Search

Scholars have primarily debated the anatomy of Turkishness within the framework of an ethnic versus civic dichotomy. Arguing that such an approach would be inconclusive and less explanatory, this article approaches Turkishness from a singularity/plurality framework. First, the article emphasizes the singular nature of Turkishness - defined as monolithic nationhood - in the early Republican years that rejected any alternative identity approaches other than the definition of the state elites. Second, the article argues that the homogenization of the nation by the new state targeted those who considered themselves Turks as well, especially those who did not fit the 'ideal' or 'imagined' Turk (i.e. Muslim but secular, urban, and Western). The final section analyses the persistence and change in the monolithic nationhood in Turkey throughout the twentieth century and considers the implications of the state's recent identity policies on the meaning of Turkishness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars of nationalism and ethnicity have long studied when and how nationalist discourses on the one hand and national and ethnic identities on the other are often socially constructed along with their outcomes of ethnic disputes and nationalist polarizations. However, studies on the deconstruction processes of the nationalist discourses, their evolution over time and degrees of ethnic peace and moderation have mostly been limited. By taking the case of Turkish and Kurdish nationalisms in Turkey, this article argues that two competing elite discourses of nationalism have moderated rather than aggravated each other. The article explores the dialectical relationship between the nationalist discourses of the Turkish and Kurdish political elites, especially since the 1980s. Theoretically framing Turkish and Kurdish nationalisms in Michael Hechter's typology of state-building nationalism versus peripheral nationalism, respectively, it is argued that while the Turkish state has become distant from forced assimilation and homogenization goals, pro-Kurdish political mobilization, particularly the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), has become distant from claims to independent statehood and ethnic autonomy along with respect for Turkey's territorial integrity. These evolving agendas are discussed within the interdependent relationship of both nationalist discourses. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]