![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
To what extent can hostility toward Greeks in Turkish politics be explained sociologically? This paper provides a fresh perspective by examining the value of group position theory in understanding negative perceptions of Greeks in Turkish politics between 1946 and 1960. It proposes that Turkish politicians’ perceived threats to valued resources played a key role in their unfavorable portrayals of Greeks. To test the argument, the study scrutinizes all Turkish parliamentary speeches in this period that contain the word Greek (N = 652). Quantitative analysis demonstrates that speaking about border-related threats is a significant predictor of negative perceptions. Qualitative investigation details how politicians justified their negative comments. The paper concludes that the negative remarks about Greeks are a function of Turkish politicians’ perceived threats to valued resources.
Acknowledgements
This research was facilitated through a research grant from the A.G. Leventis Foundation. Furthermore, a short-term scientific mission grant (STSM) from the COST Action (CA20107) significantly enhanced the quality of the article. I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Metin Yüksel and Mr. Arda Sirkeci for their invaluable assistance in creating the dataset. Lastly, I extend my sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 DW, “Turkey and Greece Talk.”
2 Athanassopoulou, “Blessing in disguise?”
3 Karpat, Studies on Turkish Politics.
4 Aytürk, “Nationalism and Islam.”
5 Loizides, “Elite Framing”; Loizides, “State Ideology”; and Nefes, “Political Roots.”
6 Carter and Lippard, “Group Position.”
7 For example, Biggs and Knauss, “Explaining Membership,” and Schneider, “Anti-immigrant Attitudes.”
8 Barkey, Empire of Difference.
9 Melson, “A Theoretical Inquiry.”
10 Veremis, “The Hellenic Kingdom.”
11 Deringil, “The Armenian Question.”
12 Adisonmez, “When Conflict Traumas Fragment.”
13 Guida, “The Sèvres Syndrome.”
14 Arı, Büyük Mübadele.
15 Alexandris, The Greek Minority, and Solomonovich, “Marrying the Enemy?”
16 Beylunioğlu and Kaymak, “The Perception”; Grigoriadis, “Between Citizenship and the Millet”; and Neyzi, “Remembering to Forget.”
17 Kuyucu, “Ethno-religious ‘Unmixing’.”
18 Örs, “Beyond.”
19 Alexandris, The Greek Minority.
20 Kuyucu, “Ethno-religious ‘Unmixing’.”
21 Borou, “The Muslim Minority.”
22 Ibid.
23 Grigoriadis, “Between Citizenship and the Millet.”
24 Ibid.
25 Athanassopoulou, “Blessing in Disguise?,” and Schmitt, “The Greek-Turkish Dispute.”
26 Grigoriadis, “Between Citizenship and the Millet.”
27 Karpat, Ottoman Population.
28 Bobo, “Prejudice as Group Position.”
29 Blumer, “Race Prejudice.”
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Bobo and Hutchings, “Perceptions.”
33 Blumer, “Race Prejudice.”
34 Ibid.
35 Quillian, “Prejudice,” and Quillian, “Group Threat.”
36 Grigoriadis, “Between Citizenship and the Millet,” and Millas, “The Image.”
37 Aviv, Antisemitism; Bali, “Cumhuriyet Döneminde Azınlıklar Politikası”; Bali, Devlet’in Yahudileri; Göl, “Imagining the Turkish Nation”; Toktas, “Citizenship and Minorities”; Nefes, “The Sociological Foundations”; Nefes, “Perceived Group Threats”; and Nefes, “Three Shades.”
38 Beylunioğlu and Kaymak, “The perception of minorities.”
39 Gökalp, The Principles of Turkism.
40 Ibid.
41 Ünlü, “Türklük Sözleşmesi’nin Imzalanışı (1915-1925).”
42 Kolbe and Burnett, “Content-analysis Research.”
43 White and Marsh, “Content Analysis.”
44 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 10, Legislative Year 4, Sitting 4 (16.11.1956), p. 16.
45 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 11, Legislative Year 3, Sitting 49 (27.02.1960), p. 29.
46 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 8, Legislative Year 4, Sitting 59 (23.03.1949), p. 9.
47 McHugh, “Interrater Reliability,” and Neuendorf, The Content Analysis Guidebook.
48 Lacy, Watson, Riffe, and Lovejoy, “Issues and Best Practices.”
49 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 8, Legislative Year 2, Sitting 22 (24.12.1946), p. 34
50 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 10, Legislative Year 4, Sitting 78 (07.06.1957), p. 13.
51 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 9, Legislative Year 4, Sitting 47 (19.02.1953), p. 54.
52 The Megali Idea is an irredentist term, which refers to reviving the Byzantine Empire by expanding the Greek state to parts of the Southern Balkans, Asia Minor, and Cyprus.
53 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 10, Legislative Year 3, Sitting 44 (25.02.1956), p. 63.
54 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 10, Legislative Year 3, Sitting 76 (13.06.1956), p. 5.
55 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 10, Legislative Year 3, Sitting 15 (16.12.1955), p. 7.
56 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 10, Legislative Year 3, Sitting 44 (25.02.1956), p. 26.
57 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 10, Legislative Year 2, Sitting 49 (25.02.1955), p. 52.
58 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 9, Legislative Year 4, Sitting 54 (26.02.1953), p. 93.
59 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 10, Legislative Year 3, Sitting 17 (21.12.1955), p. 8.
60 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 9, Legislative Year 5, Sitting 64 (11.03.1954), p. 52.
61 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 11, Legislative Year 2, Sitting 82 (17.07.1959), p. 9.
62 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 10, Legislative Year 4, Sitting 46 (25.02.1957), p. 61.
63 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 9, Legislative Year 2, Sitting 50 (24.02.1951), p. 24.
64 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 11, Legislative Year 3, Sitting 47 (25.02.1960), p. 37.
65 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 11, Legislative Year 2, Sitting 32 (28.02.1959), p. 49.
66 TBMM, Tutanak Dergisi, Term 8, Legislative Year 3, Sitting 64 (28.05.1948), p. 18.
67 In its examination of discussions pertaining to threat-related subjects, this analysis refrains from delving into the minutiae of the 6–7 September events. Despite the undeniable historical significance of this event in the context of non-Muslims in modern Turkish history, it did not signal a direct threat to the overarching Turkish populace and therefore is not in the scope of group position theory. Moreover, the parliamentary debate’s general tone on the events reflects an interest and, at times, empathy towards all those affected, including the Greeks.
68 Beylunioğlu and Kaymak, “The perception”; Gürpınar, Conspiracy Theories; and Nefes, “The Relationship.”
69 Millas, “The Image.”
70 Grigoriadis, “Between Citizenship and the Millet.”
71 Carter and Lippard, “Group Position.”
72 Draege, “Parliamentary Discussions.”
73 BBC, “Hagia Sophia.”
74 BBC, “Greece Finishes Fence”
75 BBC, “Turkey-Greece Tensions.”
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Türkay Salim Nefes
Turkay Salim Nefes is a Ramón y Cajal Research Fellow at the Institute of Public Goods and Policies of the Spanish National Research Council. He was a William Golding Junior Research Fellow at the Brasenose College of the University of Oxford. His main research interest is the diffusion and impacts of ethno-religious hostility, particularly conspiracy theories. He has published his work on conspiracy theories in academic journals including The British Journal of Sociology, Rationality and Society, and The Sociological Review. His work can be accessed at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tuerkay_Nefes