Anadoluculuğun Eklektik Analizi ve Sosyoekonomik Çözüm Önerileri (1923-1945)

Description

Abstract (English)

The last century of the Ottoman Empire was very active in terms of the world of thought as in many other aspects. Various ideas such as Westernism, Ottomanism, Islamism, Decentralization and Turkism were put forward and discussed at length in order to rescue the state from the quagmire it had fallen into. However, none of the aforementioned thought patterns were sufficient to put a stop to the bad course. In the democratic and productive intellectual atmosphere of the Constitutional Monarchy II, a new school of thought, Anatolianism (Turkism, Homelandism), was born with the aim of preventing political, economic and social disintegration. The principles of Anatolianism were soon heard by large masses of people through press activities, efforts of intellectuals, educational institutions and politicians. Its encompassing structure, reasonable proposals and humanist identity played an important role in the idea's gathering supporters. The idea served as a platform where different figures from the conservative, nationalist and secular wings met. Anatolian intellectuals produced voluminous works on the understanding of the homeland, the new nationality, cultural identity, historical consciousness, the role of education in development and what needed to be done to strengthen the national economy. In fact, intellectuals such as Nurettin Topçu, Remzi Oğuz Arık, Mehmet Emin Erişirgil, Ziyaeddin Fahri Fındıkoğlu, Samet Ağaoğlu, Hilmi Ziya Ülken and Nusret Kemal Köymen, in addition to being the brain trust of thought, also acted as locomotives.

The idea that “sanctified” Anatolia and Thrace considered them the center of Turkish culture and civilization. It was stated that Anatolia had given a distinct national identity to all the societies living on it throughout history, as well as to the people who inhabited it after Malazgirt. It was claimed that the sense of unity reinforced by the common homeland would make it easier to make the land more prosperous. The Ottoman Empire was harshly criticized by intellectuals for failing to take advantage of the synergy created by Anatolia as it should have. The representatives of the idea, who favored Anatolian origin over Turkish ancestry from an anthropological point of view, did not completely isolate Islam from the definition of identity. Anatolianism shied away from discourses that would confront the official ideology in terms of both the perception of Turkish nationalism and the understanding of religiosity.

The common ethnographic elements that Anatolia gave birth to, the widespread use of Turkish and the collective past that emerged after the Malazgirt victory were highly valued. Anatolianism's understanding of historical appropriation was quite different from the official doctrine. The preference for the term Anatolian Turkish history over Turkish history was believed to be a unifying source of morale for citizens. The historical mentality that ignored the Seljuk and Ottoman dynasties was fought relentlessly. It was emphasized that cultural artifacts, symbols of a common geography and co-produced past, should be recorded. It was emphasized that institutions teaching history should not approach the subject either emotionally or purely logically. The thesis of historiography, which analyzes the documents correctly by showing loyalty to national interests, was defended.

Anatolianism, which had a chemistry that was far from stagnation, searched for the codes of development in the elimination of defects in education and the strengthening of the national economy. Rather than relying on theory, he envisioned education and training to be implemented with practical equipment. Schools were reminded of the benefits of preparing programs by taking into account the conditions of the socio-economic cosmography. In popular parlance, education should not be about saving the day, but about organizing long-term plans. The coordination between the “education-ethics-economics” triangle and the solid steps to be taken in these areas will make Turkey a country with a high level of prosperity. It was mentioned that it is of critical importance that education from primary school to higher education should be a system that prepares students for real life, rather than a mere acquisition of knowledge.

In the field of economy, which is at least as prominent as education, the thinking was wrapped up in proposals based entirely on national interests. It was pointed out that Turkey had to be strong in agriculture and industry by always relying on domestic resources. It was stated that progress in Anatolia, starting from the rural areas, would have positive effects on the cities as well. In order to establish a national industry, the discourses of Atatürk's thought and those in his mind were exactly the same. In order to eliminate the development gap between regions, thinkers put forward alternatives suitable for each period. It was pointed out that increasing diversity in the economy would support employment and production.