This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. EXHIBITING “TURKISHNESS” AT A TIME OF FLUX IN TURKEY: AN ETHNOGRAPHY OF THE STATE Canan Neşe Karahasan PhD Sociology The University of Edinburgh 2015 1 Declaration This is to certify that the work contained within has been composed by me and is entirely my own work. No part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. Canan Neşe Karahasan 14 May 2015 2 Abstract This thesis investigates the contested processes of displaying “Turkishness” in competing state museums in Turkey at a time when over the last decade secularist- Kemalist state power has been overturned under neo-Islamist Justice and Development Party government. It poses the question: how are the oppositionary - namely secular Republican and Islamic Ottoman - pasts of “Turkishness” remembered, forgotten, and negotiated in Anıtkabir, Atatürk’s mausoleum, and Topkapı Palace Museum, the imperial house at a time of flux in Turkey? Anıtkabir, under the command of the Turkish Armed Forces, the guardian of secularism, and Topkapı Palace, linked to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, an arm of the government, are more than pedagogical warehouses of the state, displaying contending pasts. They are state institutions, endowed with diverse power sources in exhibiting the binaries of “Turkishness” polarised between West-modern-secular and East-backward-Islam. Through an ethnography of these agencies of the state, this research traces the negotiation processes of exhibiting the competing pasts of “Turkishness”. The focus of this study is twofold. First, it explores how different bureaucratic practices in Anıtkabir and Topkapı Palace museums act as power mechanisms among museum staff and vis-à-vis visitors. Second, it looks at the ensuing representations of “Turkishness”. Competing traditions and national days pertaining to Islamic Ottoman and secular Republican histories are re-invented through museum events, which fall beyond the bureaucracy of exhibition-making. However, formal / informal processes of exhibition-making in both museums reveal that binaries of “Turkishness” are challenged and deliberated through contested exhibitionary practices. In Topkapı Palace Museum, a Westernised-modernised image of imperial life is portrayed, while Anıtkabir simultaneously re-sacralises and humanises Atatürk’s cult. Therefore, this study argues that binaries of “Turkishness” are not irreconcilable; rather they are reversed, negotiated, and transformed in the quest for state power in the everyday practices of these museum bureaucracies. 3 Acknowledgements I would like to begin by thanking to my supervisors, Michael Rosie and James Kennedy, who guided and motivated me with great patience throughout my PhD research. Michael Rosie did not only accept me as a student, but also as a colleague and a friend. This thesis would not be possible without his support, encouragement, and thought-provoking comments. My discussions with James Kennedy helped me in developing sound theoretical arguments. I am extremely grateful to both my supervisors, who responded to my endless questions. Their in-depth knowledge and experience of the study of nationalism enlightened and guided me to find my own voice in the thesis. I extend my gratitude to Jonathan Hearn and Esra Özyürek for accepting to act as the examiners in my PhD viva. Their feedback and questions have been very useful in thinking beyond this thesis towards future publications. I feel extremely fortunate to have been a PhD student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Edinburgh. I owe thanks to Liliana Riga, who contributed greatly to my intellectual growth in the first year of my studies. I also presented my work-in- progress in workshops and conferences organised by the Ethnicity, Nationalism and National Identity Network (ENNIN). I would like to express my gratitude to all members and friends at ENNIN, who came to my presentations, asked me questions, witnessed and supported me through this thorny research process. I also owe gratefulness to Tuğba Tanyeri Erdemir, who at the Middle East Technical University introduced me to museum studies and ethnographic fieldwork. I can never forget her guidance and support throughout, from the very initial stages of formulating a research proposal for my PhD application to the exciting and exhausting phases of my fieldwork. I would like to acknowledge the Turkish Ministry of National Education for funding this PhD research. I would also like to acknowledge Anıtkabir Museum Command and Topkapı Palace Museum Administration for their cooperation throughout my fieldwork. I am indebted to all ‘anonymous’ employees of both museums for ‘teaching’ me about museum bureaucracies and exhibitionary practices. More than 4 civil servants of the State, informants – some of whom I cannot pinpoint and later became my friends – spent their time and efforts to make this research possible. This work developed through the support of my friends. I owe very special thanks to my dearest friend Shruti Chaudhry. She has been an extremely valuable friend, who has always been there for me, a refuge for me throughout my time in Edinburgh and a bright scholar, who read everything I wrote and inspired me with her way of thinking. I am also grateful to Bengi Bezirgan, Hande Sarıkuzu, Esra Demirkol, Gözde Çerçioğlu and Ceren Şengül for reading parts of my thesis and supporting me. My exceptional and deepest gratitude is due to my significant other Batu Kınıkoğlu. He believed in my intellectual capacity more than I did; and always reminded me the strengths of my thesis whenever I doubted myself. Here, I thank him enormously for his endless love and support. Finally, my biggest thanks go to my family. I am grateful to Can Karahasan, who has been a role model scholar and a great brother. This thesis would not be possible without his brotherly and scholarly guidance. My father Mehmet Karahasan, an engineer himself, always believed in me and made every effort to understand what I was doing as a sociologist. My mother Ümran Karahasan is the person who inspired me to carry out this research by raising me and letting me run around in museum court yards throughout my childhood. I am deeply indebted to my parents, to whom I dedicate this thesis. 5 Table of Contents Declaration ................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 3 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 4 Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 12 Chapter 2: Unpacking the State and its Nationalisms in State Museums .................. 18 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 18 II. Conceptualising and Studying the State and Bureaucracy ......................................... 18 a. Power and the State ................................................................................................ 19 b. Bureaucracy and Everyday Forms of the State ...................................................... 24 III. Approaching Nationalism Beyond Binaries .............................................................. 30 a. Nationalism – History – the State Nexus ............................................................... 30 b. Nationalism and its Binaries .................................................................................. 38 IV. Exhibiting Nationness in Museums ........................................................................... 42 a. Role(s) the of Museum ........................................................................................... 43 b. Museum Mechanisms in Representing Nationness ................................................ 46 V. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 48 Chapter 3: Overturning Binaries, Reversing the Kemalist State Power: Towards “New Turkey” ............................................................................................................ 51 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 51 II. The Early Republican Era: Imprints of the “Strong State” and its Secularisation Project ...............................................................................................................................