Search

The issue of Turkey?s accession to the European Union reintroduces into the ever ongoing attempts to divide the world into culturally defined blocks the task of determining whether the Turkish nation is European enough topartake in the formation of a European identity. This paper compares and examines this possibility through two diametrically opposed theoretical frameworks, essentialism and constructivism, and attempts to bridge the gapbetween the two with reference to the particular case study.The main purpose of this paper is to examine the issues involved in reconciling the European with the Turkish identity and to determine, to the extent to which it is possible, whether it is indeed feasible for the Turkish people to constitute part of the European demos and for the emerging European identity to include the Turkish nation.The paper begins by briefly explaining how the idea of Europe has evolved throughout time, in such a manner as to render the formation of a European polity, a European ?demos? and, therefore, a European identity continuallymore likely and necessary. In accordance to theories of collective identity building a nation?s belonging to Europe, and thus its potential to embrace a European identity, is a combination of two main factors: its historical links with Europe and its will to be part of its present and future, or in the words of Anthony Smith, to hold a ?collective belief in the common destiny of [Europe] ?.Both a historical and a contemporary perspective should be taken into consideration, as is advocated respectively by the two main schools of thought on European identity building, essentialism and constitutionalism.Accordingly Turkey?s European orientation is examined under two angles. In a first section there is a critical overview of the extent to which the Turkish nation has been historically linked to Europe. This sectionexplores Turkish efforts to Europeanise from the catalytic Tanzimat reforms of the Ottoman Empire, to the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923 by Kemal Ataturk and the attempt to reform and change the notion of the nation and identity in Turkey towards a more western prototype. On a second level the paper assesses the existence or non-existence of the belief among the Turkish people in a common destiny of Turkey and Europe. This part draws on contemporary press releases in Turkey, commentaries in Journals regarding European attitudes towards the expansion, work on Turkish nationalism, interviews, and finally attitude surveys and opinion polls carried out in Turkey. The extent to which they identify with Europe as a cultural unit, and not only as a set of civic institutions, is the main point addressed in order to assess the whether and how far essentialism or constructivismapplies.The findings of this case study (2003) pointed towards the constructivist paradigm being more likely to apply. The notion of ?common heritage? between Turkey and Europe is used more often by the Turkish media within the context of the attack on the EU for rendering the process of Turkish accession painful and time-consuming, than it is experienced in Turkish national feeling. Though there may be a willingness to form a common political and economic destiny, there is little belief in the potential for the integration of cultures and the formation of an inclusive culturalidentity, in spite of the admittedly intense historical interaction between the two parties (as the new approaches in historiography are pointing out)... ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses how discursive contexts shape expectations of actors. In particular, I examine how a developing state such as Turkey, acts in conflicting discursive environment that exhibits 'mixed signals' regarding economic interaction with the US. How are economic policies made meaningful in these environments and how do these 'mixed signals' constitute expectations that when unmet transform partnership-building opportunities into disappointment and distrust? The question is how is it possible to act in a particular discursive environment that insists that globalization is both a given fact for which countries must adapt and adjust, and something to be molded and shaped to benefit impoverished states in particular? What actions might be expected to be successful and how might these expectations reveal themselves and play out in trade talk between international actors? Moreover, how are identities strategically shifted in reaction to particular historical events? I attempt to unpack the discursive context made meaningful through a dominant discourse of globalization that I argue is a single logic of 'contingent inevitability' that overlaps with a post 9/11 shift in regards to 'Muslim Allies' and US foreign economic policy. Turkey, acting in the context of a post-9/11 context, represents the coalescence of expectations, identities and neoliberal discourse that constitutes possible action by developing countries attempting to 'adapt' and simultaneously 'shape' globalization so that it benefits poor as well as rich states. The 'missed signals' and 'missed expectations' for economic policy outcomes in this 'new context' reveal interpretations of seemingly insignificant economic policies that deeply impact the relationship between the US and Turkey and demonstrate how meanings are made and understood in and through the language of actors. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]