular tourist itinerary in Turkey today. It examines the ideology that gave rise to these boat journeys along the south-western coast of Turkey and its connection with national identity formation. It analyses travel accounts written by Azra Erhat, and writings by two other prolific writers, Cevat Şakir Kabaağaçlı and Sabahattin Eyüboğlu, considered the pioneers of the Blue Voyage. The multiple roles of these writers (as translators, artists and educators) are considered in order to discuss the role of an elite discourse and to shed light on the ideology surrounding these journeys. The article also discusses the way in which history, archaeology, geography, language and travel mingled as these local travellers attempted to create a new Turkish identity.

“Even I Was Tempted”: The Moral Ambivalence and Ethical Practice of Veiling-Fashion in Turkey

Veiling-fashion, with its array of brands and ever-changing styles, has been on the rise in Turkey in the past decade. Although the producers of these styles present them as the perfect melding of fashion and piety, our analysis of focus groups with consumers in Istanbul and Konya in 2009 shows that veiling-fashion is, in practice, rife with ambivalence. Veiling is undertaken in relation to the moral code of of Islam, but fashion, as consumption, works as part of an ever-shifting economy of taste and distinction. In Baudrillard's terms, veiling-fashion is morally ambivalent, caught between its function as modest covering according to Islam and its social signification. In their negotiation of this ambivalence, consumers of these styles turn veiling-fashion into an ethical practice, into part of how they form themselves in relation both to a moral code (Islam) and to the aesthetics, politics, and pleasures of their sociospatial environments. The ethical practice of veiling-fashion thus engages a complex spatial field of bodies, homes, streets, military or state spaces, and public arenas. Veiling-fashion consumers describe their daily practices in terms of a problem of self-governance, or the management of nefis, the bodily or material desires aroused by consumption and its display. In this management of nefis through the technology of veiling-fashion these women form themselves as subjects of ethico-politics in Turkey today.

How nations of former Yugoslavia look on modern Turkey

The states that were created after the breakup of former Yugoslavia in the last decade of the 20th century had long been either part of the Ottoman Empire or in conflict with it. It is all reflected in their relationship with today?s Turkey, the successor of the Ottoman Empire. The author shows how the newly independent states look on Turkey today. Special attention was dedicated to the causes of different views on Turkey. In author?s opinion, it is the basis for mutual understanding and the development of good relations among Balkan States and in the European Region and it is also the condition for peace and stability in Europe (and in the Mediterranean).

Crossing Musical Worlds: Ottoman Jewry, Music Making, and the Rise of the Nation

Based on a larger project investigating music making as an integral part of Ottoman and Turkish social history, this article seeks to understand surviving musical resonances across ethnoreligious communities in Turkey today. It specifically explores Jewish religious music and its interconnections with a wider Ottoman-Turkish musical culture that has sustained historical traces in Turkish synagogues today. Focusing primarily on a Jewish musical form with close links to Ottoman court music, the Maftirim repertoire, the study investigates the changing urban landscape of intercommunal music making as the Ottoman Empire ended and the Turkish nation was built. Through composer biographies and ethnographic methodologies of oral history within an interdisciplinary theoretical approach, the analysis seeks to articulate the places and people circulating in a late Ottoman music world and sharing patterns of patronage, aesthetic understandings, professional specialization, and master-pupil relations. The social ethos of this art world provides the foundation for tracing Ottoman-Turkish-Jewish music making in the republic. By pursuing not only minority human and cultural losses in the twentieth century but also the musical lives of those Jews who remained in Turkey, the article elucidates continuities in Ottoman lines of transmission and interethnic music making to explain the performance of Maftirim in Istanbul today. It argues that it was through alternative patrons and civic spaces that Turkish Jewish religious musicians participated with their non-Jewish counterparts in sustaining at-risk, albeit changing, Ottoman cultural forms in the face of state and commercial cultural interests.

The Persistence of Philanthropy

One of the most profound Ottoman legacies to contemporary Turkey is the central role of private philanthropy as a vehicle for shaping culture and society. Two principal legacies of Ottoman philanthropy exist in Turkey today. The first is cultural, apparent in the thriving practice of elite philanthropy; the second is physical, readily discovered in the urban fabric of most Turkish cities, notably Istanbul. This article examines these legacies in order to analyze the nature of state building and society formation in modern Turkey from a new perspective. Both continuities and changes are apparent from imperial to republican times: in the identity of the donors, the sources and locus of wealth, the importance of foundations, the motivations for giving, the choice of projects, the physical impact of donations, and the identity of the beneficiaries. The dynamic contemporary culture of private charitable giving in Turkey results from a unique interaction of inherited Ottoman ideology and practices, themselves the result of combined Muslim, Turco-Mongol, Byzantine, and Arab influences; the observed example of modern Western philanthropy, notably that of the United States; and the specific experiences of the republican Turkish state and society since 1923. The economic elite have replaced the sultans and pashas as premier benefactors, with personal or corporate donations even rivaling government sources of assistance. The motivations for contemporary philanthropy echo the Muslim consciousness of Ottoman donors, while philanthropy functions more to legitimize wealth than to ensure political legitimacy. Nonetheless, philanthropy remains the means to contribute to a wider community, whether it is the community of Turkish citizens; of Muslims or another confessional group; or of a town, a neighborhood, or a profession. As in Ottoman times, the beneficiaries are not limited to the materially poor and needy. Rather, private elite philanthropy contributes to many segments of society and in this reflects the manifold motivations for giving.

Kemalism on the Catwalk: The Turkish Hat Law of 1925

In Turkey today, the issue of what to wear or not to wear is once more on top of the political agenda. On June 5, 2008, the Constitutional Court ruled that the Turkish Parliament had violated the constitutional principle of secularism by lifting the headscarf ban in universities. This article, however, is concerned with an earlier chapter in the biography of headgear. Considered an important tool by Mustafa Kemal in his attempts to modernize Turkish society, a new dress code was enacted in 1925 that required traditional headgear be replaced by the western hat. In subsequent days, 808 people were arrested for violating the law, 57 of whom were executed. By this legislation of sartorial westernization the individual head became a political site, fusing social and political history in terms of identity construction. The motivations behind, reactions to, and consequences of the Hat Law were recorded in a variety of contemporary sources generated in different social areas. By integrating these images, it is possible to analyze and map the main tendencies of identity formation, a process that went beyond and above a dichotomous Orientalist discourse of East vs. West, revealing lines of conflict that continue to scar the face of modern Turkey.

A Review of Byzantine Studies and Architectural Historiography in Turkey Today

In recent years there has been an increase in studies dedicated to various aspects of the Byzantine legacy and the representation of Byzantium in history books, letters, cinema, art, even science and music in Turkey (2). However, there is still no comprehensive study focusing on the historiography of Byzantine architecture in Turkey. This article will provide a review of Byzantine Studies in Turkey from the early Republican period up to the present with a particular focus on architectural historiography. Studies in architectural historiography are late-comers to the academic scene since architectural history as an autonomous discipline itself is relatively new in Turkey (3). Historiographical studies in Turkey usually focus on early Republican and late Ottoman architecture (4). Nevertheless, there are some important studies for the history of Byzantine Studies in Turkey. As example, Semavi Eyice’s “Turkiye’de Bizans Sanati Arastirmalari ve Istanbul Universitesinde Bizans Sanati” [“Studies on Byzantine Art in Turkey and Byzantine Art in Istanbul University”] published in 1973 is a leading study providing a vast bibliography for studies in Byzantine history, art history and archaeology from the late 19th century to the 1970s. In his “Turkiye’de Bizans Mimarisi Hakkindaki Yabanci Arastirmalarin Kisa Tarihcesi”[“A Brief History of Foreign Studies on Byzantine Architecture in Turkey”] (1976), he also provides a bibliography of archaeological studies in Turkey carried out by foreign archaeologists from the late nineteenth century to the 1945. Yildiz Otuken in her “Turkiye’de Bizans Sanati”[“Byzantine Art History in Turkey”] (2003) briefly describes some of the excavations in Byzantine archaeology and mentions current art history departments teaching Byzantine art history in Turkey. The latest study is by Engin Akyurek, titled “Byzantine Art History in Modern Turkey”(2010). Akyurek provides a review of the history of Byzantine studies in Turkey from the late nineteenth century to the present by adding recent developments in scholarship, the A REVIEW OF BYZANTINE STUDIES AND ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIOGRAPHY IN TURKEY TODAY (1)

Turkey’s Moment of Inflection

Turkey today imagines itself as a major contender on the global scene. It is the world's seventeenth-largest economy and has used its geostrategic position and active diplomacy to assume membership in the UN Security Council for the first time in almost 50 years, to become a member of the G20 and to take on a visible role in international disputes. But it faces daunting obstacles at home and abroad, the two most important being the Kurdish problem and the state of civil–military relations. How the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) handles these two challenges will determine whether the current improvement in the Turkish political economy proves to be fleeting. Turkey is at an inflection moment. If it can resolve these problems it will find that many of the obstacles to European membership and continuing development will rapidly recede. Failure will mean a return to nationalist and autarchic policies as well as continual violence and instability.