Çağla Gül Yesevi

İstanbul Kültür University
İİBF International Relations Department Araş. Gör. Dr.
E-mail: c.yesevi@iku.edu.tr 

Summary

This study will focus on the connection between Turkish nationalism and the modernization movements that began in the Ottoman Empire. The influence of the Young Ottomans, the Young Turks, and the Committee of Union and Progress on the development of Turkish nationalism will be discussed. Turkish nationalism will not be limited to the Republican period. A classification of Turkish nationalism will be made during the Republican period. In this context, Kemalist nationalism, Turkism, the Turkish-Islamic synthesis, and Nationalism will be explained.

Keywords: Turkish nationalism, development, classification

Field Description: Political Science

Abstract

This study will focus on the connection between Turkish nationalism and the modernization movements that began in the Ottoman Empire. The influence of the Young Ottomans, the Young Turks, and the Committee of Union and Progress on the development of Turkish nationalism will be discussed. Turkish nationalism will not be limited to the Republican period; a classification of Turkish nationalism during the Republican period will be presented. In this context, Kemalist nationalism, Turkism, the Turkish-Islamic synthesis, and nationalism will be explained.

Keywords: Turkish nationalism, development, classification Field Description: Political Science.

1. INTRODUCTION

This study will focus on modernist theory among the theories of nationalism. Turkish nationalism is not a new concept. It is referred to as late nationalism. According to modernist theory, its origins can be traced back to the Ottoman Empire. The idea of ​​nationalism, which emerged in the West with the Renaissance and Reformation, developed during the Age of Enlightenment. Its influence increased with the French Revolution. The Ottoman Empire, particularly in the 19th century, experienced territorial losses and separatist uprisings under the influence of nationalist ideology.

2. OTTOMAN MODERNIZATION

From the reign of Selim III onward, economic, technological, and political reforms were implemented. The aim was to increase the empire's power vis-à-vis the West (Karpat, 1972:245). After the 17th century, the superiority of European powers was clearly felt. Russia grew stronger, and the balance of power shifted. The Ottoman Empire's army was underdeveloped. Therefore, military schools were opened, and Western teachers were brought in (Karpat, 1959:5-7).

The French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution caused structural changes in Europe. Trade increased, cities developed, and technological and military advances were made. Trade routes changed. The Ottoman Empire lost commercial control in the Black Sea. In the Mediterranean, the French and British dominated. While exporting agricultural products, the Ottoman Empire began importing coffee, sugar, raw materials, and textiles (Karpat, 1972:247).

Selim III attempted to establish a new army but was unsuccessful. Selim was influenced more by the absolute monarchy of Louis XVI than by the liberal ideas of the French Revolution (Lewis, 2008:25-26). In the second half of the 18th century, the ayans gained power. The central government needed them to collect taxes and meet its military needs. The Russo-Turkish wars led to a decline in the power of the central government and an increase in the power of the ayans. Selim III and Mahmud II attempted to centralize government. Mahmud II was successful in establishing a new army. He abolished the timar system and redistributed land for his new army, thereby weakening the power of the ayans. These newly formed groups of farmers and tradesmen pressed for a more stable economic system (Karpat, 1972:249-257).

The Ottoman Empire was based on the millet system. Accordingly, Ottoman subjects were classified according to religious rather than ethnic identities (Tunçay, 2008:242-243). Modernization and reform efforts in the Ottoman Empire continued during the reign of Abdülmecid II. Mustafa Reşit Pasha drafted the Tanzimat Edict. According to this edict, equal rights were granted to all citizens, ensuring the security of life, property, and honor. The edict also protected the security of state officials. The Tanzimat Edict abolished the millet system and introduced the concept of Ottomanism (Lewis, 2008:8-11). Thus, equal Ottoman citizens would be united under the Ottoman identity. The aim was to ensure the loyalty of Ottoman subjects to the sultan. Efforts were made to counter the growing separatist and nationalist movements. Accordingly, technological, economic, and political reforms aimed to catch up with Western countries and reinforce the loyalty of Ottoman subjects to the state and the sultan. The Ottoman Empire's technological backwardness vis-à-vis the West, its territorial losses, and the influence of nationalist movements were attempted to be overcome through structural changes. However, religious leaders opposed this. Muslim clergy described this as "Western imitation." Christian and Jewish clergy complained about the impact on their positions and the decline in their power. Christians, who were exempt from military service, disliked the equality granted in this regard (Canefe and Bora, 2003:140). This weakened the spheres of influence of conservative millet leaders and strengthened nationalist movements (Poulton, 2006:84-85). The Tanzimat Edict, in a sense, brought secularization to the forefront. The Reform Edict was declared after the Crimean War. The Reform Edict established equality between Muslim and non-Muslim subjects.

3. TURKISH NATIONALISM IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

In 1865, the Young Ottomans Society was founded. It embraced the ideas of the Enlightenment. Members of the Society traveled to France and England and were influenced by Western ideas and values. They criticized the secular nature of the reforms. Namık Kemal was the most important thinker of this group (Karpat, 1959:12-13). Constitutionalism, Ottomanism, and Consultation were the concepts advocated by the Young Ottomans. They favored the implementation of Sharia law. It cannot be argued that the Tanzimat bureaucrats, intellectuals, and the Young Ottomans were nationalists in the modern sense. There was no developed Turkish bourgeoisie during this period. A nationalism based on Turkish ethnic identity is unacceptable.

3.1 The Nationalism of the Young Ottomans

The Young Ottomans, Şinasi, Namık Kemal, Ali Suavi, and Ziya Pasha, discussed the concepts of homeland and freedom in their writings. They criticized the liberal practices of the Tanzimat, the state's foreign debt, capitulations, the secularization of laws, and the departure from sharia law. Ultimately, a constitutional system was adopted, albeit briefly. New schools were opened, and the education system became secularized. As Berkes (1985) notes, as a result of the wars, territorial losses occurred, and those living in the lost Ottoman territories returned to the remaining lands. The oppression these people experienced accelerated the emergence of Turkish nationalism (Kalaycıoğlu, 2005:35). The growing Turkish consciousness, which grew with the development of the bourgeoisie in Kazan, Crimea, and Azerbaijan, was brought to the Ottoman Empire by intellectuals. Nationalist movements and Pan-Slavist policies in the Balkans provoked a reaction (File, 2006:44,143).

Namık Kemal advocated for a synthesis between modernization and sharia law. During his exile, he wrote about the Turks' golden age and their military successes (Poulton, 2006:55-56). According to Namık Kemal, a homeland could be explained by a common language, common interests, common ideas, and mutual sensitivity. Namık Kemal, Şinasi, and Ziya Pasha advocated the establishment of a Turkish language purified of foreign words (Oba, 1994:183-189). Ahmet Mithat Efendi argued that the Ottomans had roots in Central Asia. He argued that nationalism had a racial connotation (Öğün, 1994:110-111).

Namık Kemal was not fond of Turks living outside Ottoman borders and did not want the integrity of the empire to be compromised. Ali Suavi, on the other hand, was interested in them because they were Muslims. He believed that with the help of Islam, Slavism and Europeanism could be combated (Berkes, 2006:282-285). Suavi argued that the Turkish race was superior to all other races in military, social, and civilizational terms. He also stated that Turkish was superior to all other languages. He said that the Turkish race played the greatest role in cultural history and created Islamic culture (Danişmend, 1940:25).

Namik Kemal attributed our love for the homeland to the fact that we are part of it. He emphasized that if love for the homeland ceased, the homeland would be invaded by foreigners. He said, "We must love the homeland more than ourselves and sacrifice ourselves for it." He stated that the division of the Ottoman Empire due to separatist or ethnic differences was impossible. He attributed this to the lack of a single nation belonging to the same people. He claimed that a Kurdish strife like that in Crete would not occur. He emphasized that those who left the Ottoman Empire would fall under the yoke of Russia or other foreign powers (Özön, 1997:248-252). The ideas of Ottomanism and Islamism formed the foundations of his patriotism. According to Kemal, every nation would be able to protect its existence within the Ottoman Empire (Kemal, 1872, April 22, in Özön, p. 72). Namık Kemal argued that if the Caliph called the armies of Islam to jihad, European states could be overcome. According to his understanding, the Muslim population could not be divided according to maps, physical characteristics, or sectarian characteristics. Kemal advised believers in Islam to listen to religious speeches and read religious books, and not to disrupt their unity with sectarian conflicts. (Özön, p. 88) In a time when the literacy rate was low, Namık Kemal's play "Vatan yahut Silistre" (Homeland or Silistre) invigorated people's patriotic feelings, and people took to the streets. As a result of this incident, Namık Kemal was exiled (Kemal, 2008:7). In the play, Officer Islam Bey says, "He who does not love his country cannot love his God" (23-51).

3.2 Young Turks, the Committee of Union and Progress, and Turkish Nationalism

Young Turk associations achieved the restoration of the Constitutional Monarchy in 1908, which had been abolished by Abdulhamid II using the Ottoman-Russian War as a pretext. With the Committee of Union and Progress's official rise to power in 1913, Turkish nationalism was accepted as the official ideology. The Turkish and Muslim populations expelled from the lands lost in the Balkan Wars gained a sense of national identity. Ethnic characteristics, particularly in 1915 and 1916, played a decisive role in the settlement of subjects in different geographical regions. Accordingly, Georgians and Laz people were settled in northwestern Anatolia, while Kurds were settled in Central Anatolia. Consequently, in the run-up to World War I, the Turkish-Muslim population in Anatolia concentrated. The aim was to assimilate non-Muslims (Çağaptay, 2006:9-10). On July 20, 1915, Talaat Pasha sent a telegram to the provinces requesting the preparation of ethnographic maps, including small villages. According to the Settlement Law of May 13, 1913, Bosnian Muslims were to be settled in Eastern Anatolia, Adjara in Bolu and Ordu, and Kurds in Western and Central Anatolia (Çağaptay, 2006:13-23).

The Committee of Union and Progress worked to create a national bourgeoisie. Factories and businesses were established through state intervention. Wartime profiteering also played a role (Ahmad, 2008a:13). The Committee of Union and Progress supported the establishment of large farms instead of small ones. During this period, the problem was not land shortages but labor shortages (Ahmad, 2008b:69-70).

The magazines Genç Kalemler and Türk Yurdu, published during this period, were influential in the development of Turkish nationalism.

3.2.1 Ziya Gökalp's Nationalism

Gökalp was a key ideologist of the Committee of Union and Progress. He opposed class conflict. Instead, he proposed establishing professional groups to foster public solidarity. He attempted to find a middle ground between socialism and capitalism. He described this middle ground as communalism, or social populism. He proposed the establishment of a Ministry of National Economy. He emphasized the need to establish a national economy (Heyd, 140-147).

In the Committee of Union and Progress program of 1908, Turkish was declared the official language. (Yıldız, 2001, in Çağaptay, 2006:8). The Genç Kalemler magazine aimed to create a Turkish language purified of foreign words. This magazine, published by the Committee of Union and Progress, (Arai, 2003:60, 78, 87). Turks arriving from Russia also played a role in the development of nationalist ideas (Heyd, 127). The Committee of Union and Progress pursued a policy of Ottomanism until 1912. However, after the Balkan Wars, Turanist views began to gain influence (Heyd, p. 44). It became clear that Abdulhamid II's Islamist policies were also unable to unite Muslims (Karpat, 1959:25). The Committee of Union and Progress implemented economic and demographic Turkification policies. Bulgarians living in Thrace were displaced with Turks living in Bulgaria. Greeks living on the Aegean coast were displaced with Macedonian Muslims. The Committee of Union and Progress pursued economic policies that favored Turks and Muslims. The wars strengthened Turkish nationalism. (Çağaptay, 2006:8) Turks and Muslims boycotted Armenian and Greek shops (Sarınay, 2006:172).

Gökalp's nationalism was based on culture. Gökalp combined the ideas of Islamism, Westernism, and nationalism (Karpat, 1959:25). According to him, it was necessary to enter Western civilization while preserving Turkish and Muslim identity. In this context, Turks should fully accept Western civilization but not become part of Western culture (Heyd, 1950:81). Gökalp viewed Islam and nationalism as empowering doctrines. He prioritized the nation over the individual (Heyd, 123-125). He initially advocated Turanist ideas encompassing all of Central Asia. He spoke of Turkishness, Oghuzism, and Turanism. Accordingly, unity among the Oghuz Turks could be achieved, but Turan was a distant ideal (Gökalp, 2007:17-24). Gökalp persistently argued that cultural unity was more important than ethnic and racial unity. For him, a nation was a community of people who shared a common culture and religion, spoke the same language, received the same education, and shared religious, moral, and aesthetic ideals (Heyd, 62-63).

3.2.2 Yusuf Akçura's Nationalism

It is worthwhile to consider Yusuf Akçura's "Three Ways of Politics," written in 1904. Akçura discusses three political goals. The first is the ideal of creating an Ottoman nation. We know that this ideal was attempted to be implemented through modernization and centralization policies from the reign of Selim III, when the state's growing weakness was recognized. During the Tanzimat period, the ideal of creating an Ottoman nation was documented. However, the ideas brought by the French Revolution, the prevailing commercial climate in the Balkans, and the presence of the bourgeoisie led to a rise in independence and nationalist movements. This view, which was advocated even during the early periods of the Committee of Union and Progress's influence, was abandoned after 1913. Akçura stated that the ideal of creating an Ottoman nation first took shape during the reign of Mahmud II. He declared that creating an Ottoman nation was impossible. Another issue Akçura emphasized was establishing a state structure based on Islamism. According to those who advocated this idea, "Muslimism is both a religion and a nation." This policy began to be advocated during the reign of Sultan Abdülaziz, and was subsequently supported by Sultan Abdülhamid. This policy aimed to secure the loyalty of Muslim subjects. Akçura argued that states with Muslim subjects would oppose the implementation of this policy. Furthermore, Muslim and non-Muslim subjects, such as the Ottoman Turks, also disapproved of the formation of the union for various reasons. Regarding the Turkish Union policy, which Akçura also advocated, "Turks would be united by both religious and racial ties, not only religiously, but also by other Muslim elements that were not fundamentally Turkish but had become Turkified to some extent, and elements that had not yet embraced it could be Turkified." Thus, like Japan at the head of the yellow race, the Ottoman Empire would rule the world of Turkism. Akçura advocated the unification of the Turks spread throughout eastern Europe and Asia. However, he stated that the Turks only knew the Ottoman past, not the Oghuzs, Genghisids, Timur, Ulugh Beg, Farabi, Ibn Sina, or Navai. At the end of his article, Akçura acknowledged that Islam was a contributing factor to Turkish unity (Akçura, 2008: 35-62). However, at the end of his article, he repeated the question, "Which of the policies of Islam and Turkism was more beneficial and applicable for the Ottoman Empire?" In his other works, he argued that the ideal of Turkism should be based on material foundations. 4. TURKISH NATIONALISM IN THE REPUBLICAN PERIOD

Turkish nationalism during the Republican era can be classified as Kemalist nationalism, Turkism, the Turkish-Islamic Synthesis, and Nationalism.

4.1 Kemalist Nationalism

Kemalist nationalism laid its foundations at the end of World War I, with the War of Independence. The Turkish nation embraced Muslims within its national borders as essential elements. Secularism, Westernization, economic development, and the creation of a national bourgeoisie are the fundamental building blocks of Kemalist nationalism (Kushner, 1997:219-222). Kemalist nationalism is a top-down, elitist conception of nationalism. It aims to establish a nation-state. It is an authoritarian, collectivist nationalism (Keyder, 1997:37-46). Kemalist nationalism embraces the ideal of Westernization. However, the West of the 1920s was a West that exhibited authoritarian characteristics (Oran, 1997:14). Kemalist nationalism gave great importance to Turkish citizenship and rejected racism and Islamist nationalism. Kemalist nationalism was more concerned with democracy thanIt was associated with republicanism (Kili, 2008:193-195, 208). The Kemalists rejected the Ottoman legacy (Çağaptay, 2006:1-2).

According to the Treaty of Lausanne, non-Muslims were considered a minority, and all Muslims were considered founding members of the new Turkish state (Oran 2004; Ergil, 2000:13). The Sun Language Theory and the Turkish History Thesis were ideas that helped in the process of creating the new Turkish nation. The Sun Language Theory claimed that Turkish was the mother of all languages. The Turkish History Thesis, on the other hand, argued that Turks were the creators of civilization, that they came from Central Asia, and that they were the founders of civilizations in Anatolia (Çolak, 2004:83). After the 1950s, the industrial bourgeoisie developed. In the 1960s and 1970s, anti-imperialism and independence became the core principles of Kemalist nationalism (Bora, 2003:438-440). Kemalist nationalism facilitated the establishment of statist economic policies and the import-substitution system. The import-substitution system is a nationalist and developmentalist system (Gülalp, 1997: 54-56).

4.2 Turkism

This movement aimed to establish unity among Turks. Turkey wanted to stay out of World War II. With Germany's financial support and the belief in Germany's victory, the ideal of independence and unity for Turks living in the Soviet Union gained momentum. However, with Germany's defeat, Turkists were put on trial to prevent a reaction from the Soviet Union (Zürcher, 2007:205). This movement continued its existence through its media outlets. However, it failed to gain sufficient support from political parties. The MHP, instead of Turkism, chose to utilize Islamic elements in the late 1960s.

4.3 Turkish-Islamic Synthesis

The US's Green Belt doctrine supported Islam against communism. Turkey, a close ally of the US, was one of the initiators of this idea. The Intellectuals' Hearth, founded in the 1970s, contributed to the establishment of the Turkish-Islamic Synthesis. The Intellectuals' Hearth defined atheists, communists, Kurdish separatists, Christians, and those who contributed to the collapse of the Empire as enemies (Güvenç & Saylan, in Poulton: 179-185). The ideas of Kafesoğlu, the founder of the Intellectuals' Hearth, were championed by those who staged the 1980 coup, the military government established thereafter, the Nationalist Movement Party, Korkut Özal, and Turgut Özal (Poulton, p. 180). Accordingly, Islam holds a special appeal for Turks. Justice, the concept of the immortal soul, morality, and family life were of paramount importance. Islam was used to foster social cohesion. The Turkish Islamic Synthesis Doctrine argued that there should be no conflict between religion and science (Şen, 2010:65). This idea placed importance on Islam and Turkish culture. The army was extremely supportive of socialism and communism. He considered it dangerous, and therefore, after the 1980 coup, he supported the Turkish-Islamic synthesis (Zürcher, 2007:288). This movement was adopted and implemented by the military and conservative political parties.

4.4 Nationalism

The late 1990s can be explained by the nationalist movement. Nationalism is a movement that opposes imperialism and globalization and strongly advocates secularism. Nationalism is a common oppositional approach shared by left-wing and right-wing nationalists. In the late 1990s, there was a stance against extreme religiosity and liberal and religious policies. A new bourgeoisie emerged with the ANAP governments in the 1990s. This segment consisted of those devoted to their religion, conservative in traditions and religion, and supporters of a free market economy and globalization. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, communism, the archenemy of right-wing nationalism, was defeated. Thus, the common enemy of right-wing and left-wing nationalists became the newly formed bourgeoisie and religious brokers. The turning point was the February 28th process. The Kemalist elitist system was rebuilt. However, the AKP government was perceived as a threat. The Republic rallies that marked 2007 declared that the regime was under threat. Nationalism aimed to protect Turkish nationalism from Islam. It vehemently opposed Kurdish nationalism. Judging by its slogans, its proponents were anti-US, anti-EU, anti-globalization, and anti-AKP. The AKP government was characterized as pro-Kurdish and anti-Islamist and anti-secular. The nationalist movement was defended by the military, civil society organizations, particularly the CHP, ADD, and ÇYDD, and nationalist media outlets. Despite the April 27, 2007 e-memorandum, which blocked Abdullah Gül's presidency, the nationalist movement failed to achieve political success and entered a purge process following the AKP government's victory in the 2007 elections. The primary reason for its purge was the fact that the only common denominator among all its proponents was their opposition to the AKP. Furthermore, the aims of nationalists influenced by globalization and liberalism were not based on a common economic foundation or ideals.

5. CONCLUSION

According to modernist theory, Turkish nationalism began to develop simultaneously with modernization efforts in the Ottoman Empire. Concerns about a common will, a common language, and a common future gained momentum as the empire weakened, along with nationalist and separatist movements. During the Young Ottoman period, liberal policies were opposed. Ottomanism and Islamist ideas aimed to keep the empire united. Their goals of creating Islamic unity and an Ottoman nation were unsuccessful. The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) strived to create a national bourgeoisie, and Turkish nationalism became the official ideology. During the Republican period, a single.We cannot speak of Turkish nationalism. Due to changes in the national political agenda and the international system, we can classify Turkish nationalism as Kemalist nationalism, Turkism, the Turkish-Islamic Synthesis, Turkism, and Nationalism. Kemalist nationalism, with its Turkish citizenship, strives to encompass all nationalities. However, international agreements during its founding process, its aim to establish a homogeneous nation-state, and its authoritarian policies, along with discriminatory policies, have led to the pain. Turkism was politically influential for a certain period, with expansionist policies and racism being advocated by relatively radical circles. The Turkish-Islamic Synthesis is a movement that emphasizes Turkish culture and Islamic teachings. It has been on Turkey's agenda since the 1970s. Nationalism is a nationalist movement that has opposed globalization, liberalism, religious policies, and the granting of rights to minorities since the late 1990s. In the 2000s, it united left- and right-wing nationalists with opposition to the EU, the US, the AKP, Sharia law, and Kurdish nationalism. After 2007, nationalism entered a process of being politically and legally eliminated by the ruling party.

Sources

Ahmad (a), Feroz. « The State and Intervention in Turkey.» From Empire to Republic on the Late Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2008.

Ahmad (b), Feroz..« The Agrarian Policy of the Young Turks 1908-1918.» From Empire to Republic on the Late Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 1. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2008.

Akçura, Yusuf. Üç Tarz-ı Siyaset. İstanbul. Lotus Yayınları, 2008.
Arai, Masami. Jön Türk Dönemi Türk Milliyetçiliği. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003.

Belge, Murat. Linç Kültürü’nün Tarihsel Kökeni: Milliyetçilik. İstanbul: Agora Kitaplığı, 2006.

Berkes, Niyazi. Türkiye’de Çağdaşlaşma. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2006.
Bora, Tanıl. «The National Discources in Turkey.»The South Atlantic Quarterly 103, no.2/3

(2003):433-449.
Canefe, Nergis, ve Bora, Tanıl. «Intellectual Roots of Anti-European Sentiments in Turkish

Politics: The Case of Radical Turkish Nationalism.» Turkish Studies 4, no. 1 (2003): 127-148. Çağaptay, Soner. Islam, Secularism and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who is a

Turk?.London, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis, 2006.
Çolak, Y. «Language Policy and Official Ideology in Early Republican Turkey.» Middle

Eastern Studies 40, no.6 (2004):67-91.
Danişmend, İsmail Hakkı. Ali Suavi'nin Türkçülüğü. Ankara: CHP Genel Sekreterliği

Neşriyatı, 1942.

Ergil, Doğu. «The Kurdish Problem in Turkey.» Journal of Democracy11, no.3 (2000): 122- 135.

Gökalp, Ziya. Türkçülüğün Esasları. İstanbul:Inkilap Kitabevi, 2007.

Gülalp, H. .« Modernization Policies and Islamist Policies in Turkey.» in Sibel Bozdoğan; Reşat Kasaba (Eds). Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey.Washington: University of Washington Press, 1997.

Heyd, Uriel. Foundations of Turkish Nationalism: The Life and Teachings of Ziya Gökalp. London: Luzac Company and Harvill Press, 1950.

Kalaycıoğlu, Ersin. Turkish Dynamics: Bridge Acrosst Troubled Lands. Gordonsville: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Karpat, Kemal. «The Transformation of the Ottoman State 1789-1908.» International Journal of Middle East Studies 3, no. 3 (1972): 243-281.

—. Turkey's Politics: The Transiion to a Multi-Party System. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959.

Keyder, Çağlar. «Whither the Project of Modernity: Turkey in the 1990s.» in Sibel Bozdoğan; Reşat Kasaba (Eds). Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey.Washington: University of Washington Press, 1997.

Kili, Suna. The Atatürk Revolution: A Paradigm of Modernization, İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası, 2008.

Kushner, D. «Self-Perception and Identity in Contemporary Turkey.» Journal of Contemporary History 32, no.2 (1997):219-233.

Lewis, Bernard. Modern Türkiye'nin Doğuşu. Ankara: Arkadaş Kitabevi, 2008. Oba, Ali Engin. Türk Milliyetçiliği’nin Doğuşu. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 1994.

Oran, Baskın. Atatürk Milliyetçiliği: Resmi İdeoloji Dışı Bir İnceleme. İstanbul: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1997.

Öğün, Süleymen Seyfi Mukayeseli Sosyal Teori Bağlamında Milliyetçilik. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları, 2000.

Özön, M.N. Namık Kemal ve İbret Gazetesi. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1997.
Poulton, H. Top Hat, Grey Wolf and Crecent: Turkish Nationalism and the Turkish Republic.

London: Hurst & Company, 2006.

Sarınay, Yusuf. Türk Milliyetçiliği'nin Tarihi Gelişimi ve Türk Ocakları. Ankara: Ötüken Yayınları, 2005.

Şen, M. «Transformation of Turkish Islamism and the Rise of Justice and Development Party.» Turkish Studies 11, no. 1 (2010):59-84.

Tunçay, Mete. Sosyalizm ve Milliyetçilik (1876-1923). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2008. Zürcher, E. J. Turkey: A Modern History. London: I. B. Tauris, 2007.