In Search of a Non-Eurocentric Understanding of Modernization: Turkey as a Case of ‘Multiple Modernities’

Abstract

This article uses the Turkish case of modernity to critically examine different understandings of modernization put forward by competing schools of thought, namely the ‘classical modernization theory’, the ‘neo-modernization theory’ and the ‘multiple modernities paradigm’. In the context of modernization studies, Turkey has long held a special place as numerous scholars have studied this country in an attempt to validate the ‘convergence thesis’ – namely the idea that once a non-western society launches a secularization and/or an industrialization programme, its political regime and socio-economic life would eventually resemble its western counterparts. Firstly, the three theories are comparatively analysed by discussing how they perceive the concept of modernity and its interaction with religion, economic development and democratization. Then, the theories are reviewed in light of the Turkish experience. It is argued that the Turkish modernity can be best comprehended through the lens of the multiple modernities paradigm that challenges the Eurocentric assumption of classical modernization and neo-modernization theories based on the convergence thesis.

Keywords:

• Modernization
• economic development
• democratization
• social change
• secularism
• Turkey

Acknowledgements

I am deeply indebted to Professor Emma C. Murphy for her ever-present support, encouragement and critical feedback that contributed to the development of this work and many others. I am very grateful to the anonymous referees whose suggestions have greatly increased the quality of the article. I would also like to thank my colleague Panagiotis Andrikopoulos for taking the time from his own commitments to provide valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. It could be helpful for the reader to note the verbal context in which this article utilizes two essential terms – modernity and modernization. These words are often used interchangeably, yet there is a noteworthy distinction between their meanings. Modernity ‘is the condition of being modern’ (Cambridge, 2014). The term refers to a state of existence that is different from past forms of human experience in fields such as economic conditions, political organization and social life. By contrast, modernization ‘is the transitional transformation period by which the state of modernity manifests’ (Cambridge, 2014). Hence, modernity is a state of existence that is an outcome of a process of modernization.

2. In the 1930s, the westernization programme of the Kemalists based on secularization and state-led development (in the form industrialization and mechanization of agriculture) inspired the implementation of similar, albeit smaller-scale, reforms in Iran under Reza Shah Pahlavi and Afghanistan under King Amanullah Khan (see Atabaki & Zürcher, 2004).

3. For a study of the different definitions of political, economic and social development by various theories of modernity, see below.

4. Apart from NMT, the dependency theory and the world-system theory also offered strong criticisms of CMT and contributed to modernization studies (see So, 1990; Wallerstein, 1974). Yet the strength of their frameworks has also waned over time due to a number of reasons (see Kaya, 2004: 8).

5. For a comprehensive study of the enduring legacy of Ottoman modernization on Turkish modernity, see Mardin (1962) and Meeker (2002).

6. The centre‒periphery divide is a well-known framework popularized by Mardin (1973).

7. It should be noted that the Sheikh Said rebellion is considered to be mainly a Kurdish nationalist uprising that was partially influenced by anti-secularist sentiment (see Olson, 1989).

8. For a comprehensive study of Turkish modernity through the lenses of secularism and Islamism, see Keyman (2007); Yavuz and Esposito (2003); Turam (2012); and Çınar (2005).

9. ^’Autonomous bourgeoisie’ refers to a capitalist class that does not have to rely on patronage ties with governments to gain profits. This issue has received much attention within the democratization literature as scholars such as Moore (1966), Vanhanen (2003) and Inglehart and Welzel (2005) have argued that democratic consolidation process would be successful as long as a country possesses an autonomous bourgeoisie that could challenge the authority of the state.

10. The issue of clientelism or state-dependency of capitalists in Turkey is the source of an ongoing debate within the literature on the Turkish political economy. Some scholars such as Berberoglu (1992: 99–107) and Keyder (1989: 159–161) interpret the electoral victory of the DP in 1950 as the ‘conquest’ of the state by landlords and capitalists, though it is noted that the former group was more influential in the foundation and financing of the party. From this argument, one can possibly infer that the capitalist class of Turkey in the late 1940s was autonomous enough to challenge the state. However, this view is contested by a large numbers of works (e.g. Aydın, 2005: 83–92; Asutay, 2010; Özel, 2014: 178–182; Öniş, 1999: 458–459) that explain the transition to democracy in 1950 within the context of ‘inter-elite competition’ rather than the rise of an autonomous bourgeoisie. Accordingly, a section of the ruling bureaucratic class of the Kemalist CHP split from the state establishment and formed the DP with the support of landowners and capitalists. The defeat of the CHP by the DP in the 1950 elections did not constitute a historic break for the state-dependency of capitalists in Turkey, as a new patronage relationship with the DP was established instead of the CHP.

11. Although the democratization process began with the transition to free and fair multi-party elections in 1950 – political modernization can be argued to be an older phenomenon in Turkey, initially manifesting in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century with the implementation of a number of administrative reforms by reform-minded sultans (see Meeker, 2002).

12. See Altunışık and Tür (2005: 25) for more details.

13. The macro-scale of the research and the word limit meant that this study could not examine each of the deficiencies of the Turkish case of democracy in detail. For a comprehensive study of Turkish modernity through the lenses of national identity, citizenship and minority rights, see Bozdoğan and Kasaba (1997); Keyman (2012); Özkırımlı and Sofos (2008); Keyman and İçduygu (2005). For examination of Turkish experience through the lens of gender, see Kandiyoti (1991); Arat (2000); Çınar (2005).