Neither nationalism nor neo-Ottomanism but the winner is neo-liberal consumerism? Arts of the past

ABSTRACT

In Turkish cultural history, there is an uninterrupted continuity in the education of the Traditional Turkish Arts (TTA), with clear links to the Ottoman past and Islam. This article discusses how TTA were preserved and incorporated into the educational curriculum in the early Republican era, despite discourses that established a direct disengagement between the Republican nationalist project and the Ottoman past. Turning then to the dissemination of TTA under the AKP’s rule as a reflection of neo-Ottomanism as a multi-faceted strategy, this article reveals their overlap with neo-liberal policies that bring about their commodification.

KEYWORDS:

• Traditional Turkish Arts
• neo-Ottomanism
• nostalgia
• nationalism
• consumerism

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Özgür Gürsoy, Filiz Başkan and anonymous reviewers assigned by Turkish Studies for their valuable contributions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 There is a very large literature concerning this issue. I will only mention the following: Zurcher, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi; Şerif, “Continuity and Change”; Rustow, “The Modernization of Turkey”; Evin, Modern Turkey; Altunışık and Tür, Turkey; Karpat, Ottoman Past; Heper, “The Ottoman Legacy”; Kaya, Social Theory; Akan, The Politics of Secularism; and Danforth, “Multi-Purpose Empire.”

2 TTA refers to calligraphy/Islamic calligraphy, illumination, paper marbling, ahar (i.e. the mixture prepared for application on the paper for its smoothness and longevity), book binding, gold leaf production, miniature painting, craft of mother-of-pearl making, and engraving.

3 Commodification of the cultural past is not a peculiar characteristic of the AKP, as its neo-liberal policies demand it. However, the latter’s distinguishing feature is its selective and pragmatic approach. The ‘Magnificent Century,’ which is a world-wide broadcasted television series, is a good case in point. As it does not correspond with the morality that the AKP attributes to its imagined Ottoman past, President R.T. Erdoğan harshly criticized it. His claim was that Suleiman the Magnificent was portrayed as a womanizer and a drinker, but in fact should be presented as a hero and noble warrior. See https://world.time.com/2012/12/26/why-is-turkeys-prime-minister-at-war-with-a-soap-opera/.

4 Karpat, Türk Siyasi Tarihi; Zurcher, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, and Kadıoğlu, “The Paradox.”

5 Cagaptay, “Race” and Göçek, The Transformation, 11.

6 White, Müslüman Milliyetçiliği, 15.

7 Zurcher, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, 269.

8 Karpat, Türk Siyasi Tarihi, 27; Zurcher, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, 256; and Kadıoğlu, “The Paradox,”186.

9 Başgöz, “Folklore Studies,” 162–71, and Öztürkmen, Türkiye’de Folklor.

10 Keser and Keser, “Different Political Impacts.”

11 Artan, “Arts and Architecture,” and Keser and Keser, “Different Political Impacts,” 27.

12 Schick, “The Iconicity,” 211.

13 Please see note 1.

14 Karpat, Ottoman Past, 27.

15 Derman, “Medresetü’l-Hattâtîn,” 341.

16 Derman, “Medresetü’l-Hattâtîn,” and Cezar, “Kuruluşunun 100.Yılında G.S.A.”

17 Ulusal, Hat Sanatı Tarihi, 100.

18 Ibid., 100–1.

19 According to Ulusal’s reference to Fahri Özparlak’s (2004) article “Atatürk ve Geleneksel Türk Sanatları, Atatürk’ün Mevlana hakkında düşünceleri,” Atatürk allowed Arabic calligraphy (Hüsn-ü Hat) to be taught in the Turkish Decorative Arts Branch with the personal initiative of Salah Cimcoz, the Istanbul deputy who was at the same time an Arabic calligraphy collector. Yet, the permission was given with the reservation that Ottoman script would not be used in daily life and that it would be used only for artistic purposes. See Ulusal, Hat Sanatı Tarihi, 102.

20 Renda, “Cumhuriyet Sürecinde Türk sanatı,” 144.

21 Karpat, Ottoman Past, 27.

22 Danforth, “Multi-Purpose Empire,” 660.

23 Renda, “Cumhuriyet Sürecinde Türk Sanatı,” 142. It may be a debatable matter how to interpret the museumization of Islamic and Ottoman spaces such as Mevlâna Lodge (Mevlâna Dergâhı) or Dolmabahçe Palace by the early Republic. Does it constitute a break from or continuity with the past? I am inclined towards the latter view, since it can be seen as an instance of the selective and pragmatic appropriation of the past and Islam by the Republican regime. As far as the museumization of these particular spaces is concerned, it can be interpreted as a continued valorization in the context of secularization.

24 Atasoy, Islam’s Marriage, 159.

25 Aşlamacı and Kaymakcan, “A Model.”

26 Akan, The Politics of Secularism, 139, 144.

27 Davison, “Laiklik,” 42.

28 Mesara in “Türk Tezhip ve Minyatür Sanatı” states that while the origins of art of illumination may be traced back to eleventh century, art of miniature can be found as early as eighth century among Uighurs (see pages 13, 18).

29 Schick, “The Iconicity,” 220.

30 Clearly, further support for and elaboration of this claim can only be provided by a detailed historical examination of the period in question, which is beyond the scope of this article.

31 Yavuz, “Social and Intellectual Origins” and “Turkish Identity.”

32 The emergence of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis in the 1970s and the 1980s may be helpful but not sufficient for an apprehension of the logic behind the initiation of those competitions which may be interpreted as a return to Islam in the new national imagination. ‘Mobilization and demobilization of Islam’ (Akan, The Politics of Secularism) or co-existence of ‘religion (Islam) and nationalism (Turkism)’ (Cetinsaya, “Rethinking Nationalism and Islam,” 351) have always been a defining feature of Turkish politics with ‘utilitarian’ (Akan, The Politics of Secularism) objectives. In this respect, although the objective of mobilization of Islam in the 1970s and particularly after 1980s may be different, early Republican elites also returned to religion at particular moments, as I discuss in the text when it is warranted.

33 Altunışık, “Worldviews,” 182–3; Öniş, “Multiple Faces,” 49; and Yavuz, “Social and Intellectual Origins,” 444.

34 Schick, “The Iconicity,” 224.

35 Yavuz, “Social and Intellectual Origins”; Yavuz, “Turkish Identity”; and White, Müslüman Milliyetçiliği.

36 Boym, “Nostalgia,” 6.

37 Volčič, “Yugo-Nostalgia.”

38 Pobłocki, “The Economics of Nostalgia.”

39 Appaduarai, Modernity at Large, 77–8.

40 Boym, “Nostalgia,” 13–15.

41 Yavuz, “Social and Intellectual Origins”; Kasaba and Bozdoğan, “Turkey at a Crossroad”; Çolak, “Ottomanism vs Kemalism”; Altunışık, “Worldviews”; Öniş, “Multiple Faces”; and Yavuz, “Turkish Identity.”

42 Fisher-Onar, “Constructing Turkey Inc.,” 470. Also see Ergin and Karakaya, “Between Neo Ottomanism and Ottomania”; Erdem, “Ottomentality”; Karaosmanoğlu, “Nostalgia Spaces”; Karanfil and Egilmez, “Politics, Culture and Media”; Onur, “The Politics of Nostalgia”; and Hecker, Furman, and Akyıldız, “The Politics of Culture” for different discussions on the relationship between neo-Ottomanism, culture and politics in Turkey.

43 Da Silva and Faught, “Nostalgia,” 48–50.

44 Ibid., 52.

45 See Virfinija, “Interaction.”

46 E-mail dated 28 January 2022 and numbered E-94841346-354.99-2155895.

47 Keyman, “The AK Party,” 23, 24.

48 Featherstone, Consumer Culture, 25.

49 Brown, “American Nightmare,” 698.

50 Boym, “Nostaliga,” 18.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

D. Burcu Eğilmez

D. Burcu Eğilmez earned a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Middle East Technical University in 2011. She received a Fulbright scholarship to conduct part of her doctoral research at Northwestern University, and she also spent a semester at the University of Leiden as an Erasmus exchange student. Her doctoral thesis is concerned with the history of relations between the Ottoman state and its religious Others (Christians, Jews, heterodox Sufi orders, and Alevis), as well as the implications of such a history for the principles of toleration/intolerance and justice. Her primary academic interests are the subjects of religion, gender, culture and, more specifically, the questions of difference, equality, justice, freedom and dissent in the contexts of Ottoman and Turkish political, social and cultural history.