Turkish social studies such as law, literature, history, politics, economy, psychology, sociology are among the weakest in Turkey. That’s because Turkey lagged behind its European counterparts and gave weight to essential fields for its survival. Primary field is military, Turkey has always been a dominant militaristic country in the region. Skilled labor has always been rallied to military, in fact in this militaristic society, highest skill was to battle actually. The predecessor of Turkey, Ottoman Empire was heavily relying on war economy and they actually collected tax as soldiers due to constant battles.
We can appeal to Maslow’s Hiearchy of Needs or the common sense about what we do first. We have to survive first, than we build a community; because this is a social survival. After surviving physically we seek respect, love, knowledge, beauty… In order to seek knowledge, you’ll have to establish a foundation. Turkey as it was an individual, has embraced western institutions in its vital organs such as military and industry. Yet social studies are secondary concerns.
Compared to the European counterparts, Turkish academy lacks the proper methodology or capability. It’s worse in social studies, since natural sciences are essential in survival of the economy. Without social studies, how does Turkey survive social crises? It doesn’t, it collapses frequently. The political borders don’t often change, but its social constructs, institutions, ideals collapse. This is because the society didn’t construct reality with factual grounds and we must build above it.
We have to build the future through social studies, just like we, as a society build a future for our individual beings. The future is built with social constructs. Just like an individual builds a career through human relations, society builds it through social institutions. Turkish academy never builds, but maybe produces descriptive elementary essays. Any social study worker should bear in mind that social studies should build the future. It’s like the individuals ideals.
Natural sciences deal with the past of the universe, social studies deal with the future of the humanity. Natural sciences are reality, past, the given; social studies are the possibility, future and creation. Not all social studies embrace this mission. They usually focused on the past. Yes we have to know the past of the universe through natural sciences and the past of the social constructs of our kind; but why do we try to know them if not establishing the future?
Turkish academy seems to be struggling with survival, let alone establishing the future. That’s the major problem. The struggle doesn’t seem to revitalize the field since they don’t seem to rely on factual grounds to establish the future. First, we need to apply to science to found our future on concrete factual grounds and than we may continue with seeing the society in an objective way and further, build it.
A proof of struggle in Turkish academy is the entrance exam for Military Academy of Turkey, every year approximately 600.000 students apply and 3.000 admitted. Turkish students score lowest in the social studies. (p. 81) Despite the fact that the material of social studies, history, culture, human relations are abundant in this country, it’s lagging even more in these fields. Dut to the reason that many department remain vacant after university exams, the minimum point threshold has been removed. Still, not able to attract good students to basic sciences, Turkish state has introduced incentives and scholarships for the chosen departments.
The most successful and credited social scientists of Turkey usually live abroad. They usually seem to make it off Turkey to continue their research whether for political reasons or financial difficulties. The greatest historians such as Halil İnalcık, Şevket Pamuk, Stanford J. Shaw, Bernard Lewis, Cemal Kafadar or authors such as Orhan Pamuk, Elif Şafak, Nazım Hikmet, Yaşar Kemal have spent majority of their lives abroad for a reason. It was the arid climate of social studies in Turkey and the hardship of establishing future in the face of the reactionists.