The efforts toward Westernization in the Ottoman Empire became apparent with the 1839 Tanzimat Edict and entered an intensive phase with the First Constitutional Era in 1876. The proclamation of the Kanun-ı Esasi (Ottoman Basic Law) provided a legal framework for Westernization. Although the constitutional monarchy was interrupted in 1878 due to wartime conditions, Westernization efforts and philosophical movements persisted even without a constitutional government until the Second Constitutional Era in 1908.
The Evolution of the Concept of Modernization
The Ottomans identified the cause of their military defeats in the 18th century and began efforts to rectify the situation. These endeavors, referred to as “teceddüd” (renewal) in the 18th century, were later termed “ıslahat” (reform) in the 19th century and “muasırlaşma” (contemporization) in the 20th century. Subsequently, these efforts were also called “Westernization” by the “garpçılar” (Westernists). Today, the process is referred to as “modernization,” and it’s decoupled from positive connotations like “development” or “contemporization.” The term “Westernization” isn’t deemed suitable because the aim wasn’t a complete imitation of the West. Therefore, “modernization” is preferred, as it implies neither a positive sense like development nor a negative one like Westernization.
Increasing Western Influence and Shifts in Diplomatic Approach
Before the 18th century, efforts toward renewal and development were observed during the periods of Young Osman, Murad IV, the Köprülüs, and Koçi Bey, but these were largely driven by the state’s internal dynamics. During this time, there was no apparent admiration or acceptance of the West. However, during the Tulip Era, a clear interest in discovering the West emerged. In the reigns of Mahmud I, Mustafa III, and Abdülhamid I, the military superiority of the West was recognized, and methods for applying Western practices were explored. Furthermore, a shift occurred in diplomacy from an authoritarian stance to a more consultative approach.
The Role of Intellectuals and Societal Divisions
Figures such as Yirmisekiz Mehmet Çelebi, Mehmed Said, İshak Bey, Ebubekir Ratib, Mustafa Sami, and Tunuslu Hayrettin observed Europe’s advancement and documented their observations. In the 19th century, the European embassy system was adopted in diplomacy, and Western works and ideas were borrowed. The elite class became proponents of renewal, leading to a confrontation with the religious populace. Terms like “terakkiyat-ı cedide” (new advancements) and “alafranga” (Western-style) became widespread. The Ottoman Empire’s center of attraction began to shift from East to West.
Ongoing Modernization and the Foundations of Republican Reforms
The comprehensive modernization effort that began in the 19th century is still ongoing and represents an unfinished process. Both the republican revolutions after 1923 and the current political and social phenomena we experience are rooted in this period. For example, figures like Abdullah Cevdet and Kılıçzade Hakkı put forth ideas—some of which were implemented during the Republic—that are still debated today and caused considerable uproar. Proposals such as changing attire, closing dervish lodges (tekke and zaviye) and madrasas, advancing women’s rights, reforming language and the economy, and promoting private enterprise form the foundation of a continuing trajectory.
Intellectual Currents During the Modernization Period
During the modernization period, various viewpoints emerged with the aim of saving the state and strengthening society against the West. These views are known as intellectual currents, and none of them were monolithic or absolute. Categorized as Islamism, Westernism, Ottomanism, and Turkism, these viewpoints contained internal contradictions and exhibited a fluid, permeable structure.
Ottomanism and Its Stance Against Nationalism
Proponents of Ottomanism countered the idea of nationalism, which gained prominence with the French Revolution, by proposing an “Ottoman nationality.” The Ottoman Empire, composed of many ethnic elements, was unprepared for and vulnerable to the idea of nationalism. This led to the necessity of embracing an Ottoman identity to curb nationalism. While an Ottoman identity had been emphasized since the state’s founding, it became a Western-style ideology in the 19th century. Ottomanism was presented differently before the First Constitutional Era, during the reign of Abdülhamid II, and during the Committee of Union and Progress period.
The Decline of Ottomanism and the Status of Muslim Elements
While the Reform Edict brought equality and eliminated the superiority of Muslims, which strengthened Ottomanism in theory, it began to undermine the state. The participation of ethnic elements in provincial councils, freedom of conversion and missionary activity, mixed courts, the abolition of the jizya (poll tax), and the disappearance of the concept of millet-i hâkime (ruling nation) benefited non-Muslims more than Muslims. The Young Ottomans argued that the Reform Edict was not an edict of brotherhood but one of privileges granted to Westerners. They also demanded the proclamation of a constitutional monarchy. In the 1860s, newspapers like Basiret and İttihad featured calls for a constitutional government. Indeed, Article 8 of the Kanun-ı Esasi, adopted in 1876, stated that everyone was to be called “Ottoman,” and with the constitutional government, Ottomanism seemed to succeed.
The Failure of Ottomanism and the Shift Towards Turkism
Although Ottomanism was supported by various ethnic groups until the Constitutional periods, tendencies to work against Ottoman interests were observed in the assemblies. Crete and Bosnia were lost, Bulgaria declared its independence, and only the ancient Islamic lands and central provinces remained. It became evident that Ottomanism received only token support, especially from non-Muslims, and could not be instilled in the populace by the state. Later, when even Muslim elements revolted, the failure of implanting an idea in place of nationalism became clear. Ottoman intellectuals, foreseeing this danger, realized that Ottomanism could mean remaining without a nationality, and Turkism could mean forced Turkification, leading them to side with Islamism.
Islamism: A Spiritual Defense Against Materialist Currents
Authors who identified as Islamists moved to defend against the materialist ideas that came with Westernization. They strived to ensure the cultural revival and dynamism of Islam against materialistic currents. They considered the Tanzimat and Reform edicts as deviations from religious understanding and worked to prevent the loss of Islam’s dominance. As a result, Islamism managed to become a state ideology. This ideology emerged as a solution to the difficulties faced by Muslim countries, the appeals for help from the Caliph, and the necessity of Muslim countries uniting.
Islamism’s Adaptation to New Concepts and the Idea of Islamic Unity
Islamists also took on the task of adapting new concepts to Islamic society. They proposed existing terms such as “meşveret” (consultation) instead of democracy, “shura” (council) instead of parliament, and “ahl al-hal” (people of solutions) instead of electors. The ideas of nationalism and popular sovereignty, which emerged under the influence of the French Revolution, were reconciled with Islam by the Young Ottomans and Islamists. The idea of İttihad-ı İslam (Islamic Unity) manifested itself as an ideal in periodicals during this period. The notion arose that only a union established among Muslims could prevent their decline and defeat.
The Rational Interpretation of Islam and Its Relationship with the West
Rational and progressive interpretations of Islam emerged. There was an effort to return to the original sources and the pure form of Islam, for which they turned to Islamic philosophy. Islamic philosophical elements and mystics were referenced as tools for modernization. The enlightenment ideas of the 18th century were considered more suitable for societal life than the positivism of the 19th century. Islamism began to be established as a parallel to nationalist ideologies in the West. National sentiments were sought to be preserved as Islamic sentiments.
According to Islamists, Islam could meet contemporary needs. It was rational. It had an understanding open to modern developments, even commanding progress. Returning Islam to its original form, to its state that commands development, could bring solutions. The West was certainly superior; this superiority should be adopted and utilized, but only in terms of technique, not morally. Islam should be the nationality of Muslims, and they should strive to live according to Islam.
Islamist Intellectuals and Publications
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 Paşa, Mehmet Said Paşa, Mehmet Akif, and Filibeli Ahmet Hilmi are some of the intellectuals who supported the Islamist current. They wrote in journals such as Sırat-ı Müstakim, İslam Mecmuası, İttihad-ı İslam, Sebilürreşad, Ceride-i Sufiye, Ceride-i İlmiye, Beyan-ül Hak, and Hikmet. Additionally, Efgani and Abduh voiced this understanding in Egypt, and Seyyid Ahmed Han in India.
Core Principles and Efforts of Islamism
Islamists understood Islamization as full adherence to the principles of Islam, which they reconciled with modes of thought that did not hinder progress. A fundamental question for Islamists was what to adopt and what not to adopt from the West. They believed that the concept of “hikmet” (wisdom) was a lost concept for Muslims. Within the cosmopolitan structure of the state, they also positively embraced the concepts of uhuvvet-i insaniyye (human brotherhood) and uhuvvet-i vataniyye (national brotherhood). They strived for the rejection of superstitions and the reform of madrasas. They also contributed to the development of philosophical terms and Sufism.
The Weakening of Islamism and the Rise of Turkism
Although Islamists were disillusioned by the Arab revolts, they continued their activities. During this period, Turkism gained importance, and Islamism receded into the background in the subsequent republican era. Nevertheless, due to the merits of the authors, the founding will of the Republic consulted them on Islamic matters. Mehmet Akif was offered to translate the Quran, Elmalılı Hamdi Yazır to write a tafsir (exegesis), and Babanzade Ahmed Naim to write a commentary on hadith.
The Arab revolts and Albania’s independence weakened the Islamist movement. The disaster of the Balkan Wars, and the earlier loss of Christian elements, also weakened Ottomanism. Only Turkism remained. Some intellectuals still believed it wasn’t too late to develop a European-style nationalism. Until 1913, Turcologists wrote in Islamist journals. Since Turkism, like all other intellectual currents, developed as a project to save the state, they were not alien to each other.
The Rise and Institutionalization of Turkism
Turcologists looked with admiration at the studies conducted in Europe on the Orkhon Inscriptions, the origins of Turks, and the Turkish language, feeling it was time to emphasize the “Turkish” 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 popularized this movement in newspapers and journals like Terakki, Mizan, and İkdam. The Turkish Association, founded in 1908, Turkish Homeland (Türk Yurdu), and the Turkish Hearth (Türk Ocağı), founded in 1911, became centers that strengthened this movement. Babanzade Ahmed Naim, in Sebilürreşad, rejected “dava-yı kavmiyet” (the cause of nationalism), arguing that Islam did not need such partisanship. Turkism began to flourish under the Committee of Union and Progress government and became the official ideology.
Common Ground and Distinctions Among Currents
Turcologists, like other currents, aimed to initiate a movement as a project to save the state, and they could often converge with others on many grounds. In journals like İslam Mecmuası and Yeni Hayat, and in Ziya Gökalp’s Turkification, Islamization, Modernization and Yusuf Akçura’s Three Types of Politics, commonalities between the currents are observed.
During this period, all currents agreed on the necessity of “muasırlaşma,” meaning modernization. All three were against imitation. All three currents asserted that socialism was alien to Turkish society and that systems imported from the West should not be forcibly imposed on society. All three currents converged around democracy. Under Abdülhamid’s rule, Westernists were the most persecuted. These were staunch democrats and liberals. Turcologists did not advocate for liberalism, as their focus was on culture, not the regime. Islamists grounded everything related to democracy in the Quran, believing that freedom and equality were among Islam’s greatest rules.
Intersecting Paths and Nuanced Differences
Whether Westernist or Islamist, intellectuals embarked on a path of contemplation to save the state. Their divergent paths were not sharp but rather fluid. For instance, Turcologists and Westernists united on the issue of a national economy. The difference for Westernists was that the economy should be entrusted to all Ottoman nations, not just Turks. Turcologists and Islamists argued that society belonged within Islamic civilization. However, while Turcologists aimed to establish Turkish unity through Islam, Islamists focused on Muslim unity without ethnic division. Westernists and Islamists were against the purification of the Turkish language. Arabic and Persian words were part of the language, but Westernists were particularly against teaching Arabic and Persian.
The Critique of Misguided Religious Understanding and the Quest for Solutions
A point of criticism for many authors was that a misguided understanding of religion led to the imitation of the West. Islamists found the solution in Islamization and in bringing forth concepts in Islam that supported progress. Ali Suavi attributed decline to godlessness, while Musa Kazım highlighted the absence of Islam’s social justice aspect in the West as a positive feature. There was a prevalent understanding that while Europe advanced materially, it declined spiritually.
The Role of Philosophy and the Legacy of Intellectual Movements
Reformers like Afgani and Abduh stood out as advocates for change, while İzmirli İsmail Hakkı represented a critical and eclectic style of thought. During the renewal period, philosophy was viewed as a tool for modernization, and efforts were made to rely on philosophical elements within Islam. Until before 1950, Islamists developed existing ideologies rather than creating new ones. The Turkist and Westernist currents were synthesized by official bodies in the Republic and formed the basis of the founding cadre’s nationalist stance.
Outcomes of Modernization and Bureaucratic Dynamics
Ultimately, it’s evident that the constitutional administration was used for non-Muslim interests rather than saving the state, that inherent values were disregarded in the pursuit of Westernization, and that new ideas began to divide society. It is noteworthy that the long-standing administrative reactions of officials, who emerged as Young Ottomans and Young Turks, transformed into a bureaucratic effort under a political guise within the pursuit of modernization. The rebellious officials’ act of reacting to save the state and then becoming similar to the oppressive regime they complained about is a behavior that warrants examination.
The Synthesis of Intellectual Currents and the Framework of Modernization
The intellectual currents, culminating with the Committee of Union and Progress, continued to exist within the cadres as a mixture during this period. The ancient state found itself in increasingly difficult situations against the West, and “a drowning man clutches at a straw,” seeking any kind of thought. In this environment, the boundaries of intellectual currents were not clearly defined, nor was the definition and nature of modernization fully determined.
It is also interesting that modernization ultimately converged with the emphasis on “Turkism,” which has historically carried connotations of conservatism. Officials who prioritized Turkism and Westernism continued their influence through the Young Ottomans, the Committee of Union and Progress, and the CHP (Republican People’s Party), pushing Islamism and Ottomanism into the background. If one examines the conceptual world at the founding of the Republic, it becomes clear that Turkism framed modernization. According to Peyami Safa, phrases like “National Struggle,” “National Independence,” “National Movement,” “National Victory,” “Grand National Assembly,” “National Sovereignty,” and “National Forces” exemplify Turkish nationalism to us. Furthermore, Islamist Mehmet Akif’s expressions in the National Anthem such as “That is the star of my nation.”, “It belongs to my nation alone,” “It is the right of my nation, which worships God, to be independent,” “Smile upon my heroic race,” and “May there never be, never for my race, any annihilation” also serve as examples of the nationalist transformation within society.
