Culture in Geopolitics

by Serif Mardin

Serif  Mardin is a Professor of History at American University, Washington, DC, USA


Geopolitics is what it is; a placement, a has crystallized through the workings of history, But the ways in which this topos works on the contemporary scene is not simply an outcome of that placement; it is the outcome of the history which has produced that placement as well as the consequences of the location itself.

Specialists in foreign affairs explain that Turkey's unique location within the Anatolian setting defines the range of choices that it has had to live with in the modern world. Turkey is facing new confines, and neighbors themselves are in the throes of change; Russia and the problems it has inherited from the Soviet Union; Iran and its rulers; Syria and its regimes, Greece and its recurring views regarding Istanbul as the center of Byzantium: and Bulgaria alternating in its role of a good neighbor and promoter of memories of Ottoman presence create enormous chaos. In a wider circle, Turkey has been seen as the defender of NATO's "southern flank:" as the tail end of Western defenses.

PART OF THE EUROPEAN CLUB?

All of this, of course, though true. does not answer "why" the Turks have been reluctant to see themselves as an integral part of the Middle East. with which they share a Muslim culture and so many frontiers; why the demand for acceptance into the "European club" has been a persistent aspect of Turkish foreign policy, Both of these are consequences of Turkey's Ottoman background, a background which reminds us that the thrust of Ottoman political and cultural life was directed to the Balkans. In fact, Rumelia. the area framed by the Danube and the Drina, was the area of the Ottoman Empire in which the network of religious and juridical institutions was the densest in the Empire.

Since local patriotism has molded the mind of many Middle Eastern intellectuals born after 1923- the date of the foundation of the Turkish Republic and since this has often en- tailed an outright rejection of the history they had shared with the Ottoman Empire up to World War I, it is difficult to explain to citizens of these successor states that although Turks share Islam as a common patrimony with its Muslim neighbors, there exists a cultural specificity of Turkey which promotes attitudes considered to be "unusual" by these neighbors.

For one, the Balkans were an area in which Turkmen/Ottoman settlement Shifted large chunks of "Turkish" population into what we now know as "Macedonia" and "Bosnia," let alone some of the other components of the Balkans, It is the Balkan compass of the Ottoman Empire that brought with it an orientation to the states of Western Europe, which lies in the background of its attitude towards the West: the Ottoman Empire had co-opted into the Arab speaking lands in the 16th century, hut its daily politics had to confront developments in the West.

An interesting trace of this Western involvement of the Ottomans transmitted to modern Turkey came to my attention about eight years ago. I was the host to a journalist from the periodical Le Monde. The journalist had traveled to Turkey with the specific mission of plumbing the minds of Turkish citizens on their adhesion to the European Community. He told me he was puzzled by the most precisely formulated reaction to the question lie had asked on this subject, to an audience in a cafe in a town West of the capital, Ankara. When he requested that someone tell him what the Turks thought about this adhesion, the local mufti, the religious functionary raised his hand. The mufti then began a long excursus about how the Turks were good, indeed, excellent Muslims holding closely to their faith. He continued by giving a catalogue of the qualities of Turks as great Turkish patriots, proud of their Turkishness and sterling qualities as nationalists and ended by asking:  "So why don't you take us into the Community?" It is this somewhat paradoxical layering of attitudes that our neighbors and Western observers often do not understand with regard to Turkish views and the way this layering propels the country's foreign policy.

The extent to which the Ottoman Empire was linked to the Balkans can be followed in the memoir of Falili Rifki Atay, a journalist and a person of the generation or Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He reminisced that when. at the end of World War I the Turks realized Turkey was to be constituted by the Anatolian Peninsula, he had tears in his eyes. "For us," he stated, "the center of the nation (millet) was Rumelia In our view, at the time, the boundaries of our nation extended-at most-two hundred and fifty kilometers East of Istanbul. It was in Rumelia that the purest Turkish was spoken."

LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE: A KEY TO CULTURAL IDENTITY

The issue of language. central to Atay's argument is one which also brings in another layer in the elaboration of Turkish identity. What we  all know is that three major linguistic groups exist in the Middle East: Persian, Arabic, and  Turkish. Turkish always remained the language  of the Ottoman ruling elite although a form of  officialese developed among it which used  many Arabic and Persian roots. But this Ottoman language was doomed in the nineteenth  century. for the following reason. One of the demands of the process of modernization initiated by this elite, which had taken up the reform of the Empire in the 1840's was that a larger proportion of Ottoman subjects be drawn  into the reform project to underpin and support it.  What this also meant was that the language of the elite had to  be de-elitized in order to  achieve some resonance among the popular classes who did not have the advantage of a sophisticated Muslim education and who spoke the vernacular, what  was known as "Crude Turkish" (Kaba Turkce).

The very first generation of Ottoman reformers, the men of tile 1840s, were already aware that they needed to create the  secular educational institutions that would  mobilize a larger number of intermediary cadres to achieve the goals they had in mind, namely the strengthening of the Ottoman social structure. It is the generation that followed them in the 1860s, the first intellectuals who promoted constitutionalism and representative democracy, who went one step further and advocated the simplification of the elite's language and the use of popular speech. They were hoping to reach a wider population through the use of what may be called the "conscientization" Turkish-speaking ordinary citizens. They aimed  to achieve this goal through the use of an emerging press which they themselves had created.  Not only were these men, known as the Young  Ottomans, the founders of Turkish journalism,  but they also promoted the growth of a national literature in Turkish. This is probably one of  the most striking aspects of the evolution of  -Turkish culture among the generation that succeeded them. the intellectuals of the years 1880  to 1920.

The emergence of Turkish literature is arguably the most outstanding element of modern Turkish identity. Prosper de Barante, a  revolutionary of 1789 confirmed this thought  noting that a national literature can itself serve  as an institution at the time when institutions are liquefying. This identity was strengthened  through the study and use of themes of popular Turkish culture which had remained lively among the non-elite.

One of the elements that has so marked contemporary Algeria and which explains some of the deadly Algerian cultural cleavages of our  time (i.e. the lack of a national literature) was  not remotely an element of modern Turkish  history. Turkish "native" culture was propelled to the front stage of Turkish culture through  the project of a national literature. It was to be expected that this rise of a national Turkish  literature would raise the issue among the new, enhanced readership of what Turkish is all about. Who else spoke Turkish? What were the links between these other Turkish-speaking population and the Turkish of Turkey? It is in this frame as well as an aspect of the policy of the Young Turks-a policy which began to be increasingly interested in links with Azerbaijan and Central Asia after 1910-that the emerging  bridge between the Turks of Turkey and the remaining Turkic world have to be understood. The same may be said about the links of Turkey with contemporary Turkic world.

CONCLUSION

To practitioners of foreign policy, plots and plans are the explanatory "independent" variables which explain all that happens on the international scene. It is time that these specialists bring culture into their explanations. Certainly, Samuel Huntington's simplistic view of the world would benefit from it. An entire field of scholarship is waiting to be further discussed.

Return to main page