CEU eTD Collection In partialfulfillment oftherequirements forthedegreeofMaster of Arts. THE CONSTRUCTION OFTHE OTHERNESS:ASTUDY OFTHE TURKISH EXPERIENCE OF NATIONALISM (1911-1918) Department ofSociology andSocial Anthropology NATIONALIST INTELLECTUALS AND Second Supervisor:PremKumarRajaram First Supervisor:DanRabinowitz Central EuropeanUniversity Mehmet CanOmay Budapest, Hungary Submitted to 2010 By CEU eTD Collection o dd h Itletas sd ail ntoa ad utrl ifrne i odr to order in differences cultural construct thisdiscourseistheultimatefocusofstudy. and national racial, used Intellectuals the did How 1918. and 1911 of years the between Intellectuals Nationalist Turkish the by discourse Other” “the and “Us” of construction the on focuses study This Nation. the articulates Intelletucals books, theoratical and poems this stories, short of novels, their part By significant construction. a are and activities Intellectual activity However state nation. the of between construction relation the focus generally nationalism of Studies Abstract i CEU eTD Collection BIBLIOGRAPHY …...... 56 CONCLUSION …...... 54 3.2.TheOttoman-IslamastheOther...... 49 3.1.TheOttomanCultureastheOther...... …...41 CHAPTER 3:OTHERIZATIONOFTHECULTURE………………...... 41 2.3.RepresentationsoftheOtherness…………………………...... 29 2.2.RacializingandNationalizingoftheOtherness…...... 21 2.1.TurkishIdentityandtheTurkists:...... 17 CHAPTER 2:RACE,CULTUREANDTHEOTHERNESS...... 17 1.4Methodology…………………………………………………………………...... 15 1.3.DiscourseandtheConstructionofOtherness…………...... 11 1.2.Discourse,NarrationandThePublicIntellectuals...... 7 1.1.MainAspectsoftheConstructivistApproachtoNationalism…...... 4 CHAPTER 1:LITTERATUREREVIEWANDMETHODOLGY……...... …...4 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 TABLE OFCONTENTS ii CEU eTD Collection the waysinwhichitdepicted itsvariousothers. and nationalism Turkish of narrative overriding the between relationship the understand to is focus ultimate The . 1918. and 1911 of years the between experience Turkish the focusing by nation the of construction the for in activity intellectual the of role significant the underlie the 1923, in regime to is study this of aim Main Kemalist construction. this of part significant a act intellectuals nationalist the of formation the before However, elite. its and party single the were construction this in forces dominant The program. reformation cultural its and State Kemalist the of product the was identity Turkish the view this to According 2006). Bali, and Zürcher, 2004 & (see Atabaki (1923-1950) Party period Single the happened during process which the Turkification with connected mainly is Turkish identity of the Construction p.377). emergence ofthebureaucraticstate,urbanizationandsecularism(Smith,1994, the industrialism, capitalism, like processes modern specifically of product the is and elites, by constructed is it modernity; of age the after being into came which construction social the Modernism.Themodernists of nationalism. field the in effective highly are approaches natural constructivist social those, with than Together entities. rather constructed as seen and are boundaries life social nations, of aspects different the many to histories, homosexuality, to gender to religion From approaches. 20 INTRODUCTION Constructivist ideas also dominate the studies about the emergence of Turkish nationalism. Turkish of emergence the about studies the dominate also ideas Constructivist th etr. n vr sot ie osrciit ies tre t fl i nw hois and theories new in fill to started ideas constructivists time short very a In century. The main theoretical approach in the field which is affected by constructivist ideas is ideas constructivist by affected is which field the in approach theoretical main The the half of second since the social sciences agenda of has onthe Social Constructivism openly declare that they perceive nationalism and nations as a openly declarethattheyperceivenationalismandnationsasa 1 CEU eTD Collection Westernized Turks was representing a heterogeneous culture which was in contradiction with contradiction in was which culture heterogeneous a representing was Turks Westernized over- the and culture Ottoman the structures hybrid their Within Turks. the of national awakening the above barrier main the as others cultural the treated They Islam. Ottoman the nation wassurroundedby hostileothers. the them, For Turks. the attack to Turkists ready always because were nations important and races was these that believed other of type This Empire. the inside non-Muslims the main the as and Balkan nations the Other was emerge Racial/National case the Turkist For the . Other” definitional tools. “Cultural the and Other” “Racial/National the define I each. for categories different creates and together, them constructs Nationalism Us. construct to possible not was it Others, the Without nationhood.. of construction the for necessary entities the by constructed Turkists inadiscoursethatandwaslateradoptedreified bythestate. is vocabulary political the and discourse nationalist the nation-state, the by consturcted formally and actively was identitiy Turkish the though even So, policies. state affected and discourse nationalist Turkish the dominated Other’s the for Turkists the by constructed discourse nationalist the and vocabulary social and political The nation-state. the and identity Turkish coming the for blue-prints the were ideas those that argue I thinkers. Turkist the by them to given had roles negative and excluded mainly is other The both.. to tendencies characteristics and roles, respected special with them attributing and the “others” and (Turks) “us” of aspects main the defined works Their nation. the of idea their postulated novelists and poets thinkers, Turkist the which, in published were short-stories and poems books, historical and theoretical articles, numerous Within rights. national their for up wake to nation Turkish the alert to order in campaign nationalist a started movement Turk Young The cultural other consisted of the Ottoman culture, the over-Westernized Turks, and Turks, over-Westernized the culture, Ottoman the of consisted other cultural The seperable two are These “us". understand to significant is “other” the Understanding the of faction Turkist the because construction this for significant are years The 2 CEU eTD Collection Berktay. Ömer of Halil Dr. Prof. translations by made are the Boycotage, the except thesis, All this in used Turkists. stories short Seyfettin word the use to prefer I division I. this War of World Instead the after and during interchangeably used words the because Turkists and Pan-Turkists between them divide not do I stories. short and novels poems, articles, books, published their in included is above mentioned I others of fragment Every others. significant the of construction the for role major the play they that argue I because others significant the founding fathersofTurkishnationalism. as such Turkists, other many with Together Emin Mehmed Gökalp, Ziya Akçura, Yusuf intellectuals: five by works printed itself limits study The others. of construction the the mainweaponforawakeningnation.Thestudydealswithliteratureandtheirrolein sourceofbackwardness.. constructed asanotherbecauseitwasperceivedamajor was It manner. same the in Islam Ottoman the treated They one. national homogenous the I picked those names because I argue that they play the major role for construction of construction for role major the play they that argue I because names those picked I was because it Turkists by the the literature given to role was significant study a In the udkl Öe Syei ad aie dp Adıvar. Edip Halide and Seyfetin Ömer Yurdakul, 3 he Ağaoğlu Ahmet te ae eie s the as defined are they , CEU eTD Collection prah a mil a epne o te rmrils ters wih ok ainls a a as nationalism took which theorist primordialist the for response a mainly was approach p.51). the firstorderoftime,andlieatrootsubsequent processes(Smith,2003, in exist they ‘primordial’; are nations words, other In family. the with coeval and ubiquitous were such as and kinship extended of forms as seen were nations novel, and recent be might movement, ideology and the nationalism, Although 15). p. 2007, givens (Conversi, emotional as them treating mobilization, and national emotional for explanations to ultimate tied as are constraints instinctive they beings natural are nations Since nations. of naturalness and antiquity the argue Primordialists 8). p. 2009, (Smith, itself nature in not if condition, human the in inherent were and time’ first ‘the from around were nations that held They 64). p. as 2000, natural asspeech,sightorsmell,andthatnationshaveimmemorialtimes(Ozkirimli, beings, human of part ‘neutral’ a is nationality that told who scholars describe to used their commoncharacteristics,whichenableresearcherstocomparethemsystematically. to regard with theories various classify order in used approaches are these terms, grand two are which terms umbrella two on based is theories between distinction basic The 1960ies. since nationalism of literature are existing the dominating approaches basic two see we distinction, basic a make to have we if But nationalism. about questions to answers of range diverse a give approaches theoretical various because hard is task The theories. and approaches new of emergence the by everyday harder getting hs ves ee any rtczd y oens ter o ntoaim Modernist nationalism. of theory modernist by criticized mainly were views Those term’ ‘umbrella an is It theory. a not approach, an is primordialism with, begin To It’s sciences. social in debate ongoing an still is nationalism of theories Classifying 1.1 MainAspectsoftheConstructivistApproachtoNationalism Chapter 1.LiteratureReviewandMethodology 4 primordialism , modernism and. More than More and. CEU eTD Collection ainlt ad ainls ae utrl riat o a atclr id Eegne of Emergence kind. particular turn, in print-communities, These a print-communities. of birth the with of related is nationalism artifacts cultural are nationalism and nationality myths, invent to had nationalists round; traditions, suitablehistoryandthelike(Smith,2009, p.5). way other the not nations, engendered state, and nationalism was 80-81).It p. 2003, (Smith, traditions invented of climax the was 1914 to yearsof 1870 between the period Hobsbawm to reality. According bonds of or establishing of ruling required newmethods orevenimpracticable.This political hierarchiesmoredifficult and social and sates by ruling of forms traditional the made society changing a time same the at structural, and rapid was change This 263-264). (p. industrialization rapid by caused disintegration and fragmentation the prevented community national of tradition invented The 12). p. 1983, Ranger, & (Hobsbawm cohesion group’s of cement a and as action of history legitimator ‘use and continuity establish traditions those invention, the After traditions. invented such of example significant most the are phenomena related its and nation the him to According 48). p. 2003, (Smith, masses enfranchised newly the of newly the of energies the channeling by elites ruling of interests the serve to created are and engineering social of products are which traditions’ ‘invented to much owe Hobsbawm, Eric to according Nations, traditions. invented of idea the on depends constructivism Hobsbawm’s Anderson. Benedict p. 377). 1994, secularism (Smith, urbanizationand emergence thebureaucraticstate, industrialism, the capitalism, modernprocesseslike ofspecifically they aretheproducts French Revolution,and the of wake the in is which centuries, two last the in appeared both nationalism and Nations Revolution. French the before parallel no found which process, modern a essentially was nation-building planned and nations approach modernist to According phenomenon. granted nte cntutvs i Bndc Adro. nesns on o dprue s that is departure of point Anderson’s Anderson. Benedict is constructivist Another and Hobsbawm Eric are theories constructivist the of members significant Two 5 CEU eTD Collection communication (Smith,2003,p.64) free- context and work semantic in engage to a able workforce, requiring numerate and literate society, mobile, industrial of type new a producing was Modernity structures. social different needed society cultural industrial new for the because need societies modern a the in was homogenization There unity. create to order in nation the for culture” a “common constructed which state the was It classes. between divisions to caused which societies Western of stratification social the in changes major brought not changes rapid could Those emerge. nationalism changes from grand coming these changes without major modernization, and the industrialization by constructed was nationalism of context social the that believed Gellner modernization. and industrialization of effect reshaping and changing identity. main the started community the materials these the reading as defined be should newspapers externalization and books Printed easy. and significant newspapers, of consumption mass the of By newspapers. consumption mass simultaneous the by provided connection second The 79). p. 2003, (Smith, markets vernacular larger much the by supplanted was market Latin elite saturated the after especially, books printed commodity, mass first the of rise the by nourished were According to Ernest Gellner, transformation to the age of nationalism came from the from came nationalism of age the to transformation Gellner, Ernest to According and objectivation o te ain o mgn isl a a omnt. Through community. a as itself imagine to nation the for 6 internalization internalization and to construct a common a construct to and of ideas became more became ideas of CEU eTD Collection led-xsig tnc omnte o peainl yatc r meil tts quite states, imperial or dynastic prenational or communities of ethnic wake the already-existing in often more, but accidentally, quite sometimes tapestry, national new a to intellectuals fortheconstructionofnationhood.According tothem(1999): intellectuals alsohighlycontributestwotheconstruction ofnationalistdiscourse. texts, of authors the As cannot’. beings other to authors; the held are they which be of that for can account beings ‘Human way: this in point the explains 209) p. 1992, (MacIntyre, MacIntyre Alasdair narrative. a is life social the interactions, and changes social experiences, life everyday incidents, historical by being into came they constructs; social are particular, a includes nation p. 393). 1999, other” (Suny&Kennedey, an from and difference one another with sameness and define customs, institutionalize traditions, develop “actively to capacity the have intellectuals The the of presence “primeval the and progress national of narrative continuous a as of nation idea the It mainlyproduces force. symbolic a significant nation as construction of a as nation the of unity impossible the in lies composition cultural whose idea “an was it him the For 1). (p. west” in idea historical powerful a as emerges nation the that language literary and thought political of traditions those “from way: this in point the defines (1990) Bhaba nationalisms. si i written is it as [A] single poet, or a variable army of scholar-priests may contribute essential threads essential contribute may scholar-priests of army variable a or poet, single [A] the for role significant very a give Kennedy D. Michael and Suny G. Ronald and representations,anditconstructsthe The nationalistdiscourseisconsistedofsigns of emergence the since entities inseparable two are nation the and Narration 1.2. Discourse,NarrationandthePublicIntellectuals narrative symbolic force” symbolic hc cntut te icus. icuss ntoait icus in discourse nationalist Discourses, discourse. the constructs which n i hs o e ed s a as read be to has it and (p. 1). The nationalist discourse plays a major role for the for role major a plays discourse nationalist The 1). (p. 7 text y olwn a eilgcl ot It root. semiological a following by Volk” (ibid.). CEU eTD Collection ways –through associations through coffee houses, through political parties. The significant The parties. political through houses, coffee through associations –through ways different in themselves organize may Intellectuals nations. represent must they legitimate be to states for that requirement the and sovereignty popular of ideas were formation discursive new to this in included claims Rapidly 394). environment, (p. statehood” and discursive self-representation, political territory, new this in possible, made and another from people one separated differences cultural civil or distinctions, linguistic and “ethnocultural after, Then 393). (p. nations” into was race human the of division “natural” the which in world “a in “nations” other to apposition its nations” the of “naturalness” the of “notions involved discourse this constituted”, being was nation” the of “discourse “universal a as historically intellectuals arethemainagentswhichconstructsconcepts andcategoriesforthenationhood. but intellectual practicevaries, of relative significance 393). The (p. “other” ” community, the as much the outside as those with differences the elaborate and level), discursive community the on least (at possible the within differences “dissolve intellectuals national and elite political The 393). (p. together” and pieces cultural intellectual and social disparate of bind that elites efforts political the with only nation a as themselves understand and “come together that but communities, civic/territorial) particular (or ethnic are of nations out grow them, may For that formations 394). (p. sense” modern this in nationness of practice a and language, a understanding, an was there before is, that nation, the of discourse a was there exist before could not sense the modern in Kennedy “nations Suny and to and according nation” the of discourse the project formulating in role transformative significant disproportionately this its of because to central absolutely was activity “Intellectual nation. the of fortheconstruction intellectuals asamust nationalistactivity of Suny andKennedydefinethe privileged asforerunners(p.384). historically are then who others given by patterns accommodating to and consciously reacting According to Suny and Kennedy (1999) this nation formation first took place when place took first formation nation this (1999) Kennedy and Suny to According 8 CEU eTD Collection r te an oil rus h wr ms esl acsil t ntoa cncoses and consciousness national to accessible easily most were who groups social main the are those (1985) Horch to According communal). and state private, clerics and officials middle and lower the includes This wage-labor. of relationship a in stood who –those intelligentsia the of stratum third the was group numerous most the Hroch to According 16). (p. scientists and journalists artists, doctors, and lawyers as categories enterprises; such includes this him economic to according in engage or power political in share directly not did relationship, wage-labour outside the still which, while one as a groups the professional defines 16). Hroch ecclesiastical and officials state (p. (lawyers)” professions free the of elite highest the and estates big the of managers the dignitaries, the included stratum top This classes. ruling intelligentsia, directlyassociatedwiththe first stratumiscompromisedtheelitesectionsof “the Horch: to According nation. the of is articulation the to who contribute which strata and different labour term the intellectual with their way general by a in lived characterized and education higher whose a professions had by members constructed nations him to According nation. the of construction their idealtypes: on concentrate we if better be should the of construction and intellectuals national the of role iolv rc (95 as gvs sgiiat oe o h itleta atvt for activity intellectual the to role significant a gives also (1985) Hroch Miroslav osmto o hr oty o te oiiain f mvmn aon the cultural frametheintellectualarticulated(p.403). around movement a and of mobilization reproduction the or the poetry, speech, her of intellectual’s consumption the of repetition oral the in whether milieu, ordinary her or his beyond intellectual of effects the carry that discourses various –those intellectuals of products the (c) and poetry; writing or superior knowledge,whetherorganizingsocialmovements the nameoftheir in do they what is that – intellectuals of of activity the claims (b) knowledge; their superior for basis the is, –that intellectuals the of formation the (a) 9 intelligentsia p 1) Hoh eie three defines Hroch 15). (p. CEU eTD Collection a viewofpoliticalhistoryassimplytheamoralpursuit of validate to seemed historiography “The modern 90): (p. word Chatterjee’s In history. national and pure more much a construct to tries which power of play a as history these the make processes of All 77-84). (pp. history” “Puranic as terms Chatterjee which emperors, different of reign the to according history national the dividing constructed by mainly is time-line This they becamedistanttothe“us”. and shaped borders their and constructed are Others “us”. of feeling the distort should which elements foreign andnon-national depends onpickingthe 77).This “foreign” and“native”(p. create categoriesabout writinghasto thenationalisthistory do that, in orderto the nation.But of members the by read be to going is which narrative pure nationally a create to and nation, interpreters” (p.76).Thisprocessincludestheglorificationofpastandancestors foreign by distorted not was that past a nation the for claim out setting for representation, self- for of agenda an was which nation, the of history the constructing of role significant the plays “intellectuals thinker, the to According nation. the of construction the for intelligentsia above. defined laborers intellectual and intellectuals the of consisted are they and idea national the National of 13). pioneers the by done are consciousness increasing (p. towards directed activities and agitation revival national for ask and views those popularize and consciousness national and programs national construct to capacity better has which laborers intellectual or intellectuals the are They 13). (p. activists national become to others than earlier ready Then after Intellectuals and historians creates a new time-line for the birth of nation. of birth the for time-line new a creates historians and Intellectuals after Then the and intellectuals the of role significant the defines also (1993) Chatterjee Partha 10 raison d’etat ” . CEU eTD Collection social life is a narrative in itself. Alasdair MacIntyre (1992) explains the point in this way: this in point the explains (1992) MacIntyre Alasdair itself. in narrative a is life social the interactions, and changes social experiences, life everyday incidents, historical of results inthisway: the discourseandideology a includes It root. semiological nation the constructs it and and representations, signs consisted of discourse is nationalist The power. knowledge and 322). (p. discourse, between relationship the of language” result the is discourse nationalist through the of Construction arranged and displayed “experiencings” ‘preconstituted and pure is normal andwhatiscontrarytothesedefinitions. what categories construct to discourse nationalist the lead boundaries These boundaries. construct symbolic which should oppositions also needs discourse difference, this of marking on depends systems cultural all since discourse, nationalist the of construction the other isnecessaryfor andthe ofus opposition define “us”.Thebinary depends onhowwe other the of meaning the So, oppositions. binary and opposites between differences define to need we meaning, the construct to order In 235). (p. other” the with dialogue a through meaning construct only can we because difference need “we (1997) Hall Stuart to According icuss ntoait icus i priua, r sca cntut; hy r the are they constructs; social are particular, in discourse nationalist Discourses, and ready-made of “sets the as discourse the defines Hall Stuart phrase, famous his In “us”. define to necessary is which difference of image constructed a is other The 1.3. DiscourseandtheConstructionofOtherness: the waysocietyworks(p.26). intelligible render and out figure define, sense, make to order in groups deploy social and classes different –which representation of systems the and thought, of imagery categories, concepts, the languages, the – works frame mental The si i written is it as narrative which constructs the discourse. Stuart Hall defines Hall Stuart discourse. the constructs which n i hs o e ed s a as read be to has it and 11 text y olwn a following by CEU eTD Collection object, because it is the language which myth gets hold of in order to build its own system; own its build to order in of hold gets myth which language the is it because object, language- the calls Barthes which it), to assimilated are which representation of modes the (or language the system, linguistic a meaning: the constructs systems semiological Two 112). a terms, three of relation the from comes meaning The signifying a before. constructed presuppose already are which meanings myths above constructed are they on, as consciousness worked been already has which material a of made various include aspects these All of system themselves. by meanings new construct also the they and before times the of of discourses existing part are they and include they usual and or communication verbal whether speeches, are these of Barthes all For (p. 110). mythical speech” to support a serve as can all these shows, publicity, sports, reporting, cinema, photography, also but discourse, written only not representations; of or writing of “modes of consisted It speech. oral only not is speech but messages, included speech that Barthes believes end. the in mythical language a into turns speech this speech and into societies convertreality .Humansand 108) forbids talkingaboutthings”(p. or not,which existence toanoralstate,openappropriationbysociety,forthereisnolaw,whethernatural constitutes includes system, langue other any like them, by constructed language nationalist The discourse. a by conveyed is it provided myth a be can type ofspeech,andeverything Myth isa and messages(p.109). the systemofcommunication explain order to in (1995) Barthes Roland by used concepts main three are the general. Those includes system, langue other any intellectuals, like nationalist the by language constructed The nationalist 209). cannot’ (p. beings other authors; the are they which of that for account to held be can beings ‘Human codn t Brhs eey bet n h wrd a ps fo a lsd silent closed, a from pass can world the in object “every Barthes to According myth ingeneral. meaning, signifiers meaning, meanings messages , but myths and mythical speeches in general are general in speeches mythical and myths but , Toe esgs r bt hroiu o the of harmonious both are messages Those . 12 meaning, signifiers meaning, and the signified the signifier , a , which constitutes which signified and the signified the and the sign ( sign the myth which in p. CEU eTD Collection depiction constructs a vocabulary, imagery, rhetoric, and figures. Said mentions in this way this in mentions Said figures. and rhetoric, imagery, vocabulary, a constructs depiction This 41). (p. manual)” zoological a in (as illustrates one something and prison), or school a in (as disciplines one something curriculum), a in (as depicts and studies one something law), of court a in (as judge one “something as depicted is Oriental the Said to According national, cultural,andepistemologicalboundaries andprinciplesofinternalcoherence(p.41). own its with world a own, his of world organized thoroughly but different a in lived Oriental dominate. East inorderto for the bytheWest different worldisconstructed A mature, "normal."(p.41). virtuous, rational, is European as the West thus the "different"; childlike, by negative (fallen), represented depraved of is irrational, kind East him this to for according example case own his an from gives representation Said constructed, be should other the of representations negative knowledge the constructing After 39). (p. possibilities” and society, history, traditions, character, culture, their race, depend on and should academic andpractical, of informationandcontrol”(p.33).AccordingtoSaidknowledgetheothershouldbe“both in anincreasinglyprofitabledialectic so on moreknowledge,and power; morepowerrequires gives “Knowledge continues He 33). (p. known” is who subject the over power and authority absolute an has constructor the relationship; authoritarian an through constructed is other the the of knowledge “The from way this in comes defines Said power. case) and knowledge between relationship Said’s in West and (East discourse aspects “other” significant the most and the “us” of between one him to According other”. “the and “us” of between Said’s speaks aboutthefirst(p.113). one which in language, second a is it because metalanguage, calls he which itself, myth and But the way of enlivening the relationship was everywhere to stress the fact that the that fact the stress to everywhere was relationship the enlivening of way the But Orientalism One of the most significant studies about the other and the discourse is Edward is discourse and the other about the studies significant the most One of Si (03 mnin te pseooia caatr f h relation the of character epistemological the mentions (2003) Said . 13 CEU eTD Collection 33). Valuesofnationappear as“factsofnature”nolongerseen“socialvalues”. nationalism of discourse “the itself” (p. naturalizes that “it third is that domination. The and power 33). It’sabout hegemonizes” (p. is role Second enemies. and friends This includes 32). discourse (p. “them”” and “us” into world the divides nationalism of discourse “the him, to discourse participants(p.12). apparentto is normally of which belief, neither of knowledgeand systems social relationsand identities, social upon has discourse effects constructive the and ideologies, and power of relations shaped by is showing howdiscourse but also describing discursivepractices, not just in approaches non-critical from differ approaches critical that, mentions He absolute. not is division a such him to According 12). (p. approaches 'critical' and 'non-critical' distinguishing discourse, to social orientation their nature of the to groups according two into divided can be propped eachotherup,keptgoing(p.44). thus worlds two the reality material and served vision The ours. then in lived "we" world; and their in lived Orientals created conceived. sense a in vision This 42). (p. "them")” the promoted structure whose East, the Orient, (the reality strange the and “For "us") West, (Europe, the familiar the difference between of “other”: vision an and political “us” a an ultimately creates was which Orientalism discourse the of construction the is end the happens in What 42). characteristics (p. possessing regular phenomenon as a see Orientals to even and with deal to Europeans allowed they important, most atmosphere; an genealogy, a mentality, a with Orientals supplied they Orientals; of behavior the explained ideas “These continues: Said effective”. be to ways various in proven values of set unifying a and ideas of family a were together archive the bound What held. unanimously aspects, its of some in and, commonly information of archive or library a was Orientalism sense a “In 42): (p. According to Norman Fairclough (2006), the discursive analysis approaches surveyed approaches analysis discursive the (2006), Fairclough Norman to According Özkirimli (2005) defines three major roles for the role of nationalist discourse. According discourse. of nationalist role the for roles major three (2005) defines Özkirimli 14 CEU eTD Collection htr-mgs ad hs wih hrceie n’ on oetc dniy sl-mgs or (self-images identity domestic own one’s characterize which those and (hetero-images) other the “characterize which images the out find to tried I xiii). p. 2007, Leerseen, & (Beller define theotherness. order to in Turkists the by used ‘typical’ constructed the understand to used are Imagology of Ottoman the methods inside The discourse. images of into turned change structural this hospitality how for looked I Empire. ethnic and nationalism of rise practice, social a of result the was Turkists the by used discourse The Empire. the inside nationalism of birth the was different ethnicities.Thestructuralchange societyrelations between was thelateOttoman and 60) (p. conjuncture the of analysis The problem. the as relation discourse-other the decided I otherness the on focusing was I Since life. social of part some in problem discourse-related a of perception some from begins “CDA 60) (p. Fairclough and Chouliaraki to According is framework CDA The Imagology. and summarized byChouliarakiandFairclough(2001,p.60)inthisway: (CDA) analysis Discoursive Critical used Imagology is defined as the “field of our mental images of the other and of ourselves of and other the of images mental our of “field the as defined is Imagology 2. 1. I methodolgy As writers. Turkist the of sources primary the on depends study This 1.4 Methodology 5. 4. 3. Obstacles to its being tackled; Obstacles toitsbeing (activity,reflexivity) A problem Reflection ontheanalysis. obstacles ways pastthe Possible in practice Function oftheproblem (b) analysis of the practice reitsdiscourse analysisofthepractice (b) analysisoftheconjuncture; (a) c analysisofthediscourse (c) ii. relation of discourse to other moments? other relationofdiscourseto ii. ii. interactional analysis interactionalanalysis ii. .relevantpractice(s) i. i. structural analysis: the order of discourse order structuralanalysis:the i. - - - - discourse andreflexivity oftheactivity discourse aspart linguistic and semiotic analysis linguistic andsemiotic interdiscursive analysis 15 CEU eTD Collection explained insidethetext. are used I techniques Imagology The used. I sources primary the in xiii) (p. auto-images) 16 CEU eTD Collection reform periodwasconstructed bytheTurkists(Zürcher,1984,pp.19-45). this of vocabulary social and political The role. significant a played movement the of branch Turkist the especially and movement Turk Young the by implemented was identity new this of corpus the But identity. Turkish new the and nation-state the constructed who single-party is the Kemalist It was activity Young Turks. the by done role was case, this the Turkish intellectual overlooked. For the of role significant the and boundaries, and ideologies national reproducing and establishing in apparatuses state other and bureaucracy state to importance primary give views these However, Identity. Turkish of emergence the on studies myriad in itself repeated ideas Turkey. These in recent times the until Empire Ottoman the beginning of the from itself reconstructed which bureaucratic-class a of existence the with Turkey in life cultural and political state-centered the defines and 258- tones same the continued (pp. (1987) Keyder Empire Ottoman the from inherited the was inside which society civil Republic of Turkish lack the of result the was dominance state the (1969), Mardin ultimate 509-514). the (pp. life is social of spheres state other dominates and which mechanism centered state strongly was Republic Turkish the Ottoman and of Empire culture the and politics of power him, to dominant According mechanism. the ruling the focusing in by bureaucracy Turkey and Empire Ottoman the in tradition state this explains (1976) Heper Metin identity. national the manufactured which society civil of lack the and tradition state strong the was it view, mainstream this to According Turkey. mrec o te uks iett i mil rltd o h srn sae rdto in tradition state strong the to related mainly is identity Turkish the of Emergence 2.1 TurkishIdentityandtheTurkists theOtherness and Chapter 2.Race,Culture 17 codn o Şerif to According 5) Çağlar 259). CEU eTD Collection including Turkishstraits (BosphorusandDardanelles)(pp.2-3). Thrace, eastern in points strategic occupied provinces, forces allied Arab and Transcaucasia, the and Azerbaijan leaving by forces armed to their of forced parts Ottomans greater the 1, of demobilization War World Ottoman ended which (1918), Mudros of Armistice the In 1918. and 1917 of years the between Anatolia Eastern of parts Syria, Arabia, and Palestine, Mesopotamia, from Ottomans the of expelling the with continued dissolution The traumas. A.LMacfie(1998)abstractstheperiodinthesewords: of period the was Empire the of part ideological major a became 1918, nationalism, and 1908 Turkish between which in period The dissolution. its the of of period the era Empire, incongruous Ottoman most the with coincided nationalism Turkish of emergence The 9). (p. period’ recent, historically and particular, a to exclusively belongs ‘nationalism that states also Hobsbawm 9). (p. congruent” be should unit national and political the that holds territories inEurope.ThistasktheBalkanLeagueverynearlyaccomplished(p.3). remaining their the from Turks Ottoman the on expelling of object assault the with Empire, Ottoman an launched Montenegro, and Greece Bulgaria, Serbia, of up made states, Balkan of league a 1912-1913 In (Libya). Tripolitanya occupied Italy 1911 in Crete and independence; its its announced proclaimed Sultanate, Ottoman the a of nominally still state Bulgaria tributary the while 1878; Herzegovina, in acquired had and it which Bosnia of administration annexed Austria-Hungary 1878, of Constitution Ottoman First the of restoration a about brought which Revolution, Turk Young called so- the following 1908, In identify. to difficult not are the Wars of World First period and the Balkan in collapse, Ottoman to leading road the on stages Principal The Hobsbawm (1992) defines the nationalism in this way: “primarily a principle which principle a “primarily way: this in nationalism the defines (1992) Hobsbawm enosis (union) with Greece. In 1910-11 the Albanians rose in revolt, and revolt, in rose Albanians the 1910-11 In Greece. with (union) 18 CEU eTD Collection dniy vrepaie te otlt of hostility the over-emphasized identity this newly constructedTurkish Iarguethat, were witnessingatthetime. incidents theTurkists the to relation its and Turkists the by designed identity Turkish new The 100). (p. repeated” and stressed are trauma the of elements key the which in narratives to “causes which memory of type the was This 2003). Radstone, & (Hodgkin racial characteristicsofTurks,andTurkishculture. and national the on depend would which constructed be to had identity Turkish new A Turks. the by followed also be to had which modernization the for pathway universal the was this that concluded Turkists The differences. national and racial their of basis the on their nation-states construct to started nations these of All Empire. Ottoman the of parts the be to used who Balkans the and Europe the in nations to strength giving was Nationalism nationalism. of power the about Turkists the convinced Empire the in land of loss of amount significant the all, of First Intellectuals. Turkist the on effect double a had incidents those that argue I Austria-Hungary’s the after situation annexation ofBosnia-Herzegovina: the explains (2005) Adivar Edip Halide society. always ready to attack the Turkish homeland. Taner Akçam (2004) makes similarly analysis similarly makes (2004) Akçam Taner homeland. Turkish the attack to ready always utingosapae nalnwppr (p.301). Austrian goodsappearedinallnewspapers of boycott eternal the of vows Solemn manufacture. Austrian were they because fezzes of discarding the gatherings, street the and speeches the Istanbul, in demonstrations wild the remember I herself. find to time short a least at her give and period, reform the of difficulties the for allow would her surrounded who nations little aggressive the powersand Turkeyarosethe that onceaNew the childishbelief first shockto It wasthe eody i egnee a tamtc eoy mn te uks Intellectuals Turkist the among memory” “traumatic a engendered it Secondly, the in and Intellectuals Ottoman the among hostility with met were traumas these All ailntoa others racial/national 19 others was the result of the traumatic the of result the was hc wr prevd as perceived were which CEU eTD Collection others via Intellectual activity. This was main Turkist aim. They otherized the racial/national the otherized They aim. Turkist main was This activity. Intellectual via others the of idea the impose to is this achieve to way only the and nation their of boundaries the realize Turks hadto Accordingthem,the the Turkishsociety. others within the theorizationof state ofmindbythesesentences: this defines Akçam others. with relation its and identity Turkish new the affected mentality This Intellectuals. nationalist the in mentality catch-up a created nationalization late This spirit. national the of significance the of ignorant their still were constructed Turks the However, already nationhood. Turks of nations surrounding the all Turkists, the to According 40). (p. Position” Middle “The as identity Turkish of According tohim: aspect peculiar this terms and complex ontheother(p.52). inferiority an from suffering and hand, one the on value one’s of praise between exaggerated vacillation constant and self-doubt chronic created identity national the of arrival late This century. 20th the in only arrived movement, political a as nationalism, Turkish insecurity. this replace to identity national stable a offer to unable was elite ruling Ottoman the Empire, the of character multiethnic the to Due Ottomans. the in insecurity of astrongsense 19th centuries,however,created 18th and process ofthelate historical The centuries. for Ottomans the for city capital a as served Istanbul Even culmination ingenocide(p.40). their and nationalities, the other toward towards taken policies those Turkey’s from different were in that Armenians role important an played that refuge last the as Anatolia of perception and mentality siege this was It borders. its on experienced has it that refugeagainstthehostileenvironmentsurroundingitandbloodletting as thelast sees Anatolia mentalityand ofsiege alreadycontainsanaspect Turkish nationalidentity I arguethattheTurkistsperceivedultimatereason behindthisfallastheabsence of 20 CEU eTD Collection were usedintheexceptionalist tones. which units the were race Yellow and race, Turkish race, Slav conflict. political and social constant in were which races between world the divided terminology This solidarity. of units bigger the as acting races also were there However, unities. complete and solid were Nations interests. own its maximize to acting was nation each and other an each with in conflict endless were nations and races different from people that believed they social-Darwinism, the of effect the Under categories. national and racial the to according structures social and political existing the divide to order in exceptionalism national and racial used opinion, my in Turkists, The 203). (p. natural and stable as boundaries national define to used it that, with to Together 203). p. and (Lindisfarne, 2002, other the about generalizations and stereotypes generate nationhood cultural prototypical and construct ethnic to order practices, in religious used is history, Exceptionalism own differences. its has nation each view, this to According 4). (p. others” all the by manifested general pattern a from nation departs and “one history” particular its of product the is nation “every that define to tendency the is it (1995), way. exceptionalist an in nation and race Exceptionalism of categories the used they racial the but on hierarchies focus not did Turkists The ethnicities. different construct between to racial-hierarchies used not are categories and terms Racial identity. Turkish the of boundaries ontheexclusionofthese. new Turkishidentitywasgoingtobeconstructed Islam.The Ottoman the and Turks over-Westernized culture, Ottoman hybrid the differences, Racial and national otherness is used by the Turkists in order to construct the external the construct to order in Turkists the by used is otherness national and Racial oftheOtherness: 2.2 RacializingandNationalizing s rel dfnd s h uiuns o ntos Acrig o Fredrickson to According nations. of uniqueness the as defined briefly is 21 CEU eTD Collection Turk SabahaddinBeybecame adiscipleofDemolins(p.208). Young leading later perspective; biological a from drawn not was superiority of examination Anglo-Saxons des superiorite la tient book Demolins's Edmond that, with Together races. different within subjects various of evolution the race—white, examined Letourneau superior 208) (p. the rule." mob protect of to danger the European—from attempt an was democracy against war Bon’s Le Gustav Young Turks popular among most One ofthe distinctions. on racial based which were century, mid-nineteenth the of Young theories biological materialist popular of adherents were the Turks those, than More methodology. scientific of application an through healed be According tohim,socialproblemscould subject tocyclicillnesses."(Hanioglu,1995,p.208). Riza Ahmed movement the body is laws. This natural of dependent solelyupon organism complex a "society is expressed it, father founding the of one As organism. functioning as “Others” ofthenation. dissolution. from Empire the save should which nationhood homogenized secular a form social to utopia; major and their achieve to political mediator a as new serve would which Empire, a the for language offered Turkists However, 81). p. 2000, (Mardin, for thought centuries political Islamic in used words the been have These Islam. shared who those all of name “national” the as Muslims the by appropriated was Christians, the to solely refer 334). p. 2001, (Karpat, mid-1860s the as early as discussed being group), national 20 early the in vocabulary social and political and discourse nationalist Turk Young the of part a became ideas Racial The racial ideas of Turkists were oriented by bio-organism which defines the society the defines which bio-organism by oriented were Turkists of ideas racial The 19 late the since ideas racial European the with familiar were Turks Young kavimiyet th ntoaiyntoaim, and (nationality-nationalism), century. However, terms such as such terms However, century. drew the interest of the Young Turks, even though its though even Turks, Young the of interest the drew 22 cinsiyet millet sok sx wr already were sex) (stock, Millet (nation), , previously used to used previously , kavim th century. (ethnic- A quoi A CEU eTD Collection codn t rlgos itntos The distinctions. religious to according the Empire, the of system social classical the because context Ottoman the for change significant a was That “others”. Turkify werethe themselves notvolunteerto this schemeandthosewhodid fitto who didnot be Those to history. and culture had same language, same nation race, same the the to belonging with contained of boundaries the them to According awakening. national Turk’s openly demandedtoconstructanewhomogenizednationhoodundertheseideals. who Turkists the was it discourse, Turk Young the of part were ideas nationalist though Even an in Empire. remain the inside dissolution to more any prevent tried to order in movement vocabulary political Ottomanist Turk Young The identities. ethnic and national their with themselves define to continued Empire the of groups ethnic Various Empire. Ottoman According toKarpat(2001)Ottomanismwas: Ottoman constitution. the among equal be to going were citizens Ottoman All identity. religious or ethnic other an create to trying was policy state This 5). p. 2001, (Hanioglu, groups” ethnic Ottoman among equality promoting era Tanzimat the of half second the during empire. Apolicywhichwascreated“inordertorespondthechallengeofethnicseparatism, the inside nationalism ethnic of rise prevent to tried which policy state a was Ottomanism h Trit oiia togt dfnd toaim s fiue hc ws delaying was which failure a as Ottomanism defined thought, political Turkist The the inside nationalism ethnic of rise the prevent not could Ottomanism However Turkism. and Ottomanism between balanced discourse Turk Young dominant The ujcs f h sla it ctzn o te tt ad pnd h wy o turn to religious faithintoapersonalmatter”(p.12). way the opened and state the of citizens into sultan the the of subjects transformed it citizenship, Ottoman common on unity political to center and non-Muslims and Muslims between “equality” produce to Aiming Ottoman identity Ottoman Millet system set the boundaries between different ethnic groups ethnic different between boundaries the set system and an and Millet 23 Ottomanism a asse, ne wih te religious “the which under system, a was Ottoman nation Ottoman a rfsind s n ideology an as refashioned was which should be above any above be should which CEU eTD Collection than the race as biological differences. Georgeon mentions that together with the racial and racial the with together that mentions Georgeon differences. biological as race the than different simply race was of Akçura’s usage Georgeon, According François be formed. had to Turks of unity national and racial the on depends which politics new a Empire, Ottoman the prevent thefallof p. 18). Inorderto consciousness (Akçura,2008, social which wasunitedby 295). p. 2001, (Hanioglu, “nation.” the cultural homogeneouscommunity a racialand of was:“consisted thenation According tohim of tried concept Akçura the Boutmy, of Émile “power” and the Sorel demonstrating Albert as such Politiques Sciences des Libre manifesto race social and politics relations basedon.Theothersweretheoneswhodidnotbelongtothosecategories. the which in categories basic the were race and Nation 191). p. 2002, (Arai, manners and customs history, race, language, religion, of unity the on depending was nation them to According language. social and political their were in nationalized others and racialized The groups. social different between comparison of center their to ethnicity “non- and Muslims”. “Muslims” between divided was society level state the In organization. social of point main the was religion inside, divisions ethnic had system Millet the though Even millet the Armenian the Balkans; theSlavsin Christians, mostly included theWestern Orthodox one or communities, religious autonomous culturally three the of one in “membership by determined was state Ottoman the in non-Muslims for identity official The 280). p. 2001, (Karpat, government” the by altered be not could that Book, the of peoples the to protection to according principles, Islamic basic from directly stemming status, legal a had community and natşon and represented the Eastern Christians; and the Jews belonged to their own belonged to Jews and the Christians; represented theEastern It was Yusuf Akçura, leading advocate of the Turkist movement, who openly offered openly who movement, Turkist the of advocate leading Akçura, Yusuf was It and race the taken have Turkists the differences, religious with language a of Instead Three Ways of Policy Three Waysof to be the basis of Young Turk politics and future of the nation in his political his in nation the of future and politics Turk Young of basis the be to . Akçura was deeply “impressed by his professors at the École hisprofessorsatthe “impressedby deeply . Akçurawas 24 millet” millet (p. 310). s; the s; CEU eTD Collection yblzs hs ntos n Trs seily wt a av ltl gr, nonzn of incognizant girl, little naïve boundaries anddidn’trealizetheimportanceofnation: a with especially, Turks and nations those symbolizes (2005) Adivar Edip Halide Turkist situation. childish and naive a in was races other between account differences take didn’t and truth this realize didn’t (Turks) who Nations from history. were tworacesandculturesfightingintheBalkans,SlavicTurkishrace: there (1999a), Akçura for example, For Turkishness. with conflict in be to started races other the spreadofthoseideas, the Balkans.Within and especiallyin the Empire, and racialideasin nationalist of spread with reality this facing Ottomans 150). p. 1999b, (Akçura, nationhood” of “century the was century 19th significant, became races and nation of ideas century 19th in the, him to According ambiguous. so was boundaries those Empire Ottoman of structure multi-ethnic the under “other”. But the and “us” foreign, and being native of boundaries main the that These were 82). 1999c, p. culture” (Akçura, one languageand race,one wrote “nations haveone the he 1914 of In state. borders one under united main be should the races Turkish were all and nationhood those and differences biological and ethnicity culture, of package a was “race” So 43). p. 2005, (Georgeon, religion and customs language, as such differences cultural the with dealt also understanding racial Akçura’s differences, biological l te ain wo int elz te infcne f hs ws on t disappear to going was those of significance the realize didn’t who nations the All 404; translationmine). (p. ideas different two and civilizations different two cultures, different two represent they history; Balkanian the of branches different two represent they and bluntly, other each with fighting are armies two those Now army. Turkish the of western-wing the and world Muslim the of south-wing the is army This race. Slav the Christian Balkans with the in fighting now army is The Ottoman 25 CEU eTD Collection 1 his poem He defieditin others. the than position superior a in Turks puts race their that declare to ready was (1969a) Yurdakul Emin Mehmet poet Turkist the racial and national the once But other”. “the and for certainextendnon-TurkishMuslimracesshouldbeTurkified: which pathway political a follow and its dissolution should dissolve Empire the Ottoman of theTurks, unity depended onracial to started Turks the when Akçura, to According 57). p. 1999, (Georgeon, desert Nejd the in lived who Arab Bedouin a and plains Kosovo the in lives who Serb Christian Ottoman an between commonality any not were there that believed Akçura essential. were differences those and religions and customs histories, different had Empire inside the the races more.All any the Empire these racesunder unite all to impossible practically was it Empire Ottoman the of inside differences racial the because Akçura, For

Akçura used the word Irk in the original text (Akçura, 2007, p. 23). Which means “race”inTurkish. p.23).Which 2007, text(Akçura, word Irkintheoriginal Akçurausedthe Under the category of race and nation Turkists were constructing the discourse of “us” discourse constructing the were nation Turkists race and category of Under the Anyone whoconsidered himselfashuman My breastisfulloffire I’m aTurk,myreligion,raceissupreme OnTheWaytoWar assimilated (Akçura,2007;citedinThomson,1992,p.174). further be would extent certain a to Turkified already been have who groups ethnic both by united perfectly be would Empire Ottoman the in living Turks all policy a such By heart fusionandnaturalexistence(p.27). is life of joy the where world a in still was girl little The other. each devour beings human make differences racial as well as language and religion where path narrow that yet entered not had She girl? little the to mean that did What : 1 and religious bonds and the other non-Turkish Muslim non-Turkish other the and bonds religious and 26 CEU eTD Collection politics for centuries because they were the earliest race to understand their differences from differences their world understand to race the earliest the were in they because power centuries for politics supreme the was race white The 47). (p. politics world the dominate to race white the of afraid Japanese races, yellow the of rise the of afraid were they because be to started politics world with theJapanese conflict Russians wasin Slav racial differences.The the organized accordingto and other, construct to order in categories national and using racial were .They p. 44) (Seyfettin, 2001, other andthe differences betweenthemselves their focused they and others their define to started nations All otherness. of period the was 19 the him to According differences. national and racial the to tones strongest the of one had Seyfettin Turkist, a As articles. Seyfettin’s Ömer in itself shows nations Ottoman with theothers.Inhispoem borders and definetheir wake up Turksto alarm forthe was an fire, this enemy whichspreads snake-eyed a was other the him to According enemy. an as other racial the defined Yurdakul n o te ot infcn txs hc dfn te uks dseif o oiaiy of solidarity to disbelief Turkist the define which texts significant most the of One Which Icameintotheworld(p.122;translationmine). And ittriestoexilemefromtheland It humiliatesmelikeastatelessprisoner The wayitlookshasaviolentanimosity I don’tknowwhytheseeyeslookingatmefeloniously This facemakesawoundinmynationalpride It spreadsmefirelikeasnake’stwoeyes Whenever Iseethisface,lookedhis/hereyes There isaforeignfacewhichIdon’tlike Should beaslaveofhisfatherland!(p.41;translationmine) Death totheOther 27 Yurdakul(1969b)usesthesewords: , th century CEU eTD Collection ailad ainl ofit wr nvra ad hud eetisl i ay ie n space. and time any in itself repeat should and universal were conflicts national and racial the that is this of meaning The p.38). 2001, (Hanioglu, progress gradual of one is evolution of law the that believed Turkists Darwinism, social and positivism Following Darwinism. Social and theories racial European the of influence the under struggles national and racial uncompromised the stressed They works. written their with categories national and racial the popularized They Empire. the inside Turks the and non-Muslims the and nations Balkan Turks: the except it realized have nations” “other the All nationhood. and race of age the was it But that wasthemainethos.Seyfettindefineshispointinasarcasticway: and nations Ottoman of unity the on insisting still were Turks Seyfettin to According others. it’s construct and nation and race of significance the adopt to had race, a as Turks, others. the The Turkists used the racial/national other in other to mark the differences betweenthe otherintomarkthe differences The Turkistsusedtheracial/national national goals(p.331). own their for patriarchates own their around gathering are Christians those but principals, Ottomanist the follow and behind nationhood their leaving are Turks The books. geography and history from Turkey” and “Turk words the clean to books and change scientific language, Turks to the they convince literature, even Turkish degenerate to Turks the force they but Ottomans” truly are “We thephrase by saying trickTurks They foxy. are very these nations All organizations. national ends, national languages, national literatures, national the daywasanationalpride(p.331). other and Albanians For Revolution”. “Ottoman Albanians the as named was Jews, July 10 Ottomans… Vlahs, Serbian, Bulgarians, Greeks, mean I Ottomans. the all but Turks, by only not made was Revolution the Supposedly The Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians, Armenians, Albanians have national ideals, national have Albanians Armenians, Serbians, Bulgarians, Greeks, The 28 CEU eTD Collection as f 921. hn i a atr f fw ots te mie ot 9 ecn o its of percent 69 lost Empire the months, few a of matter a in Then, 1912–13. of Wars Balkan the during climaxed Muslims Turkish the among vulnerability of perception “The way: this in it defines Cagaptay Soner momentum. more much gained dissolution century, the of end the During 4). p. 2006, (Cagaptay, community” Turkish the among threat external Greeks andArmenians,continuedtheoutspread of nationalism. as such Empire, the inside communities non-Muslim The more. and Romanians Bulgarians, Serbians, the of separation the by followed Independence Greek the and Balkans, the from wavestarted nation-states.Thenationalist own independence andformedtheir to declaretheir started Empire Ottoman the of elements ethnic Various Empire. Ottoman the for dissolution 19 The transformation”. social rapid of times “the the as regarded how be might effect case Turkist strongly the of context historical them The 37). (p. of nation the imagine intellectuals each transformation”, social “apparent and resistance”, “quiet struggle”, social “explicit transformation”, social rapid of times “the are contexts these them, to According Intellectuals. nationalist the by nation the of articulation and contexts from withinandoutside. “us” enemies for the alerted ready and be that, It should struggle. for and ready be alerted to of always had Because “us”. with conflict a in be to going always was which Turkishness for “other” an constructed Turks Young ideas those Following 429). p. 2002, (Ünder, ones powerful the by eliminated be to going was races and nations weaker the which in struggle of arena an was life Social struggles. constant of consisted was life social and politics World The result of this rapid disintegration of the Ottoman Empire was the “perception ofan disintegrationoftheOttoman Empirewasthe The resultofthisrapid uy n Kney 19) eie h sgiiat eainbten h historical the between relation significant the define (1999) Kennedy and Suny 2.3. RepresentationsoftheOtherness: 29 th century was the period of period the was century CEU eTD Collection ie sca o ntoa faue” p xv. t ugss hrtrlgcl xlntos for explanations charaterological suggests It xiv). (p. features” national or social given for motivation collective-physiological characterological, moral, a (b) suggests and ‘typical’, or or articulates different somewhat being as humanity of rest the from nation a out singles “(a) discourse imaginated The xiv). (p. realities” social of not conventions, discursive and literary of representative are they environment; rhetorical and discursive a in shape take “ethnotypes state; Leerseen and Beller As xiv). p. 2007, Leerseen, & (Beller commonplace” and nationalities or ethnicities to attributed characterizations “stereotypical include which others, the about constructed images and discourses mainly are Ethnotypes “ethnotypes”. used to“mark,assignandclarify”(Hall,1997,p.259). are they power, of relations are Representations and 7). (p. other” the some” discredits or “marginalizes “privileges which representation” of order “hierarchical as (2005) Street and Hallam by defined is representation of type This ethnicities. different between construct barriers many to order in difference the used Turkists meaning. negative its to attributed only was difference case, Turkist the in However 238). (p. identities” social for and culture and forformationofthelanguage and theproductionofmeaning, positive and“itisbothnecessary negative both be should difference the him, to According ambivalence. as difference the highlight to used were differences Representations representations. their on depended other national / racial Turkist the empire, the inside groups ethnic nationalized earliest the were those Since empire. the within non-Muslims the and nations Balkan the about images the on main historicalcontextswhichaffectedtheTurkistimaginationof“other”. the are These 6). p. 2006, (Cagaptay, Europe” in territory its of percent 83 and population Oe f h ms sgiiat ersnain o te tens i dfnd as defined is otherness the of representations significant most the of One “others” depended Turkist representationof Based ontheaforementionedreasons,The ewe vros tnc rus Clua ters Sur Hl (97 dfns the defines (1997) Hall Stuart theorist Cultural groups. ethnic various between 30 CEU eTD Collection unfamiliar or rare, but relative vis-à-vis the observer’s subjective experience of knowledge. It knowledge. of experience subjective observer’s the vis-à-vis relative but rare, or unfamiliar unknown, strange, distant, is whatever of quality objective an not is foreign the relational Thus, sense. a in alterity and otherness operationalizes “foreignness Albrecht, to According Albrecht (2007). Corrian by “the foreigner” defined as is representation type of This Turkists. by the as believed foes the were inside they deep Turkish allies, be Imitating to empire. of the enemies external the alliesof were the representation, non-Muslims this to empire. According the inside non-Muslims the for used generally is theme This inside”. “enemy the as them are perceivedas“natural”enemies. benefits, they own workingforits is “naturally” For eachnation fixed. history, permanentand a as are beyond between differentraceswhich for constructingnaturalboundaries in original).Itis (1997) Hall Stuart by defined is and thussecure it “representional strategydesignedtofix‘difference’, It “naturalization”. supply to order in images negative these used They Europe. of “servants” being their to as due traitors depicted or rapists killers, are mainly) (Balkanian nationalities neighboring or Empire, the of Muslims non- the of All others. racial or national the about attitude holistic a has discourse Turkist all. The embraced them image other negative the but or Albanians, Arabs Bulgarians, Greeks, the for exclusively constructed depictions negative or stereotypes no are there like So Bulgarians. Empire, Ottoman the of ex-members the or Empire, the of inside group non-Turkish for eachethnicgroup,Turkistscreatedtwo;theTurksandothers.Theotherincludesevery ethnotypes and categories different constructing of Instead non-Muslims. and nations Balkan exercise the in element “key symbolic violence”(p.257). a as stereotyping defines (1997) Hall difference. cultural One of the most common themes in the Turkist representation of the other is to depict to is other the of representation Turkist the in themes common most the of One different for ethnotypes negative various includes others of representation Turkist The 31 forever ” (p. 245; italics ” (p.245;italics CEU eTD Collection and oe, uk ls ter oe gauly Epcal te toa Crsin were Christians Ottoman the Especially gradually. power their lost Turks power, gained Akçura outside. explains hisviewinthisway: enemy the with coalition in were who within, enemy the as depicted are they So, states. nation own their forming to energies their devoted and Turks, and Muslims the than better economically were non-Muslims The 134). (p. Empire national the a from claiming separation states, European the of protection the under were Ottomans non- Muslim the him, to According states. European the of servants domestic and allies close the which Turks, butperceivedastheallieswithEuropeans. image the the on with collaboration in not constructed was other the because other, is the of image hostile a theme represented This Empire. the inside powers of allies European secret the were They capitalists. European the with together economy Empire’s the exploiting were non-Muslims the view, this to According the construction. this for stereotype as used were Empire the of non-Muslims The image. foreigner the construct to order 326-327). (pp. change” cultural and historical to subject such, as and, reality social given a of part is ic te n o te 19 the of end the Since (p. 134;translationmine). class the second ruled, become the will Turks the and ruling class the be will ethnicities Those Greeks. the to parts western the and Armenians the to given be will Anatolia partsof dominated byTurkishpopulation,totheGreeks and theArmenians.Theeastern Empire, the of parts the give to decided politicians and capitalists Those politicians. and Capitalists European foreigner the of protection the under been have Armenians Yusuf Akçura (2006) represented the non-Muslim Ottomans (Christians and Jews) as Jews) and (Christians Ottomans non-Muslim the represented (2006) Akçura Yusuf in relations economic the accentuated Turkists the representation, of type first the In o Açr, h nnMsis ee xliig h eooy f h Epr. s they As Empire. the of economy the exploiting were non-Muslims the Akçura, For th etr, h nnMsis te toa Gek ad the and Greeks Ottoman the non-Muslims, the century, 32 CEU eTD Collection 2 Akçura points,theTurkswereexcludedfromthiseconomicsystem: As laws. Empire’s the against them protecting were passports these and passports European owned non-Muslims The invasion. economic other this under all were Empire and the towns, of parts and strategic cities The together. economy Ottoman the exploit to societies capitalist Euopean the with agreement their from coming were powers economic these of All Empire. the of areas strategic the controlling economically were non-Muslims Ottoman The non-Muslims werethelocalagentsandpioneersofEuropeaninvaders: the Akçura For politics. and economy Ottoman the exploiting was which system capitalist European the of ally an became they because power economic more acquiring constantly oa fnnil n taig oto o te ao Otmn on ad iis The cities. and towns Ottoman major capitulations the of control trading and financial total the gained allies non-Muslim their capitalists, European the of support total the Within were thenon-MuslimsofEmpire(p.163;translationmine). invaders ofthose Thepioneers the Empire. economy of plunder the capitalism startedto 19 the from Beginning reasons. various to due collapsed system Its system. economic harmonized much a had Empire Ottoman the ago, centuries Two an engine of execution slowly, gradually killing a nation. Nobody could see the truth; the see could Nobody nation. a killing gradually slowly, execution of engine an expropriation, of institution an were Capitulations foreigners. of hands the into passed had affluence and money wealth, trade, All conclusion. its approaching was and in, set actually had Bankruptcy point? this at have words could effect what case, any in And total economic freedom(p.164;translationmine). a non-Muslims the supplied passports, the European procedures, the and and laws protection all European from Free aims. their achieve openly not could they Free trade laws between Europe and the Ottoman Empire. andtheOttoman laws betweenEurope Freetrade Ömer Seyfettin(2007a)repeatedthesameattitude inthisway: 2 were the fortes of those invaders, providing them a shelter at the times the at shelter a them providing invaders, those of fortes the were 33 th etr, European century, CEU eTD Collection so long.Seyfettinnarrates thisencounterinway: pleasantly were soldiers for Bulgarian region the of Turks the hating been have The who territory the of Christians the by welcomed 1912. Ottoman of the Wars of Balkan district the Serres during the invaded Macedonia soldiers Bulgarian the that scene the with starts story The otherness. the constructing of type this of example significant a is 9-41) pp. story short His women. Turkish the against violators as sexual Seyfettin. Bulgarian nationalists depict Bulgariansand metaphor inorderto Seyfettin usedthis Ömer of stories short the in witnessed especially is metaphor This boundaries. rape andsexualviolenceisusedtosexualizethenationalconflicts. harassment, sexual of kind Any 51). p. 1996, (Pettman, boundaries” communal and national mark to bodies women’s of images uses discourse “nationalist and honor” national to assault “an their as depicted and is violence territory sexual and their women Insulting 277). defend p. 2007, to (Schick, manhood” men of inability the of and appropriation territorial of representation dense symbolically a provides also violence sexual however, metaphor, a “as argues that Schick the other. demonize to order “metaphors” in great as used violence is Seyfettin, “churchesweregoingtoreplacemosques”(p.373;translationmine). of foreshadowing dystopian the to according Empire, the of inside goods, import Greek the shopping stopped Turks the Unless force. naval a construct to Greeks the by used be Turks would the by spent money The Greece. mainland to money their of all sending were they products, import they consumed When goods. Turkish buy only and shoppers Greek local the story short his In ooy ol ee dcd uo a lat ln o rtet n re t ecp the escape to order in retreat of line approaching disaster(pp.87-88). a least at upon decide even could nobody euiain f tens i as ue b te ukss n re t dfn national define to order in Turkists the by used also is otherness of Sexulization Sexual representations. Turkist in theme significant a was otherness of Sexualization Enemy of the Boycotage the of Enemy , Seyfettin offered the Turks to stop shopping from shopping stop to Turks the offered Seyfettin , 34 A Pure White Tulip White Pure A (Seyfettin, 2007a, (Seyfettin, CEU eTD Collection to hissoldiersasapresent: girls those gave He sick. or peasants either were who saw he girls the like not did Radko But the towninordertorapethem: of maidens Turkish best the find to different; was task real his Seyfettin, by narrated as But city Balkaneskistatedtomanagehisplans: the andprocedures”(p.11).Afterenteringthe massacring ofitspopulationunderestablishedrules and city the of plundering the “managing was duty His city. the to comes Balkaneski Radko Major soldiers Bulgarian the of commander garrison the welcoming, nice this After them (p.11). liked hadn’t he bodies; their see could he that so off taken clothes their had had he tent his In Osenova. from and Cuma from picked been had who fifteen or fourteen around or girls nine him brought had They maiden… Turkish beautiful most town’s the was who discover to remained: task difficult a But most. at hour an half take would that All Christianity priortobeingmurdered(p.11). into baptized be would they finally and themselves, ransoming were they if as schools Bulgarian to over properties their all make to forced be would they then accounts; bank flee to hadtheir vaultsor able in allthemoney thatthey would beroundedup,andtorturedtoextort been hadn’t that those Now rich. very were Serres of Turks The mind. his in plan his reviewing started he him, below around milling soldiers the at Looking been infused withfromthecradle(p.10). had they that Turks the for hatred the express to opportunity the found finally had urchins terrible these if as was it kids, Greek the for As movie. entertaining very and free a watching were they if as past, guiltily sneaking bunches these at stared they as smiling windows, their of out hanging were women the and corners, the on gathered men The Christians. city’s the of head the to gone had rout unexpected utterly This 35 CEU eTD Collection rape herdeadbody: to Radko decides death, her unexpected with dies. Disappointed window and of the out jumps she rape her, to attempt his During door. the open her makes forcefully and house her goes to He 29). (p. beautiful” most the be had to column “white” the Lâle in This to. thoughts turned his that was… it White “White… her about dream to started He Lale. daughter Hasan’s Haci most, andafterhehadfinisheditwouldbetheturnofnextsoldierinline”(p.12). at hour an for room girl’s a in remain would man enlisted “an plan this to According 12). girl, ortodrink a whole nightwith spend a forbidden to “it was an orderthat komitacis by the up set be to patrols and week, whole a for area allocated its in girls the with turns take company would each after Then company basis. a allocated on be neighborhoods would men, the between be fighting or rivalry would any prevent maidens to order “Turkish in and plan soldiers, the this among distributed to according raping; for laws made He women. 12). ditch bytheroad…(p. corpsesinthe Radko hadseenthesegirls’bayoneted of hishorse on top from the morning, in through Passing all night… to themselves amused dance, they and wine drink to them forcing naked, them Stripping platoon. each for one was there that so themselves, among them divided had then They battalion. the of soldiers the to over them of all turned had he sobbing, and crying loud their at angry Growing hands. work-roughened their with faces their cover to trying and voice, their of top the at crying were They waists. legs, arms, thick had They peasants. virtually were Seven malaria. had and thin very were they but good-looking, relatively were them of Two Radko wanted to have the whitest Turkish girl in the town, and he learned that it was it that learned he and town, the in girl Turkish whitest the have to wanted Radko the of rapes the of organization the planned Balkaneski city, the invading After would make sure that nobody committed any transgressions”(p. 12). Radko gives Radko 12). transgressions”(p. any committed nobody that sure make would 36 rakı or wine” (p. orwine” CEU eTD Collection 3 become not and awakened already has have as which represented are nation others the sleeping However yet. a awakened as Turks represented Turkists The other”. awakened the whereas army Turkish the Bulgarians wererepresentedastheformergardenersofTurkishnation: by represented was which masculinity Turkish the beat to enough virile not were nations Balkan the her, to According nation. the of emasculation itr ad at Ee i is ot ebe ie, h Trih ry a awy been always respected bytheworld(p.33;translationmine). has army Turkish The times, feeble most its in no Even have past. and who history Bulgarians little those to hands waving are Europeans and The rifles cannons. guns, its take they army; the of masculinity the beat They Ottomans. the religion of and honor the profane to order in risen has gardeners our of foot muddy The the with Army the of losses the symbolized (1999) Adivar Edip Halide poem, her In alive, onlyaminuteearlier(p.39). turning, and twisting been had she where sheets rumpled with bed same the on down body dead Lâ’lî’s laid He room. the entered He run. a at descended had he that stairs believers and damsels by unfrequented heaven corner of a distant Allah in her while worshipping fallen asleep had somehow angel that little a abducting Satan treacherous a of calm deliberate the With arms. his into breasts, and chest her over entangled hair her with clotted, invisibly blood her with bruised, her shoulders corpse, with her delicate took He cold quickly. grow might she afraid that was He further. no thought He ? virginity untouched her love, untarnished her of had be could taste a exceptional and unique how knows who of sampling partial a least at have to possible be it Mightn’t This cold… gets she Before cold…” warm. still was corpse grows priceless she “before himself, to muttered he cold,” grows she “Before Another favorite theme used by the Turkists is, as I coin it, the “Sleeping us vs. the vs. us “Sleeping the it, coin I as is, Turkists the by used theme favorite Another Huriler vemüminler… intheoriginal. 37 3 lk, e lwy akd p h same the up walked slowly he alike, CEU eTD Collection up anddefendthenationalrightsagainstother: wake to is time it dictate that which nation messages whispersthe didactic lullaby nation. The Mehmed EminYurdakul’s others. awakened the by beaten being constantly were boundaries the which of yet awakened not has nation because the shame were in Turks the case, Turkist the In 334). (p. legitimate violence” on monopoly its enforce cannot state the where situations and areas in pronounced especially are behavior, and demonstrably govern of honour “notions him, According to Leersen (2007). Josep by distinction” “Honour/Shame as defined is representation of type This nationalized. It’s callingfortheTuran. (p.133). A spiritualsoundhasrisenuplullaby; Your raceiscallinginyoulullaby; Lullaby thegreatdayshavecomelullaby; There arechainswaitingtobebrokenlullaby. Lullaby therearedistrictswaitingforyourcalllullaby; Lullaby therearecitieswhichinprisonlullaby; Lullaby therearedesolatehomeslullaby; Lullaby Anatoliaisdesolateandruinedlullaby; Lullaby, Rumeliaisinmourninglullaby; Lullaby, look,theIraqisheartsicklullaby; Lullaby, thefatherlandismiserablelullaby; is them of One Turkists. the by stories short and poems many in used is theme This Lullaby (1969c) which represents a lullaby written for the sleeping writtenforthe represents alullaby (1969c) which 38 CEU eTD Collection uigte story.Thecivilservantdreamsthatthegirlissingingalove-song: times of during the multitude a for song same the singing girl same the hears he and days for her of dreams He girl. Bulgarian the on crush platonic a develops Turk the song, this hearing After includes thefollowingBulgarianwords: inner constant of days and days byagirlonthe neighboringhouse.Thesong dialogues, onedayhehearsasongwhichissung Of administration. central the by area peripheral this to sent is he because bored extremely is He Government. the by Macedonia Ottoman to sent is who servant civil Ottoman an about is story The representation. of type this of examples represented astheonewhoalwaysactsaccordingtoneedsofnationhood. is other The nationhood. with obsessed and monomaniac as represented always is other the however friendship; and love as such feelings innocent with other the trust always Turks The to devotion deep stupidity. even and credulity his their with represented / are Turks The her theme, this In to nationhood. due case this in glorified is one betrayed The betrayed. is he how and other the to trusted Turks the how about mainly It is stories. short in used mainly is theme This 285). (p. wrong is what or right is what or done, be not should or should what and standardson of theinnerevaluations on thereflection the onewhichdepends It is p. 285). 2007, (Leersen, morals and ethics of national basis the on acts who one the character is moral The character. moral a by protagonized mainly is theme Theis other”. “awakened the and I loveyouverymuch. I loveyouverymuch, Ras, va,tri(p.57). Tsarigrad nash… Nash, nash (2007c), Seyfettin Ömer of story short The and naiveTurks” between“innocent about therelation is the Turkist Another themeof 39 The Refrain, The is one of the most significant most the of one is CEU eTD Collection would alwaysbehostileandneverforgetsdifferences amongnations. other the innocent, and naïve be should they Whenever feelings. and emotions national their forget never should they and others the to hostile be should they that Turks the to messages via friend following words: her to uneasiness her discloses She visit. unexpected this of because uneasy is woman Christian the However, villagers. the by pleasantly welcomed are they where houses the of one on knock They storm. heavy the to due there stay to decide village the by passing are who Christians Ottoman Two village. Turkish a in storm a of story the tells It (1999). Bulgarian a is song the that nationalist marchwhichtellsthecapturingofIstanbul: learns he and local a to it asks and leaving before song the of meaning the about learn to wants He so. do to fails he but her, find to attempts he city the leaving Before Rumelia. of district another to government the by appointed is he that learns he as halt a to comes fantasy His him. to song this passionately singing her of fantasizes He under thesnow(p.293;translationmine). we weresuffocated think that would thesnow.Everybody usunder like sheepandburry us butcher to going are they bag, our in diamond a have and bank the in were we that them told hostler the If village. Turkish a in are we that forget Don’t asleep. fall Don’t h ngtv iae o Crsin wr ue i a oiie anr Te were They manner. positive a in used were Christians of images negative The story, short Yurdakul’ Emin Mehmet in found also is theme same The Istanbul willbeoursoneday…(p.63). It willbeours,it To cometoyou(p.59). I havecrossedtheBalkansandShipkaPass 40 Turkish Land Turkish CEU eTD Collection mixed withtheEuropean mannersandbehavioralcodes. was culture their because hybrids were They hybrid. and heterogeneous as them by perceived and manners,werealso identities shared cosmopolitan over-Westernized OttomanTurks,who The selection. cultural a for called Turkists the Therefore, re-organized. be to had culture the and one, national the from excluded be to had culture) Ottoman (Hybrid elements foreign hybrid new a culture” (p.3). create to altered incorporated are or cultures assimilated of not elements are instead but identities independently, “the identity, hybrid of new level with identity the hybrid In a practices. was result The culture. Ottoman the under culture” Persian by Turkist intellectuals,wasthe“Turkishculture”,andit“recombined”with“Arabic defined as practices”, “existing the case, Turkists’ the in that, argue I 3). (p. practices” new in forms new recombine with and practices existing from become separated forms which in ways “the as (2008) Smith by explained is term This hybridization”. “cultural a of result the was Turkists, the to according culture, Ottoman The undisciplined. and cultures, Persian and Arabic the as such cultures”, “foreign of inclusion its to due hybrid, and heterogeneous was culture Ottoman the Turkists, the For others. internal the exclude to order in Turkists Ottoman the by the used were types three These were Islam. Ottoman the and Turkists Turks, over-Westernized culture, the by defined others The nation. the of boundaries cultural h Trit blee ta i odr o icpie h ntoa clue Trih, the (Turkish), culture national the discipline to order in that believed Turkists The the define to order in Turkists the by constructed is it, coin I as other”, cultural “The 3.1 TheOttomanCultureastheOther: Chapter 3.OtherizationoftheCulture: 41 CEU eTD Collection 29). “Civilization”, on the other hand, is a set of institutions which linked the “upper strata of strata the “upper linked which institutions of set a is hand, other the on “Civilization”, 29). p. of 1985, (Parla, “sum society” a the of individuals as interconnect and Gökalp solidarity create by that institutions defined is “Culture” solidarity. national the of source main Gökalp’s view,shouldbethedutyofTurkist intellectuals(Gökalp,2004,p.43). in culture, national the from expurgated be to what of Selection ideology. Turkist of others” “cultural the it, term I as are, culture, Ottoman the from coming culture. influences, foreign Turkish Those the from expurgated be to had elements Persian the and Arabic the this, achieve In orderto Ottoman Empire. culture forthe the onlynational culture as of theTurkish rise the with accordance in be deconstructed to duality had this him, According to the empire. the boundariesof within nationalsolidarity emergence ofthe thatimpededthe cultural duality and language my religion” (Gökalp,2009,p.22). fits who people “the as it define religion, villagers language, Turkish same ethics. and the manners shares who people the of solidarity the is Nation together. harmony andnationalsolidarity.Inhisterms: providing society, the of individuals the all connected which institution social main the was It createssolidarity. binding elementwhich the main cultureis thenational Gökalp statesthat sociology, Durkheimian Following elite. Ottoman the of culture heterogeneous the and Turks 15 the since Empire Ottoman the in existent been has which structure cultural dual cultural a on depends Gökalp’s analysis of point starting The 25). he p. words, 1985, other (Parla, In Turkism” other”. “Cultural engaged “the as culture Ottoman the of representation the to activity According to Gökalp the unity of of unity the Gökalp to According the was it 25), p. 2005, (Gökalp, Gökalp by posited also as case, Ottoman the In live to will or unity political or geographical a not horde, a not race, a not is Nation intellectual his devoted who theorists Turkist major the of one was Gökalp Ziya th etr. öap etos w lyr o clue te oua clue f the of culture popular the culture; of layers two mentions Gökalp Century. hars 42 (culture) and (culture) medeniyet (civilization) was the was (civilization) CEU eTD Collection toa eies utr. eetees a te ae Trih epe re t rss ti by Turkish this the resist implementing ardently to tried people Turkish same, the at Nevertheless, culture. elite’s Ottoman Persian culturalelementsfromtheTurkishculture (Ünüvar,2002,p.30). the and Arabic the of exclusion the was Gökalp, to according this, for remedy The customs. and language single of consisting culture monolithic a with achieved be only could solidarity of view,national cultures. InGökalp’spoint mixture ofPersianandArabic into anamorphous authenticity, turning its gradually lost culture the elite other cultures, of the penetration by the However, cultural qualities. Turkish showed Empire the early and literature, language such as above stated elements cultural the of terms In 12). p. 2005, (Gökalp, established was Ottoman Empire the time the at culture” Turkish “pure the representing still were the elites that Ottoman believed Gökalp culture. of degeneration the for examples significant the of one was elite Ottoman the by generated culture Ottoman the him, to According culture. Ottoman Arabic-Persian the of part a Civilization (p.14). as culture Ottoman the perceived Gökalp framework, this In society. or nation each of networks elite the of production a was it for culture national the above regarded was “Civilization” one. national the degenerating as perceived was characteristic qualities, cultural same the with accordance in not was it times the at which, culture, national the of constructors cosmopolitan andinternational representedthe p. 19).“Civilization” solidarity (Gökalp,2005, the were which of all techniques and economics language, aesthetics, reason, laws, ethics, religion, as such qualities characteristic own its had nation The culture. national the to corresponding was “culture” Gökalp, For 29). (p. administration” civil and and military architecture, law, music, “language,literature, as should besummarized Gökalp by referred institutions The 29). (p. societies” other of strata upper the to society one ih h Aai-esa ifune Esen iiiain tre t dmnt the dominate to started Civilization Eastern influence, Arabic-Persian the With the of evolution diachronic the on focuses Gökalp thesis, his explain to order In hars clue va salsig uks mtooy and mythology, Turkish establishing via (culture) 43 CEU eTD Collection to bereplacedbythosenewly constructedpureTurkishwords. language were Ottoman the in words and Persian Arabic words. The Turkish new insertion of Turkish the artificial an of suggested he words, of scarcity the structure to due process this allow the not would language If language. the of Turkification a for called he Therefore, cultural selectivestanceasfollows: his culture. Gökalpmentions national Turkish fromthe to beexpurgated Persian elementshad (Gökalp, 2009,p.35;translationmine). ruled” the as Turks the perceived and nation ruling the as itself considered class The Ottoman antagonism. constant in were classes two Those class. Turkish the constituted ruled Turks the and class Ottoman the constituted cosmopolitans ruling “The way: this in view his defines Gökalp 28). (p. Empire Ottoman the of decline the behind reason major the was was culture Turkish the on influence its inevitable (Gökalp,2005,p.21). circles, state in culture valid the was culture Turkish using by as such music instruments Turkish producing and language, Turkish in literature Turkish 2004, p.36;translationmine). (Gökalp, language hybrid a into Turkish turned have prepositions, and phrases noun the of amalgamation by they have, also but words of basis the language on Turkish into penetrated have they only Not language. our into penetrated have words Persian and Arabic trivial Myriad terminology. the with limited not is language the into penetration Persian and Arabic the because words Persian the and Arabic the of usage the from Islamic the based on lexicon a After establishing The Turkish The Gökalp, to according which, centuries for Empire the dominated double-culture This hars saz and (culture) had to be the only and dominant culture and the Arabic- the and culture dominant and only the be to had (culture) bağlama Gkl, 04 p 4) oee, ic te Ottoman the since However, 43). p. 2004, (Gökalp, 44 umma terminology, we have to abstain to have terminology, we CEU eTD Collection are t a Iain oa, a a ihbtn o te ompltn toa Salonica. Ottoman cosmopolitan the Seyfettin depictshiminthisway: of inhabitant an was woman, Italian an to married Kenan, 1911. of war Turco-Italian the is plot story’s The cosmopolitan. the of usage negative over- their to due value default normal the engagement withtheEuropeanculture. from out standing were they time, same the at but, Turks, as considered were Turks over-Westernized The 451). (p. value” default normal the from out standing saliently thereby type and individual that to refers it hand other the on type, a to conforming individual an hand one the “on to refers Goßen, by posited as be might and effect”, “Typicality Turkists society. Ottoman the in effect” “typicality the a of initiator an as by interpreted constructed intentionally was over- the figure that Turk argue I Westernized loyalties. and interests national the against was which figure a as legitimizing of purposes for defined was centuries cosmopolitan The 311). (p. chauvinism” national and anti-Semitism xenophobia, two last the over repeatedly activated been has surroundings hisimmediate neglectstheneedsof who irresponsibly cosmopolitan assomeone of view negative “the way: this in occasions the various in implemented of is image cosmopolitan usage negative this how explains (2007) Goßen Peter values. and culture national hostilitytothe intellectuals, toinvoke by theTurkist cosmopolitan imageisused, p. 142).The 2006, culture (Mardin, Europeanmannersand heavily influencedby Istanbul andwas elite of urban the on depended which image Turk over-Westernized cosmopolitan the in embodied refinement, his gay and joyful outlook. He had finished his education in Paris. Upon his Upon his Paris. education in his finished had He outlook. joyful gay and refinement, his his manners, European of mastery smooth his for also and Turkishness, uncivilized for felt he that loathing the which hedetestedthis to theextent to bigotryandbeastliness, Turkishness asequivalent for circles Levantine and foreign in famous was He h Knn hrce i Öe Syetns hr story short Seyfettin’s Ömer in character Kenan The was constructing were Turkists the project “otherization” the of dimension Another 45 Primo efcl ft t this to fits perfectly CEU eTD Collection through Seyfettin’sfollowingsentences: and race perceived be can peace universal of for belief over-exaggerated Kenan’s theory 221). (p. environment” the reject to presumed he minds, and souls sick all with Like idiots wretched ethnicity. nor country, nor past, nor tradition, neither recognized “he as identity a supra-national had character which cosmopolitan this depicted Seyfettin overtly and culture. manners national for disbelief had Turk, over-Westernized an of portrayal typical a Kenan, peace ofmankind: eternal the of supporter ardent an and nations, and races of clash the of antagonist fervent a as Seyfettin by portrayed critically was Kenan cosmopolitan, and freemason believed A 221). (p. cadaver moving living, a like him leave to and soul, his kill to mind, his paralyze to truth, and science all logic, and reason all against going religion vicious and wild a like exactmeaning,hadcome, actually hadnofixed, general wordsthat these twovagueand of, understanding clear no had really he that humanity” and “virtue of notion ideal An true own his also confession andbelief(pp.221-222). was reality, upon touching immersed ever without who illusions thinkers in sick themselves and cowardly lazy, those all by shared poem idyllic that “humanity,” of dream A mankind. for society, for indispensable and necessary demonstrating, for too, also was organic world the in “struggle” Darwin, of act the that experiment, and through science hated He monster. red a but nothing as regarded he life itself,” “War is : who said philosopher war. The hated always part had his He for he hadhappenedtofallinlovewith…(Seyfettin,2007a,p.220). whom girl Italian beautiful a marry to there salary, fat a on Izmir to way his made had --hetoo return hometenorelevenyearsago--aswithallthosecomingbackfromParis 46 CEU eTD Collection artd y efti i hs hr story short his in Seyfettin by narrated Primo, halfItalianandTurkish,alsoclaimed hisTurkishness. His son Italian wife. andlefthis identity his Turkish Kenanre-claimed the story, end of In the openly declarehisTurkishness.HeonlytriedtosaythathewasTurkish: not could He him. for obstacle an was admiration European and cosmopolitanism his But nationalepiphany: regarding theItalianinvasion.Hehada emotions national his express to unable was he Turk, over-Westernized an as considered be andcosmopolitanideal, to hisdeepdevotionEuropeancivilization Due Libya. Ottoman Italy invaded when was challenged eternal peace for the belief His naïve mesl pod o ee gn vruly a wt jy i h hd vr apnd to happened receive eventhemostinsignificantmedalorhonor fromforeigners?...(p.225). ever had he if joy, with mad virtually gone even or proud, immensely been have he Wouldn’t ? society and milieus, upbringing, manners, traditions, customs, European including Europeans, worship he Didn’t ? earth the of face the from Turks these of slave chattel the remove a to wanting in themselves among servant, alliance in totally all were who Europeans obedient an servitor, humble a too, he, Wasn’t nothing butaworthlesscorpsewhosesoulhadbeenheldcaptive(p.225). been had he now till up that realizing at shame and rage his in cry to wanting instead he startedaskinghimself,thoughdidnotdarereply: capable ofalittlethoughttobreakdownintears;bitunwillingly, anybody force to as ridiculous so of idiocy an dream was the freemasonry,” and nation, “internationalism or ethnicity no to belonging of idea the that ideas, untenable and false by life his all deceived been had he that understand to coming now was He he Nht aohr otaa wo hw smlr hrceitc wt Knn is Kenan, with characteristics similar shows who portrayal another Nihat, Ahmet -- IamTurkish!.., -- WhatamI?... h Bastard The 47 Syetn 20a p. 278-289). pp. 2007a, (Seyfettin, sine quanon qualities to The CEU eTD Collection and thehybridcosmopolitanone. national culture the homogenous choice between a tomake believed, had Turkists both, asthe They writers. Turkist influential the of one Seyfettin, by portrayed betweens are in figures culturally these of Both identity. European his claim to name Turkish his changed even mind, of state same the sharing Nihat, Ahmet and manners. European wife the imitating Italian excessively an marrying by himself Europanized intentionally Kenan manners. and of theEuropeancodes figures, inanincessant adoption intentionally depictedascosmopolitan Ahmet Nihat, areallbastards(p.289). as such identities, Turkish their deny who Turks the that concludes he end, the In saying that“butyouarenotFrenchorCatholic,abastard”(p.289;translationmine). up ended who narrator the by challenged was Frenchness for claim insistent Nihat’s Ahmet that hewasoneofthoseTurks,whothought storyteller thought The Dubois. Pierra as himself introduced has who Nihat Ahmet identity of the into deep digs narrator the answers, the with Unsatisfied man. atypical this by negatively replied were which of all Muslim, or Ottoman were he if asks storyteller The Turkish. decent in though Catholic, and French a Dubois, Pierra as himself introduces He hat. and clothing European fashionable a in man a to introduced unexpectedly is story the of narrator nameless Bastard the onlyperceivedwaytobecivilized”(p.283;translationmine). is manners European the of adoption and them, on imposed were customs and manners which of nationality the to belonging start humans benefits, common and education by affected switchable are nations myths, all were races and manners, customs, “religions, Both Kenan and Ahmet Nihat are depicted as the other with hybrid identities. They are hybrididentities. as theotherwith Ahmet Nihataredepicted Both Kenanand tells the story of a spontaneous encounter between two Turkish people in Cairo. The Cairo. in people Turkish two between encounter spontaneous a of story the tells 48 CEU eTD Collection Turkists believed that nationalism replaced religions in the 19 the in religions replaced nationalism that believed Turkists The 58). p. 2004, (Gökalp, Identity Islamic their emphasizing were Turks identities, racial or ethnic with themselves defining of instead that, argued Turkists The nationalism. Turkish of Islam anditsuniversal Islamic religionbytheMuslims. the of misconception the was these behind reason the Turkists the For 389). (p. reason” than rather fanaticism ethnic, as working such than rather qualities laziness organization, negative of instead “inefficiency having as the Orient the of see to dichotomies tends constructed which discourse the Orientalist approved and repeated They manners. Orientalist practice had in Islam the of imagination Turkist 390). p. 2007, (Thum, stereotyping” negative of net a in (East) other the defining of idea “the as Orientalism of definition the following national identity.Akçuradefinesitinthisway: the of part a be to had identity Muslim nations. of age the of needs contemporary the meet to beadopted nations. Islamshould tied to existence became ofwhich part ofnationalidentity h Cetr n te rae. eiin, hrfr, f hy r t miti ay f their of any maintain to are they if therefore, Religions, created. the and Creator the between bond moral a than more nothing is Religion salvation. towards hearts leading forces spiritual becoming are they and communities the of affairs the of director sole is the being to their claims are renouncing faith. Religions of replacing unity conscience is Religion of force. Freedom personal. more and and more and importance social less and less political becoming increasingly their losing increasingly are such as Religions nations. the of that is history contemporary our in current dominant The hy eie te toa Ilm s “utrl te” s n hi preto, t was it perception, their in as other” “cultural a as Islam Ottoman the defined They discourse, Orientalist the of variation a was Islam the of view Turkist the that argue I 3.2. TheOttoman-IslamastheOther: Islamic ummah principle that fueled the main challenge againsttherise principlethatfueledthemain 49 th century. Religion became a became Religion century. CEU eTD Collection nvra eecs o Ilm Ti dsore a Uiesls; codn t Trit wrong Turkists to according Universalist; was discourse This Islam. of exercise universal reformation. a necessitated which Islam Ottoman existing the and construct to longing were they Islam the with comparison make to order in other this constructed They limited. be to had society the over religion of effects nation, modern a construct to order in and progress achieve to In order them. by backwardness of sources as represented negatively Imam the and caliphate, the and state Islamic system, education religious Ottoman nationhood. the for other” “the as centuries, for valid been had which Islam, Ottoman depicted Turkists identity, religious from Turks the distance to order In modernized. be to had religion itself the then and religious one, Turks, whoweretryingtoreplacereligionwithscience(Hanioglu,2001,p.307). the Young which ideology for became an religion, a new be which claimedto that positivism, is important most The Turks. Young the among positivism of popularity the many behind reasons are There Empire. the to ideas positivist and materialist brought which institutions were themain army.Those modernization ofthe aim wasthe main technical schoolsofwhich and academies military new the century from graduated them the of many Also, of 50). p. 1987, middle (Keyder, the around founded administration and medicine engineering, of schools imperial modernized from graduated They Empire. the of modernization the of result a as formed were which schools modern the of graduates were Turkists the of majority Great the 19 ideas of and materialist positivist the devotion to from their was coming This 69). p. 2004, (Gökalp, physic of laws and nature of laws as such ideas scienctific by guided Turkists were modernists who wanted to create a new modern country which would be would which country modern new a create to wanted who modernists were Turkists to thenationalunities(Akçura,2007;citedinThomas,1992,p.164). hand-maiden a even helper and a bybecoming do so importance can political social and The source of backwardness was not the Ottoman Islam particularly, but it was the was it but particularly, Islam Ottoman the not was backwardness of source The the above constructed be to had identity national nation, modern a supply to order In 50 th century. century. CEU eTD Collection originated thirteenorfourteen centuriesago(Seyfettin,2007a,p.302). that andsuperstitions myths the graspof writhing in are still million Turks,too, nation offifty our and Muslims of millions of Hundreds word… my to witness earth on currently Islam all its of inclinations I hold Look, dark bigotry. of a the unseeingblindness in national live them to all of adherents, causing and communal the corrupts Islam But life. social of outlines great the provides which and individuals, by actions all of basics the moves that religion is It are Imam significant forunderstandinghowtheexistingIslamdefinedasother: the and nationalist the of dialogues The invasion. Greek the after Salonica the from Turks of the exclusion the for organized which is train a story is the of plot scholar. The Mehdi the was keepingmassesignorant(p.101). Islam wasn’t awakening, national Kuran blocking was the religion and languages, since national their Arabic, to translated know didn’t Many civilisation. Islamic of history and laws Islamic Islam, of basis the know didn’t people common low, was knowledge of quality Islamic countries many In people. common the for prohibited activity was intellectual of kind Reading, writingandevery 1999a, p.101). the East(Akçura, lifeof dominated theintellectual scholars Those scholars. religious the with limited was knowledge of production because darkness and ignorance in was Islam existing the Akçura to According mine). translation 32; (p. Allah” the from comes only Islam real The Islam. the immortal. not is bigorty is and Superstitions it and people, the among peace and unity the asks Islam real “The way: this in it defines (1985) Adivar Edip Halide unmodern. and Muslim underdeveloped were rituals, communities and religion Islamic of interpretations false the of Because existence. its repeats it wherever underdeveloped and backward societies all brought Islam of application Religions are capable of overthrowing one universe, and in its place creating another. creating place its in and universe, one overthrowing of capable are Religions called was which Seyfettin Ömer of story short the in also found was thesis same The . The story is about the dialogues of an atheist Turkish nationalist and a religious a and nationalist Turkish atheist an of dialogues the about is story The . 51 CEU eTD Collection esn h blee i a amnos oaiain f sa, cec, n modernization. and science, Islam, of cohabitation harmonious a in believed he reason, of religion the was Islam that perceived he As 32). (p. Islam’ Turkish ‘modern a construct and Europe of technique and science the get to have “We way this in point his formulated (2004) Gökalp reason. and science the with compatible became and modernize to had Islam are nationhood of power defeating theMuslimswhichwerestilldefiningthemselveswiththeirIslamicidentities: the understood which Christians The again. seen is backward h Trit dmne rfrain f h Ilm Acrig o hm h Ottoman the them to According Islam. the of reformation demanded Turkists The Muslims all of source the as Islam existing the depicts which speech universalist The co-religionists, inslothfulbigotry,ignoranceand ignominy,and…(p.303) our like lives, our leading thus Istanbul, capturing be soon will who masters Christian our to praying loyally up end will too, Turks, we Muslims, other all like that and history, from be erased name will that its perish, will Turkey, too, states, Islamic other like that certain is it Therefore, same. the be to bound are too, consequences, the things, same the upon act laws same the When Turkey. in operational still are enslavement, and ruin to states Islamic other hundred a than more brought having as History Islamic in studied have we that factors these all short, In capital. its in schools Christian the enter cannot It enemies. its with own its on treaty a conclude cannot It duties. customs its in raise cent ten- a even undertake cannot It !.. independence an what But independence. of advanced, powerfulChristiannations…OnlyourTurkeystillenjoysapretense developed, of yoke the under today is Islam all short, In ? counting keep I Shall Sumatra… Somalia, Zanzibar, Java, Sahara, Great the Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Tripoli, Egypt, India, Baluchistan, Afghanistan, Turkestan, Iran, Khiva, Bukhara, Rumelia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and of Russia, The Turks 52 CEU eTD Collection reformulated religionthatwouldgiveprioritytoscience(Georgeon,2005,p.148). a modern, and scientific be would which Islam Turkish new a envisioned He generations. Turkish new the for instructed be to had science, and reason on depended which European education, New him, to According education. religious the for reformation a for calls and thoughts Gökalps’s shares Akcura 71). (p. curriculum their to education scientific included have should schools high religious the Gökalp, to according However, curriculum. its from doctrines religious the of exclusion its to due illicit was science that believed high-schools religious the of teachers the (2004), Gökalp by stated of as hand, source other the On a backwardness. was them, to according which, education religious attacked Turkists the sceneandadaptationofnationallanguageforreligiouspractices. from language Arabic the of effacement the necessitated cohabitation this him, to According 53 CEU eTD Collection culture and Super-westernized Turks were hybrid structres. For the Turkists, the first was the was first the Turkists, the For structres. hybrid were Turks Super-westernized and culture Ottoman The awakening. national the behind barriers greatest the as those percived Turkists The Islam. Ottoman the and Turks Super-Westernized culture, Ottoman the was It abolish. The nationally. behave be to how Turks racial/national otherswereactingfornationalbenefits. the show to order in others racial/national used Turkists envy. secret a was there hostility this underneath however with images, them negative represented Turkists The century. 19th the of beginning the since movements nationalist started which society Ottoman the of parts earliest the were Those non-Muslims. Ottoman the and Balkan nations were the others outsiders. Racial/national and insiders limits, the define to order in constructed them of Both other. cultural the and other racial/national the headings; main two under divided be should others Those others. the constructed and of thenationstate,Turkistintellectualsalreadydesignedbasiccategoriesfor others. the for images various concluded discourse or language This activity. Intellectual by formed is language special a those, construct to order In “us”. define Those to order in others”. used were “others” “the construct also they hostilities ethnic historical or constant following those, with of belonging.Together and exclusion borders, inclusions the and define the nation for history constructavalid They this articulation. significantrolein very Intellectuals playsa 10). Nationalist 1992: nations” (Hobsbawm comes before “nationalism Hobsbwawm declared As nation-state. the of construction the before come should construction This constructed. CONCLUSION Together with that cultural others were the real elements which Turkists demanded to demanded Turkists which elements real the were others cultural that with Together formation the Before above. written is what with compatible also is case Turkish The extremely is it but time in change should it fixed, not is discourse Nationalist 54 CEU eTD Collection reason. and sicence the to hostile was it Turkists the for because backwards society the keeping also defined on depended was Ottoman Islamwas nationalist awakening. shackle for identity wasa nationalism borders, asupra-national Since world. the of ummah Islamic the to Turks binding was it because other an as depicted also was Islam Ottoman and The culture. Culture European Ottoman of mixture a was second The culture. Arabic-Persian the of replica 55 CEU eTD Collection               BIBLIOGRAPHY  Kieser (Ed.) Narration Yurdu 2.Cilt(3-4)1912-1913 Beller, M.&Leerssen,J.(Eds.).(2007). Mythologies Barthes, R.(1995). Bali, R.(2006) Modernization underAtatürkandRezaShah. Atabaki, T.&Zürcher,E.J.(Eds.).(2004). Arai, M.(1992). Albrecht, C.(2007) Akçura, Y.(2007). Akçura, Y.(1996).SiyasetveIktisat[PoliticsandEconomy].Ankara:Sinemis. Tutibay Yayinlari. Cilt (7-8-9)1915 Akçura, Y.(1999c).1330Senesi[TheYear1330].InM.Sefkatli(Ed.) 152). Ankara:TutibayYayinlari. Sociology: NationalistThinkingandtheNationWars].InM.Sefkatli(Ed.) Akçura, Y.(1999b).SiyasatveIçtimaiyat:MilliyetFikriMuharebeleri[Politicsand Tutibay Yayinlari. 4) 1912-1913 Akçura, Y.(1999a).AhmedMithatEfendi.InM.Sefkatli(Ed.) 1912-1913] (pp.33-34).Ankara:TutibayYayinlari. Sefkatli (Ed.) Adivar. H.E.(1999).PadisahveSehzadelerimize[ToourSultanandPrince].nM. Kitabevi. Adivar, H.E.(1985). Adivar, H.E.(2005). Bhabha H.(1990). Introduction:Nation andNarrationIn. H.Bhabha(Ed.) New York:Rodopi. Literary RepresentationofNationalCharacters: ACriticalSurvey. Young TurkEra].Istanbul:Iletisim. 328). Amsterdam:NewYork:Rodopi. (pp.1-8) London:Routledge. Turkey Beyond Nationalism [Turkish HomelandVol.2(3-4)1912-1913](pp.100-104).Ankara: Türk Yurdu2.Cilt(3-4)1912-1913 The politics ofTurkification duringthe Single PartyPeriod [Turkish Homeland Vol. 4 (7-8-9) 1915](pp.82-85).Ankara: [Turkish HomelandVol.4(7-8-9) Jon TurkDonemiMilliyetciligi Üç Tarz-iSiyaset Foreigner Turkun AtesleImtihani Memoirs ofHalideEdib. . [Turkish HomelandVol.2(3-4)1912-1913](pp.150- NewYork:Hill andWang. . InM.Beller&J.Leerssen(Eds). [Three Policies].Ankara:TürkTarihKurumu. (pp.43-49) NewYork:I.B. Taurus. 56 Imagology: TheCulturalConstructionand Man ofOrder:Authoritation [The TurkishOrdeal].Istanbul:Atlas London andNewYork:I.B.Tauris. New Jersey:GeorgiasPress. [Turkish HomelandVol.2(3-4) [Turkish Nationalisminthe Türk Yurdu2.Cilt(3- Imagology Amsterdam and , InHans-Lukas Nation and Türk Yurdu 4. Türk Yurdu Türk (pp.326- CEU eTD Collection                  Cambridge: CUP. Kitap. Roots ofTurkishNationalismYusufAkcura(1876-1935)].Istanbul:TarihVakfi. Hobsbawm E.J&Renger(2000) Turkish Bureaucracyanda“HistoricalBureaucratic Empire”Tradition. Heper, M.(1976).PoliticalModernizationasReflected inBureaucraticChange:The Hanioglu, S.(1995). Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress. Hanioglu, S.(2001). Hallam, E.&StreetB.V.(Eds.)(2004) Hall, S.(1997).TheSpectacleofthe‘Other’.InHall(Ed.), London: EdwardArnold. Gurevitch, andJ.Woolacott(eds.)MassCommunicationsociety.London: Hall, S.(1977).Culture,themediaandideologicaleffect.InJ.Curran.M. Gokalp, Z.(2004). Gokalp, Z.(2009). Yayinlari. Gokalp, Z.(2005). Georgeon, F.(2005). 604. in Cross-NationalComparativeHistory. Fredrickson, G.M.(1995).FromExceptionalismtoVariability:RecentDevelopments Fairclough, N.(2006). Maintenance andCreation’, Conversi, D.(1995) ‘ReassessingCurrent Theoriesof Nationalism: Nationalism asBoundary Turk? Cagaptay, S.(2006). rc,M 18) S (1985). M. Hroch, (1992) E Hobsbawm Journal ofMiddleEastStudies,7 Press. ‘Otherness’ Cultural RepresentationsandSignifyingPractices. Modernization]. Istanbul:BordoSiyah. London andNewYork:Routledge. . NewYork:Routledge. ocial preconditions of national revival in Europe in national revival of preconditionsocial Turklesmek IslamlasmakMuasirlasmak Turkculugun Esaslari Hars veMedeniyet The Young Turks inOpposition. The Young Preparation foraRevolution:TheYoungTurks,1902-1908. Islam, SecularismandNationalisminModernTurkey:Whoisa Turk MilliyetciligininKokenleriYusufAkcura(1876-1935) ain ad ainls Sne 70 Porme Mt, Reality Myth, Programme, 1780: Since Nationalism and Nations Discourse andSocialChange. Nationalism andEthnic Politics The Invention ofTradition (4). Retrievedfrom [Culture and Civilzation]. Istanbul: Toker [Culture andCivilzation]. 57 Cultural Encounters:Representing The JournalofAmericanHistory,82 [The EssentialsofTurkism].Ankara:Elips London: Sage Publications. http://www.jstor.org/pss/162507 Oxford: OxfordUniversity Cambridge: Polity. , Cambridge: CUP. , 1 (1), 73-85. [Turkification Islamization Representation: . Cambridge: CambridgeCambridge:. International (2), 587- [The . , CEU eTD Collection                 Press. Community intheLate OttomanState. Duckworth. 335). Amsterdam:NewYork:Rodopi. Seyfettin, O.(2007b). Seyfettin, O.(2007a). Said, E.(2003). Leiden: Brill. Parla, T.(1985). Published Houndmills, Basingstoke,Hampshire :PalgraveMacmillan. Ozkirimli, U.(2005) Ozkirimli, U.(2000) (Eds.), Lindisfarne, N.(2002)``Ayriksicilik``[Exceptionalism].InT.Bora&M.Gultekingil Mardin, S.(2006). University Press. Mardin, S.(2000). http://www.jstor.org/pss/178085 Comparative StudiesinSocietyandHistory,11 Mardin, S.(1969).Power,CivilSocietyandCultureintheOttomanEmpire. MacIntyre A.(1992) Macfie, A.L.(1998). Leerssen, J.(2007). Keyder, C.(1987). (2001). K. Karpat, University Press. Omer SeyfettinStories2]. Istanbul:DergahYayinlari. Seyfettin, O.(2007b). Omer SeyfettinStories2].Istanbul:DergahYayinlari. Omer SeyfettinStories1].Istanbul:DergahYayinlari. Modern TurkeyVolume4Nationalism].Istanbul:IletisimYayinlari. University Press. Modern Turkiye’deSiyasiDusunceCilt4Milliyetcilik Orientalism. The Social and Political ThoughtofZiyaGokalp(1876-1924).The SocialandPolitical h Pltczto o Ilm Rcntutn Iett, tt, at, and Faith, State, Identity, Reconstructing Islam: of Politicization The Religion, SocietyandModernityinTurkey Thought The GenesisofYoungOttoman State andClassinTurkey Contemporary debatesonnationalism :acriticalengagement. Theories of Nationalism:ACritical Introduction After Virtue:Astudyinmoraltheory Honour The EndoftheOttomanEmpire1908-1923. Omer SeyfettinButunEserleriHikayeler1 Omer SeyfettinButunEserleri Hikayeler2 Omer SeyfettinButunEserleriHikayeler2 .In M.Beller&J.Leerssen(Eds.). London: Penguin. . Oxford: Oxford University Press. 58 . LondonandNewYork:Verso. (3). Retrievedfrom tudy inmoraltheory. . USA:Princeton [Political Thoughtin . New York: Syracuse . NewYork:Syracuse Imagology , London:Macmillan [The Anthology of [The Anthology [The Anthology of [The Anthology of [The Anthology London:Longman. (pp. 334- London: CEU eTD Collection                Routledge. the Nation National ConflictintheLateOttomanPeriod TDK Yay. Emin Yurdakul`unEserleri[MehmedYurdakul Anthology] (p.122).Ankara: Yurdakul M.E.(1969b)DeathtotheOther[Ona Olum].InF.E.Tansel(Ed.)Mehmed Ankara: TDKYay. Mehmed EminYurdakul`unEserleri[Mehmed YurdakulAnthology](p.22). Yurdakul M.E.(1969a).CengeGiderken[Onthe WaytoWar].InF.E.Tansel(Ed.) Volume 4Nationalism](pp.28-36).Istanbul:Iletisim Yayinlari. Unuvar, K.(2002).ZiyaGokalp.InT.Bora&M. Gültekingil(Eds.), 437). Istanbul:IletisimYayinlari. Turkey]. InT.Bora&M.Gültekingil(Eds.), Under, H.(2002).Türkiye’deSosyalDarwinizmDüsüncesi[Social-Darwinismin Monuments. Asian Thomas, D.(1992).YusufAkcura Thum. B.(2007) Tansel, F.A.(1969). Practice. InR.G.Suny&M.D.Kennedy(Eds.), Suny, R.G.&Kennedy,M.D.(1999).TowardaTheoryofNationalIntellectual Nation. Suny, R.G.&Kennedy,M.D.(Eds.).(1999). Smith, A.D.(2009) Smith, A.D.(2003) Ethnic andRacial Studies,17(3), 375-99. Smith, A.D.(1994) ‘TheProblem ofNationalIdentity: Ancient,Medieval andModern?’ , Women intheBalkans. Schick, E.C.(2007). Omer SeyfettinArtcles1].Istanbul:DergahYayinlari. Seyfettin, O.(2001). Yurdakul`un Eserleri[Mehmed EminYurdakulAnthology](p.133).Ankara: TDK Yurdakul M.E.(1969c)Ninni [Lullaby].InF.E.Tansel(Ed.)MehmedEmin Turkiye’de SiyasiDusunceCilt4Milliyetcilik 4 Milliyetcilik 393). Amsterdam:NewYork:Rodopi. Mehmet EminYurdakul-1Poems].Ankara:TurkTarihKurumuBasimevi. USA: TheUniversityofMichigan Press. (pp.383–417).USA:TheUniversityofMichiganPress. [Political ThoughtinModernTurkeyVolume4Nationalism](pp.427- Orientalism Ethno-Nationalism andNationalism: ACulturalApproach. Nationalism: Theory, Ideology,History, (pp.159-171).Istanbul:IsisPress. Christian MaidensTurkishRavishers:TheSexualizationof Omer SeyfettinButunEserleriMakaleler1 Mehmet Emin Yurdakul’un Eserleri-1Siirler Mehmet EminYurdakul’un p.2337. London:NewYork:I.B.Taurus. (pp. 273-307). InM.Beller&J.Leerssen(Eds). ’s UcTarz-iSiyaset. 59 . In.A.Buturovic&SchickE.C.(Eds.). Modern Turkiye’deSiyasiDusunceCilt [Political ThoughtinModernTurkey Intellectuals andtheArticulationof IntellectualsandtheArticulationof In. (Ed.). H.B.Paksoy Cambridge: PolityPress. [The Anthologyof Imagology [The Anthologyof Modern NewYork: .(pp. 389- Central CEU eTD Collection   Progress intheTurkishNationalMovemenet,1905-1926. Zürcher, E.J.(1984). 34). Ankara:TutibayYayinlari. Yurdu 2.Cilt(3-4)1912-1913 Yurdakul M.E.(1999).TurkYurdu[TurkishHomeland].InM.Sefkatli(Ed.) Yay. The UnionistFactor:RoleofthecommitteeUnionand [Turkish HomelandVol.2(3-4)1912-1913](pp.33- 60 Leiden: Brill. Türk