The Westernization efforts that began with the Tanzimat Edict in 1839 entered an intense period with the First Constitutional Era in 1876. With the proclamation of the Kanun-ı Esasi (Constitution), a legal basis for Westernization was established. However, the constitutional regime was suspended in 1878 due to war conditions. Nevertheless, until the Second Constitutional Era in 1908, efforts for Westernization and philosophical movements continued without a constitutional regime.
The Ottomans identified the cause of their defeats on the battlefield in the 18th century and began to address it. These efforts, referred to as “renewal” in the 18th century, were termed “reform” in the 19th century and “modernization” in the 20th century. Later, these efforts were also called Westernization by Westernizers. Today, it is referred to as “modernization” and is freed from positive connotations like “development” and “progress.” Since it is not entirely an effort to resemble the West, the term Westernization is not appropriate. The term “modernization” is preferred because it does not imply positive connotations like development or negative ones like Westernization.
Before the 18th century, efforts for renewal and development were seen during the periods of Young Osman, Murad IV, the Köprülü family, and Koçi Bey, but these were attempted to be realized with the state’s internal dynamics. During this period, there was no tendency to emulate or accept the West. However, during the Tulip Era, there was a clear interest in discovering the West. During the reigns of Mahmud I, Mustafa III, and Abdul Hamid I, the military superiority of the West was understood, and ways to apply Western methods were researched. Additionally, a consultative approach was adopted in diplomacy instead of a commanding one.
Figures like Yirmisekiz Mehmet Çelebi, Mehmed Said, Ishak Bey, Ebubekir Ratib, Mustafa Sami, and Tunisian Hayreddin observed Europe’s advancement and documented their observations. In the 19th century, the embassy system was established according to European standards, and works and ideas from the West were adopted. The elite became proponents of renewal, leading to a conflict with the religious populace. Terms like “new progress” and “European style” became common. The Ottoman Empire’s center of attraction shifted from the East to the West.
The modernization effort, which became comprehensive in the 19th century, is still ongoing and indicates an incomplete process. Both the republican revolutions after 1923 and the political-social phenomena we still experience today are rooted in this period. For example, figures like Abdullah Cevdet and Kılıçzade Hakkı proposed ideas that are still debated today, some of which were implemented during the republican period and caused a stir. Proposals such as changing attire, closing down religious lodges and madrasas, advancing women’s rights, reforming language and economy, and developing private enterprise laid the foundations for an ongoing trajectory.
During the modernization period, different views emerged to save the state and strengthen society against the West. These views are known as intellectual movements and none of them are monolithic or definitive. These views, classified as Islamism, Westernism, Ottomanism, and Turkism, contain contradictions within themselves and are formed in a transitional structure.
Proponents of Ottomanism responded to the idea of nationalism, which came to the fore with the French Revolution, with a proposal of Ottoman nationality. The Ottoman Empire, composed of many ethnic elements, was unprepared and vulnerable to the idea of nationalism. The necessity to cling to the Ottoman identity arose to prevent nationalism. Although the Ottoman identity has been emphasized since the establishment of the state, its emergence as an ideology in a Western sense dates back to the 19th century. Ottomanism was presented differently until the First Constitutional Era, during the reign of Abdul Hamid II, and during the period of the Committee of Union and Progress.
Although the equality and the removal of Muslim superiority brought by the Islahat Edict strengthened the idea of Ottomanism, it also began to undermine the state. The participation of ethnic elements in provincial councils, freedom of religion and missionary work, mixed courts, the abolition of the jizya tax, and the elimination of the millet-i hakime (dominant nation) concept benefited non-Muslims more than Muslims. The Young Ottomans stated that the Islahat Edict was not a fraternity edict but a privilege edict given to Westerners. They also demanded the proclamation of a constitutional regime. In the 1860s, newspapers like Basiret and İttihad advocated for a constitutional regime. Indeed, in Article 8 of the Kanun-ı Esasi (Constitution) accepted in 1876, everyone was referred to as “Ottoman,” and with the constitutional regime, Ottomanism seemed to have succeeded.
Although Ottomanism was supported by different ethnic elements until the Constitutional periods, there was a tendency to work against the interests of the Ottoman Empire in the assemblies. Crete and Bosnia were lost, Bulgaria declared its independence, and only the ancient Islamic lands and central provinces remained. It is seen here that Ottomanism received only superficial support from non-Muslims and could not be instilled in the public by the state. Later, when even Muslim elements rebelled, the failure to establish a thought instead of nationalism became apparent. Ottoman intellectuals, foreseeing this danger, saw that Ottomanism could mean being without nationality and Turkism could mean forced Turkification, and thus they sided with Islamism.
Authors who identified themselves as Islamists took a defensive stance against the materialist thoughts that came with Westernization. They worked to ensure the cultural revival and dynamism of Islam against materialist currents. They considered the Tanzimat and Islahat edicts as deviations from religious understanding and worked to prevent the loss of Islamic dominance. As a result, Islamism could become a state ideology. This ideology was derived as a solution to the difficulties faced by Muslim countries, the request for help from the caliph, and the necessity of the unification of Islamic countries.
Islamists also took on the task of ensuring the adaptation of new concepts to Islamic society. They proposed existing concepts such as consultation (meşveret) instead of democracy, council (şura) instead of parliament, and people of authority (ehlü’l hal) instead of voters. The ideas of nationalism and popular sovereignty that emerged with the influence of the French Revolution were met with Islam by the Young Ottomans and Islamists. The idea of Islamic unity (İttihad-ı İslam) appeared as an ideal in periodicals during this period. The idea emerged that only a union among Muslims could prevent their backwardness and defeat.
Rational and progressive interpretations of Islam emerged. There was an effort to return to the original sources and the pure form of Islam. For this, they referred to Islamic philosophy. References were made to Islamic philosophy and mystics as a means of modernization. The Enlightenment ideas of the 18th century were more suitable for social life than the positivism of the 19th century. Islamism began to be established similarly to nationalist ideologies in the West. National feelings were tried to be lived as Islamic feelings.
According to Islamists, Islam could meet contemporary needs. It was rational. It had an understanding that was open to modern developments and even commanded progress. Returning Islam to its original form and reaching the state that commanded progress could bring solutions. The West was, of course, superior, and this superiority should be taken and used. Borrowings could be made in technical aspects, not moral ones. Islam should be the nationality of Muslims, and they should try to live Islam.
Some of the intellectuals who sided with the Islamist movement include Şehbenderzade Hilmi, Cemaleddin Efgani, İsmail Fenni Ertuğrul, Said Nursi, Mizancı Murad, Şemsettin Günaltay, Mahmud Esad Efendi, Muhammed Abduh, Seyyid Ahmet Han, Seyyid Emir Ali, Said Halim Pasha, Mehmet Said Pasha, Mehmet Akif, and Filibeli Ahmet Hilmi. They wrote in magazines such as Sırat-ı Mustakim, İslam Mecmuası, İttihad-ı İslam, Sebilürreşad, Ceride-i Sufiye, Ceride-i İlmiye, Beyan-ül Hak, and Hikmet. Additionally, Efgani and Abduh expressed these ideas in Egypt, and Seyyid Ahmed Han in India.
They understood Islamization as fully adhering to the principles of Islam and approached it with ways of thinking that did not hinder progress. For Islamists, what to take and what not to take from the West was a fundamental issue. They believed that the concept of wisdom was a lost concept for Muslims. Within the cosmopolitan structure of the state, they also positively viewed the concepts of human fraternity and national fraternity. They strove for the rejection of superstitions and the reform of madrasas. They also contributed to the development of thought terms and mysticism.
Although Islamists were disillusioned by the Arab revolts, they continued their activities. During this period, Turkism gained importance, and Islamism took a back seat in the later republican period. Nevertheless, due to the competence of the authors, the founding will consulted them on Islamic matters. Mehmet Akif was offered to translate the Quran, Elmalılı Hamdi Yazır to write a tafsir, and Babanzade Ahmed Naim to write a hadith commentary.
The Arab revolts and Albania’s gaining independence weakened the Islamist movement. The disaster in the Balkan Wars and the earlier loss of Christian elements also weakened Ottomanism. Turkism remained. Some intellectuals still believed it was not too late and that a nationalism similar to that in Europe could be developed. Until 1913, Turkists wrote in Islamist magazines. Like all thought movements, Turkism developed as a project to save the state, so they did not feel alien to each other.
Turkists looked with envy at studies on the Orkhon Inscriptions, the origins of the Turks, and the Turkish language conducted in Europe and felt it was time to highlight the “Turk” identity. Authors such as Ali Suavi, Gaspıralı İsmail, Ahmet Vefik Pasha, Mustafa Celaleddin Pasha, Şemsettin Sami, Yusuf Akçura, Mehmed Tahir, Süleyman Hüsnü Pasha, Mizancı Murad, and Mehmed Emin wrote about this movement in newspapers and magazines like Terakki, Mizan, and İkdam. The Turkish Association, founded in 1908, Türk Yurdu, and the Turkish Hearth, founded in 1911, became centers and strengthened this movement. Babanzade Ahmed Naim, in Sebilürreşad, rejected the cause of nationalism, arguing that Islam did not need such partisanship. Turkism began to flourish and become the official ideology during the government of the Committee of Union and Progress.
Like other movements, Turkists wanted to start a movement as a project to save the state and could come together with others on many grounds. In magazines like İslam Mecmuası and Yeni Hayat, and in works like Ziya Gökalp’s “Turkification, Islamization, Modernization” and Yusuf Akçura’s “Three Policies,” common points of the movements can be seen.
During this period, all movements agreed on the need for modernization. All three opposed imitation. All three expressed that socialism was unsuitable for Turkish society and that systems imported from the West should not be imposed on society. All three movements united around democracy. The most oppressed during Abdul Hamid’s reign were the Westernizers. These were staunch democrats and liberals. Turkists did not advocate liberalism, as they focused on culture rather than the regime. Islamists also based everything related to democracy on the Quran. Freedom and equality are among the greatest principles of Islam.
Whether they were Westernizers or Islamists, the authors embarked on a path of contemplation to save the state. The divergences were not sharp but gradual. For instance, Turkists and Westernizers converged on the national economy. The difference with Westernizers was that they entrusted the economy not to the Turks but to the Ottoman nations. Turkists and Islamists argued that society was within Islamic civilization. However, while Turkists aimed to establish Turkish unity through Islam, Islamists focused on Islam without making national distinctions. Both Westernizers and Islamists opposed the pure Turkification of the language. Arabic and Persian words were part of the language, but Westernizers were particularly against the teaching of Arabic and Persian.
The imitation of the West due to a misunderstanding of religion was also a point of criticism for many authors. Islamists found the solution in Islamization and in bringing forth concepts in Islam that supported progress. Ali Suavi attributed the decline to irreligion, while Musa Kazım highlighted the absence of social justice in the West as a positive feature of Islam. There was an understanding that while Europe advanced materially, it regressed spiritually.
Reformists like Afghani and Abduh stood out as proponents of change, while İzmirli İsmail Hakkı represented a critical and eclectic way of thinking. During the renewal period, philosophy was seen as a tool for modernization, and efforts were made to rely on philosophical elements in Islam. Until 1950, Islamists developed the existing ideology rather than producing a new one. The movements of Turkism and Westernism were synthesized by official authorities in the republic and formed the basis of the founding cadre’s nationalist stance.
In the end, it was observed that the constitutional regime was used for non-Muslim interests rather than saving the state, that the Westernization goal did not consider intrinsic values, and that new ideas began to divide society. It is noteworthy that the officials who emerged as Young Ottomans and Young Turks were bureaucratic efforts that took on a political guise within the modernization effort of long-standing administrative reactions. The behavior of rebellious officials showing resistance to save the state and later resembling the oppressive regime they complained about is worth examining.
The thought movements that culminated with the Committee of Union and Progress continued to exist in a mixed form within the cadres during this period. The ancient state was increasingly in difficult situations against the West, and in a “grasping at straws” manner, every kind of contemplation was welcomed. In this environment, the boundaries of thought movements were not fully drawn, and the definition and nature of modernization were not fully determined.
It is also interesting that modernization, which has meant conservatism since ancient times, culminated with an emphasis on Turkishness. Officials who prioritized Turkism and Westernism continued as Young Ottomans, the Committee of Union and Progress, and the Republican People’s Party, leaving Islamism and Ottomanism in the background. Looking at the conceptual world at the founding of the republic, it can be seen that Turkism formed the framework of modernization. According to Peyami Safa, terms like “National Struggle,” “National Independence,” “National Movement,” “National Victory,” “Grand National Assembly,” “National Sovereignty,” and “National Forces” showcase Turkish nationalism. Additionally, expressions in the Independence March by Islamist Mehmet Akif, such as “It is the star of my nation,” “It belongs only to my nation,” “It is the right of my nation who worships the truth,” “A rose to my heroic race,” and “There is no extinction for you, nor for my race forever,” are examples of the nationalist transformation in society.
References
- Cahid Şenel, From Tanzimat to the Present: Turkish Thought, AUZEF course notes, 2017.
- Hilmi Ziya Ülken, History of Contemporary Thought in Turkey, İş Bankası Culture Publications, 2014.
- Peyami Safa, Perspectives on the Turkish Revolution, Ötüken Publications, Ankara, 2010.