Modernist Nationalism: Statism and National Identity in Turkey

Abstract

A few years ago, the New York Times featured an article on the ancient city of Antioch and its modern-day inhabitants. Having lost its ancient grandeur a long time ago, Antioch (Antakya) is described as today a place that “even most Turks consider … [to be] remote and undistinguished.” The article features interviews with two members of the same family: the 110-year-old Ali Baklaci and his 20-year-old grandson Hasan Negruz. An old-timer who lived through the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, subsequent French mandate and eventual incorporation into Turkey in 1939, Ali Baklaci is unequivocal regarding his identity. In a matter-of-fact manner, he declares, “We cannot forget our origins. We are Arab people.” The grandson, Hasan Negruz, however, has a different view. While Negruz is “one of many local youths who have taken advantage of Syria's offer of free education,” the article informs us, “the experience did not turn him into a pan-Arabist.” Instead, Negruz formulates his identity in a way that is remarkably different from his grandfather's: “I am an Arab who is also a citizen of Turkey, and that's fine. I like being Turkish because this country is more modern than the Arab countries.”

The History of the Social Constructions of Dönmes (Converts)*

“…Although the state allowed religious minorities to find a haven under secularism, it was biased in favour of the Turkish identity (1951: 140). Akman (2004: 36) states that Kemalist nationalism could be identified as modernist nationalism, which aims to modernize the country from the top down through integration and assimilation. İçduygu and Kaygusuz describe that as follows:…”

Understanding the exclusionary politics of early Turkish nationalism: an ethnic boundary-making approach

“…Such a strict dichotomy has been increasingly challenged in recent years by scholars who have recognized significant problems in the classical formulation. Recent work on nationalism has forced scholars to come to grips with the Westocentric narratives that have so heavily influenced classical approaches to typologizing nationalisms, and has recognized that all nations contain both civic and ethnic components (Yack 1996;Brubaker 1999;Shulman 2002;Akman 2004). …”

Liberalism and nationalism in Russia. Boris Chicherin as a modernist nationalist

“…This goal was reached in 1861 when serfdom was abolished and was followed by reforms of central institutions fully in accordance with the liberal programme. Like governments in other modernising countries, the Russian government tried to integrate the population through education, the army and local administration (Akman ) . The new policy of taxation was supposed to create civic spirit (Kotsonis : 222).…”

“…Modernist nationalism is a state‐driven project of modernity, where the nation is seen as the container of the project for the attainment of modern civilisation. It differs from civic nationalism mainly through its suspicion of, and restrictions on, popular participation (Akman : 24–6). Akman argues that this is a nationalist project, which becomes relevant in non‐European states without any experience of direct colonial rule, such as Turkey and Russia.…”

“…Akman argues that this is a nationalist project, which becomes relevant in non‐European states without any experience of direct colonial rule, such as Turkey and Russia. Without making any further comparisons between the Turkish and Russian case, I would like to emphasise here that, just as in Russia, the initial spur for modernising reforms among the Ottoman state elites was the need to re‐establish military parity with European powers, to ensure the survival of the state, and to make it competitive in the European inter‐state system, in which the Ottoman state operated (Akman : 33–4)…”