Hyphenated Turkishness: the plurality of lived nationhood in Turkey

Abstract

Is Turkish nationality one singular identity that does not permit ethnic modifiers? Or can it be understood as pluralistic, with identities nested – “hyphenated” – with Turkishness? Then, are Turkish and Kurdish identities necessarily mutually exclusive? Such questions over the boundaries of Turkishness have long been framed in the civic versus ethnic dichotomy – an approach that does not ask whether Turkish nationhood is monolithic or pluralistic. In response, this article aims to advance the public and scholarly debates over nationhood in Turkey by turning to the question of ways in which Turkishness can be hyphenated with other identity categories in Turkey, most particularly Kurdishness. First, we reframe the debate over identity by using the combinatorial approach to ethnicity to outline how Turkishness and Kurdishness can be overlapping and nested, or a hyphenated identity. Second, we draw on public opinion data to show that such a hyphenated identity is both theoretically possible and potentially salient in Turkey today. Together, these steps deconstruct the primordialist understandings of Turkishness and Kurdishness, on the one hand, and the taken-for-granted civic claims of Turkishness, on the other.

Keywords:

• Turkey
• national identity
• combinatorial approach to ethnicity
• Kurdishness
• ethnic versus civic debate

View correction statement:

Erratum

Notes

1 See these debates in media and academic circles such as Sahin (2004); Bila (2005); Oran (2005); Bulac (2005); Grigoriadis (2007); Akturk (2012a); Hanioglu (2013); Kuru (2014).

2 See “Opposition figures decry AK Party member's statement on Turkish race,” published online by Today's Zaman on 1 December 2013 at: http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=DADCB5A102B56DE9D891B7AAE84041C8?newsId=332858.

3 To be sure, Turkey is a multi-ethnic country, comprised of diverse groups such as Arabs, Armenians, and Roma. We narrow our study to the interrelationship between Turkish and Kurdish identities because of the historical and current relevance of “the Kurdish question” as well as a consideration of what is possible within the scope of this article.

4 We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for this insight of simple categorization.

5 In order to access the 1921, 1924, 1961, and 1982 constitutions in Turkish, electronic copies are available from the Grand National Assembly of Turkey website: http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/anayasa.htm.

6 For an example of these debates in media, see Sahin (2004); Oran (2005); Bulac (2005); Akturk (2012a); Hanioglu (2013). For examples of this debate in academic circles, see Cagaptay (2003); Yegen (2004); Aslan (2007); Akturk (2009); Ungor (2011); Akturk (2012b). See also “Argument of Turkishness in the Constitution” (“Anayasa'da Turkluk Tartismasi”) at http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/anayasada_turkluk_tartismasi-1127148.

7 See “Kimlik degisimi!” 2005, in Milliyet, at www.milliyet.com.tr/2005/12/13/siyaset/axsiy02.html.

8 To be clear, this does not mean that we employ descent-based attributes as basically primordial in the sense that the primordialist school of nationalism claims. This would definitely contradict our whole argument in this article. Rather, we approach descent-based attributes as understood by a certain group in a given society. For instance, scholars can sit around and say that “Kurdishness” is socially constructed, but most Kurds think and act as if Kurdishness is a real, obvious thing. The solution is to identify “descent based” attributes in a given society – what does society X define as descent-based in their context – and then build on that to study their identities. For further on this approach to studying ethnicity, see Chandra (2012).

9 See http://www.konda.com.tr/html/dosyalar/ttya_tr.pdf.

10 To take a different example, an individual who is Muslim and learns Turkish – such as an Arab or Bosnian – could be considered “Turkish” regardless of their “race.” We thank an anonymous reviewer for providing this example.

11 Again, operative categories are those that are expressed in a particular context at a particular time. In theory, Turkishness and Kurdishess could be comprised of various different attribute-dimensions and values on these dimensions.

12 Turkishness also depends on place of birth but being born in Turkey does not automatically confer Turkish identity. For example, children of Syrian refugees born in Turkey are still considered Syrian.

13 Many observers of Turkey's politics would likely find the percentage of Kurds supporting the AKP much lower than expected, but this is the reported figure. We believe a potential cause for this figure is some “Kurds” who vote for the AKP may not self-identify as “Kurdish” in the survey. This interpretation is partially based on the finding that the AKP wins a much larger portion of its support (38.78%) in Southeastern Turkey.

14 Of course, the meaning of citizenship can vary according to social context (see Bloemraad 2006; Joppke 2008), but what matters in this analysis is that Turks and Kurds understood citizenship, whatever its meaning, to rest on similar prerequisites. Although considering that most in each group feel that ‘loving Turkey’ is a prerequisite for membership in the Turkish nation, it is not unreasonable to suspect that many Kurds acknowledge their national membership to some degree.