Teaching a State-Required Course:
The History of the Turkish Revolution
Dilek Barlas
Associate Professor
Koç University
Department of History
Sarıyer 34450
Istanbul, Turkey
dbarlas@ku.edu.tr
Telephone no.: 00902123381408
Fax no.: 00902123383760
Yonca Köksal
Assistant Professor
Koç University
Department of History
Sarıyer 34450
Istanbul, Turkey
ykoksal@ku.edu.tr
Telephone no.: 00902123381710
Fax no.: 00902123383760
1
Introduction
The “History of the Turkish Revolution” course has been a mandatory course in higher
education since the early years of the Turkish Republic, and it serves a specific function: to
introduce young citizens in a positive way to the Turkish Revolution and to the fundamental
principles of the Republic. When the course was adopted, it had a general purpose of creating
loyal citizens to the nation-state as well as a particular purpose that is breaking away from the
Ottoman past. Although there have been changes in the content and teaching methods of the
course since the 1930s, its purpose of creating loyal citizens has remained the same. In fact,
creating citizens from royal subjects was the case in many European countries mainly in the
19th century and the beginning of the 20th century during the nation-state formation processes.
But the Turkish case is unique in the sense that the transition from the Ottoman Empire to the
Turkish nation-state in the first half of the 20th century had still its continuing effects in
Turkish education in the 21st century.1 Thus, the first aim of this paper is to analyze history
and evolution of the “History of the Turkish Revolution” course in order to understand the
durability and continuation of the course in a changing world context.
This emphasis on the dominance of nation-state over individual creates a contrast with
the philosophy of Liberal Arts education which aims at developing the student’s rational
thought, free will and intellectual capabilities. Moreover, methods of teaching the course are
problematic in a Liberal Arts Program. Teaching a state-required course creates several
problems, such as lack of student interest, students’ prejudices about the course as a result of
having taken the same course during their secondary education, and limitations set by the
state. In order to overcome these prejudices and make the course attractive to students, on the
one hand, we have developed ways to include the proposed content in the Liberal Arts
2
program of Koç University.2 On the other hand, we have adopted teaching methods from the
New History approach, such as comparative history and history from below. In this way, the
course provides an opportunity for our students to familiarise themselves with the history of
their own society and provokes students to think about contemporary problems of Turkish
society. Thus, the second purpose of this paper is to discuss challenges of teaching this course
in a Liberal Arts Program aimed at analytical and critical thinking and to offer solutions using
new methods in history.
In the following section, we will explore the history of this course in the Turkish
university curriculum. We will first analyse the history of its formation and its development in
comparison with the Soviet case. In fact, in the Soviet Union, where the ideological
indoctrination of the younger generation was even more important than in Turkey, the concept
of teaching a course on the Russian Revolution was quite different. While the Turkish
Revolution course has been taught such that it covers the same subjects in secondary and
higher education, the Soviet education covered different subjects in secondary and higher
education, as we will discuss below. We are comparing Turkey and the Soviet Union because
in both of these countries new systems surviving for decades were established in rejecting
their past. While socialism had collapsed in the Soviet Union in 1989, the Kemalist
Republican system in Turkey is still alive. Since the Turkish state still requires this course to
be taught at Turkish universities today, the paper will also discuss the methods and techniques
that we have developed in teaching this course in order to respond to the needs of
undergraduate students of the twenty-first century. Then, we will explain the methods we
have employed in the classroom, with an emphasis on the new theoretical paradigm in history,
as well as our experiences with teaching the course at Koç University.
3
The Origins of the “History of the Turkish Revolution” course
Major state transformations such as social revolutions and revolutions from above can
also be considered cultural revolutions since the state is not simply an organ of coercion and
economic power. “Through forms, rituals and routines, state activities attempt to regulate
social identities and form constitutive regulation… Fundamental social classifications, like
race and gender, are enshrined in law, embedded in institutions, routinized in administrative
procedures and symbolized in rituals of the state.”3 These attempts of state regulation over
culture can hurt as much as they help. Using cultural symbols, mythologies and rituals, state
rulers can invent traditions to immortalize the nation and appeal to their citizens.4 However,
the same policies can define and stigmatize some groups as the “other” while imagining the
nation.5 The state activities can encourage some while suppressing, marginalizing, eroding
and undermining others.
Schooling plays a major role in cultural revolutions. National education becomes a
means for creating citizens in line with state policies and ideologies. In the late 19 th and early
20th centuries, the Ottoman state started to invest in state education, but the literacy rate was
around 10-15% at the time of the foundation of the Turkish Republic. The previous imperial
subjects were in need of socialization to the concept of Turkish nation and Turkish
citizenship. Thus, the “History of the Turkish Revolution” course became one of the means in
Higher Education to create citizens, and its foundation and evolution was related to the
general developments in National education and in History education in particular. In fact, in
1994, the Minister of National Education Nevzat Ayaz wrote that in the organizational
structure of the state, there were only two ministries that have the term “national” in their
titles: The Ministry of National Defense and Ministry of National Education.6 The idea of
4
national education became a central idea for the new Turkish Republic, and the Ministry of
Education was founded on 2 May 1920, only ten days after the formation of the Grand
National Assembly.7 In the midst of heavy fighting in 1921, the Education Congress was met
in Ankara to “give a national direction to education”.8 In 1923, public education became
mandatory for both boys and girls. In 1924, the Law of Unification of Instruction (Tevhid-i
Tedrisat Kanunu) was passed, and it has formed the basis of all educational laws.
The origin of the course on “the History of the Turkish Revolution” dates back to the
early decades of the foundation of the Republic. This was an important time period when the
new Turkish state necessitated the consent and support of its citizens so as to consolidate its
rule and apply its reform policies. According to Christoph Neumann, with early Turkish
Republican era, the main paradigm was to form Turkish history thesis in an attempt to provide
an identity to the new state.9 Denial of the Ottoman and Islamic past and an emphasis on
linkages with ancient civilizations in Anatolia and Turks in Central Asia became the major
concerns of history education.10 History education served a special function in this context,
because critical subjects such as Ottoman history and the history of the War of Independence
(1919-1922) had to be taught in a way to gain the support of the citizens for the new regime.11
In other words, the new Turkish state aimed at creating loyal citizens from imperial subjects.12
The implementation and developments in the “History of the Turkish Revolution” course
should be considered part of the attempt to “raise citizens who are committed to Atatürk’s
principles and revolutions, and to Atatürk nationalism… who embrace, protect, and develop
the national, moral, spiritual, historical and cultural values of the Turkish nation”, with the
words of Ayaz.13
Even though there were earlier attempts to show the importance of education, it is not
surprising that steps towards the teaching of a national history were taken only in 1929 when
the new Republican regime became more confident after the success of some political
5
reforms. The abolition of the sultanate (1922) and the caliphate (1924) and the formation of
the Republic (1923) were central to the transformation from the Ottoman Empire to the new
Turkish nation-state. In 1925, the Republican government did not only pass the Law on the
Maintenance of Order but also closed down the religious shrines and the dervish convents. In
1926, the European calendar and the Swiss civil code were adopted. By 1927, Atatürk already
felt more secure and gave his “great speech” (nutuk) which provided his interpretation of the
War of Independence and against what great odds it was fought and won.14 In 1928, the
replacement of the Arab script by the Roman alphabet and the removal of the article in the
constitution describing Islam as the religion of the state further aimed at giving a modern and
secular outlook to the minds and bodies of the citizens.
Secular reforms of the Republic were to be taught to public trough schooling. As a
next step, in 1929, experts selected by the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk, started to work on civic education and national history. The Republican leadership
believed that civic education and national history would facilitate the formation of a Turkish
nation-state, since the Ottomans had neglected these two domains. They were convinced that
“these two cultural movements [civic education and national history] are quite significant for
the revival of national essence and consciousness.”15 In Afet İnan’s terms, this was the
beginning of “a wide period of historical research.”16 In fact, Büşra Ersanlı Behar defines this
kind of historiography as a “missionary historiography”. Historians such Afet İnan
represented “a citizenship-history school” which became the torchbearer of nationalist
historians and formed “a national history front” in the name of science.17 Therefore, the idea
of teaching a course on the Turkish Revolution emerged in the 1930s.
Moreover, the repercussions of the 1929 world economic crisis led the Turkish
political leadership to give ideological shape to the new Republic.
18
In Europe, ideologies
such as fascism, liberalism and socialism prevailed. In addition, the ruling elites were
6
concerned with keeping the sovereignty of the new state when political and military rivalry
dominated Europe. At the same time, the Turkish leadership, aware of the competing
ideologies, aimed to prove the uniqueness and success of the Turkish revolution to Turkey’s
citizens. Within this context, the Turkish intellectuals and political leaders started discussing
étatism as an alternative way to the existing political systems in Europe and a way to prevent
their domination in Turkey. For the Turkish political leadership, étatism was not socialism
because it considered private initiative in the economy as essential. It was not liberalism either
because the state was responsible for the national economy. Etatism was a system which
aimed at satisfying the important needs of the country as soon as possible.19
In the early 1930s, the Turkish leaders were already convinced that they could create
republican, nationalist, étatist, populist, revolutionary, and secular citizens in the new nationstate. One of the most important ways to reach this goal was to create historical consciousness
among the youth. In 1930, copies of a book entitled The Main Features of Turkish History
were published, and it became a guidebook for future history books.20 In 1933, the Institute of
the Turkish Revolution was established at the University of Istanbul in order to teach a course
on the history of the Turkish Revolution. According to the Minister of Education of the time
Reşit Galip, the University was to shape the ideology of the Turkish Revolution.21 Between
1934 and 1942, the key political leaders of the Republic — namely, Yusuf Hikmet Bayur,
İsmet İnönü, Recep Peker, Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, and Yusuf Kemal Tengirşenk — gave a
series of lectures on the revolution’s political, legal, economic, and institutional aspects at the
institute.22
The first lecture was given by the Minister of Education, Yusuf Hikmet Bayur, who
explained the different stages of the Turkish Revolution. In his introduction, he pointed out
that the military and political aspects of the revolution started with the War of Independence
against the Allied powers. Once the Turkish Republic had been founded, the revolution turned
7
to legal issues. After that, the most important aspect was the economic one. In fact, in the
second part of his lecture, in which he referred to the Ottoman past, he emphasised how the
Ottomans became economically dependent on foreign powers because of the capitulations.
Bayur added, “the Turkish people of Anatolia had to cope with this economic burden.” 23 For
that reason, he believed that the success of the Turkish Revolution at that time was mainly
related to the abolition of the Caliphate and the capitulations. Therefore, he divided the
Turkish Revolution into three sub-periods: the military and political period (1914-1923), the
legal period (1923-1926), and the economic period (1929-1934). In this process, “the Turkish
people formed the body and Atatürk was the head of the Revolution”; without Atatürk, the
Turkish Revolution could not have succeeded.24
M. Esat Bozkurt followed Bayur. He discussed what revolution meant in general,
referring to various revolutions such as the socialist and national socialist ones. He also
discussed what philosophers (such as Kant, Nietzsche and Marx) and Turkish intellectuals
(such as Mithat Paşa and Namık Kemal) had thought about revolutions. Having presented
these general issues, he compared Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Turkish Revolution to
Lenin and the Russian Revolution. He argued that Lenin was not a real man of the pen or a
man of action; however, Mustafa Kemal was both.25 Moreover, he argued that people were
able to make revolutions, but that they needed to be oriented by leaders. For instance, he
stated that the Turkish nation was born again after World War I thanks to its great leader,
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.26
Prime Minister İnönü’s lecture was along the same line as Bayur’s and Bozkurt’s.
According to him, the Turkish Revolution started on two fronts, as a war against the invading
powers and a war against the Ottoman system.27 According to İnönü, the Turkish Revolution
was the liberation of the Turkish nation, and this liberation was aimed at making the Turkish
nation an eminent society. But in order to reach this goal, İnönü believed that they should not
8
adopt “dogmatic viewpoints.”28 Like Bozkurt, he believed that Turkey should not opt for
socialism or fascism. Contrary to these ideologies, the Turkish Revolution was to be “a
dynamic and an enduring process.”29 He also stated that to understand and love the Turkish
Revolution meant to understand Mustafa Kemal and follow his principles.
As the astute reader will notice, these lectures were given in 1934, at the end of the
economic period as defined by Bayur. This was the year when étatist measures were already
implemented and the First Industrial Plan put into effect. By 1934, étatism was already
accepted as an economic policy as well as a political strategy for Turkey. For that reason, the
political leadership aimed to persuade the audience that the Turkish Revolution was authentic
and different from “dogmatic viewpoints” (such as socialism), in İnönü’s terms. To prove
this, these intellectuals in their lectures compared the nature of the Turkish Revolution to that
of other existing political regimes around the world. By drawing comparisons with the
experiences of others, they aimed to prove that the new system in Turkey was not a copy of
another system, but, in fact, a “third way.”30
The lectures of Tengirşenk and Peker mainly discussed economic changes during the
Turkish Revolution as well as political systems, including the Turkish one. Tengirşenk, like
the others, first presented the historical background of the Ottoman economic system. In this
context, he mainly underlined how the Ottomans became dependent on foreign powers
because of the capitulations.31 After discussing the economic and political collapse of the
Ottoman Empire, he dealt with the foundation of the new Turkish state. The Industrial
Revolution in Turkey occupied the largest part of his lecture on the economic aspects of the
revolution. After giving examples of étatist measures undertaken in Turkey, he argued that the
development of a national industry would make the Turkish people forget the troubled times
of the Ottoman Empire. 32
9
Peker discussed socialism, fascism and liberalism not from a philosophical point of
view, as had Bozkurt, but from a political one. After giving examples of such regimes around
the world, he defined the Turkish system: first, the Turkish Revolution was not a copy of
another system, as the Ottoman Constitutional regime of 1877 had been.33 Moreover, the
Turkish Revolution was not based on liberalism or class revolution. In criticizing all the
existing regimes, he argued that the Turkish Republic opted for a national state instead of a
liberal one, for a single-party system with a chief as the head instead of a multi-party one, and
for a national economy instead of a liberal one. He believed that the Turkish Revolution
would have universal effects.
In summary, all of these leaders criticised the Ottoman past in their lectures. In doing
so, they were also critical of the foreign powers that had rendered the Ottomans dependent on
them. They all argued that the Turkish people, as a reaction to the past, had started the
revolution under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) and had been successful until the
mid-1930s. Moreover, they believed that the revolution had not yet been completed. Turkey
had not copied any of the existing systems around the world, but had developed an authentic
regime or a third way. To prove this point, information was provided about different political
ideologies (such as socialism and fascism), and comparisons were made between these
ideologies and Kemalist principles. In this early decade, the course encouraged analytical
thinking by making comparisons and situating the Turkish Revolution in a global context.
However, the aspect of social engineering was quite visible: through analysis and comparison,
the course aimed at achieving the students’ agreement on the uniqueness and success of the
Turkish model.
In contrast to the argument of the revolution’s uniqueness, one could argue, Turkey
was very much influenced by the Soviet case, in the sense that it took as a model the first
Soviet Five-Year-Plan. There were some further similarities between Turkey and the Soviet
10
Union. The latter in 1917 and the former in 1923 established new systems, rejecting
respectively the history of the Russian and the Ottoman Empires. Since the concern of the
Soviet and Turkish leadership was to defend their regimes against opposition within the
country and against the Allied powers, they had to wait until the late 1920s and 1930s to
consolidate their regimes.
As in Turkey, “the Five Year Plan (1928) required rapid expansion of schools,
improvement of knowledge about society, and intensification in ideological indoctrination of
students” in the Soviet Union.34 Dorotich adds, “history had a very significant role to play”
within this process.35 Furthermore, Brandenberger and Dubrovsky have argued that the
party’s attitude towards history-teaching in the Soviet Union changed especially in the early
1930s, when official priorities expanded from a focus on the mechanical aspects of
industrialization to the training of a loyal, capable work force.36
Other scholars who specialise in Russian history, such as Laugla, have written that
there was a shift from the earlier political education (of the 1920s) that aimed at developing a
basic value commitment to the ideology, to an education that emphasised the disciplinary
aspect of the role of the loyal Soviet citizen (in the 1930s).37 In the early 1930s, the Soviet
leadership understood that the purpose of Russian and Soviet history “was to catch people’s
imagination and promote a unified sense of identity that the previous decade’s internationalist
proletarian ideology had failed to stimulate.”38 In 1931, the People’s Commissariat of
Education reintroduced history as an independent classroom subject. Moreover, in 1934, a
Politburo committee criticised the teaching of history in Soviet schools as too sociological and
called for more political history instead.39
Clearly, the pattern of history teaching in Turkey and in the Soviet Union followed a
similar chronological order. Yet, the way in which the history courses on the existing regimes
were taught was quite different. As we will discuss in greater detail below, the History of the
11
Turkish Revolution has been taught in Turkey at all educational levels, from elementary to
undergraduate education. However, in the Soviet Union “the Central Committee and the
Council of People’s Commissars resolved to introduce into primary schools and into the 1st
grade of the secondary schools an elementary course of the history of the U.S.S.R.” 40 In fact,
in 1934, there was a resolution of the Central Committee “on the teaching of Civil History in
the schools of the USSR,” and from 1937 on, A Short Course on the History of the USSR was
used as a textbook in secondary education.41 As far as the undergraduate level was concerned,
a course on the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) was taught
instead of a course on the History of the USSR.42
Changes in the Course Over Time
In the 1940s, in Turkey, the aim was to organise a course on the Turkish Revolution,
which would be taught comprehensively in universities. The Minister of Education, Hasan Ali
Yücel, summarised this aim as follows: “the Revolution was to be taught in a scientific way to
the new generation, who were the future of the country.”43 In order to reach this goal, in 1942,
an “Institute of the History of the Turkish Revolution and the Republic of Turkey” was
founded and Professor Enver Ziya Karal was appointed as its head. The institute prepared a
draft suggesting that the course titled the “History of the Turkish Revolution and the Regime
of the Republic of Turkey” (Türk İnkılâbı Tarihi ve Türkiye Comhuriyeti Rejimi) would be
given in two parts: The first should be entitled “The History of the Turkish War of
Independence and the Turkish Revolution (1918-1938),” and the second part should deal with
“The Regime of the Republic of Turkey.”44
Contrary to the 1930s, the comparative thematic approach of the study of the Turkish
Revolution was abandoned, and the Republican period was studied in a chronological order.
The comparison of the Republic of Turkey with the Ottoman Empire and with other existing
12
systems around the world was ignored.45 In fact, one of the main reasons for these changes
was the growing political polarization in Turkey in the 1940s. Even though Turkey was not
involved into the Second World War, the ideological effects of the war were of concern for
the Turkish political leadership. The best way to avoid the effects of ideologies such as
socialism was to indoctrinate the Turkish youth with Kemalist principles.46
The course continued to be taught with minor changes in the 1950s. After the 1960
military coup, the course had to be taught for two semesters in all universities. In 1968, the
name of the course was changed to the “History of the Turkish Revolution” (“Türk Devrim
Tarihi”).47 This was a symbolic change, since the earlier usage of inkılâb implied evolution
and revolution at the same time, while the new word devrim clearly evoked revolutionary
aspects.48 One could also argue that the ascendancy of the 1960s leftist movements around the
world and in Turkey affected this name change. Another effect of the 1960s can be observed
in the textbook prepared by Enver Ziya Karal for this course, printed in 1971. This was an
attempt to introduce recent history including developments until 1965.49
The most radical change in the approach and content of the course on the Turkish
Revolution occurred during the military regime in the 1980s. The course was renamed as
“Atatürk’s Principles and the History of the Turkish Revolution” (“Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılâb
Tarihi” in 1981.50 The main objective of the state was to overcome the political opposition
that had existed prior to the military regime. The 1980 military coup was in fact an attempt to
control social movements, and especially leftist organizations, since the spread of socialism
was seen as a threat in the Cold War era. The purpose of creating loyal citizens became more
visible with the policies of the military regime. The military regime aimed to prevent further
ideological polarization in the universities by all means.
As a first step, the Higher Education Council (Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu, YÖK) was
founded in 1982 under the guidance of the military regime, in order to institutionalise the
13
government regulation of and interference in university affairs. The military regime wanted to
have central control over higher education, thought to be lacking central planning. The idea
was also to control youth movements, by having direct state control over universities.51 As a
second step, YÖK required the formation of Institutes of the Turkish Revolution in six
Turkish Universities.52 These institutes were responsible for teaching the History of the
Turkish Revolution to graduate students as future instructors of the course. For this purpose,
these institutes had to have graduate-level education. In the remaining universities, either
centres for teaching the course on the Turkish Revolution were established, or other relevant
departments — such as history, political science and sociology—taught the course.
YÖK categorised the purposes and limitations of the course under four headings: to
provide adequate information about the Turkish War of Independence, the Turkish Republic,
and Atatürk’s reforms and ideas; to give accurate information about threats to reforms and to
the regime; to unite the Turkish nation; and to raise Turkish youth based on the principles of
Atatürk.53 This list shows that the purpose of the course was not to provide information from
various angles about the historical events of the Turkish Revolution; rather, it was to teach a
certain interpretation of the Turkish Revolution, and it aimed at teaching Kemalist ideology to
university students. In other words, the goal was to form citizens loyal to the Kemalist
Republic.
In order to achieve these four principles, YÖK exercises control over the content and
length of the course. YÖK requires that the above mentioned headings have to be
acknowledged in the course and that the time period from the start of War of Independence
(1919) to the death of Atatürk (1938) had to be covered in the course content. There is some
flexibility of adding other topics and time periods after covering the required subjects. YÖK
did not force the use of single textbook but recommends textbooks in line with the required
14
curriculum. YÖK representatives have a right to interview faculty teaching the course about
the content and reading materials during their annual visits to universities.54
In 1989, YÖK prepared a textbook and suggested for the usage of the institutes to
teach the course. This book, which is still widely used, begins with the definition and
purposes of Atatürk’s principles and the revolution and continues with a short summary of the
factors leading to the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century. It focuses on
the Independence War, the formation of the Turkish Republic, Turkish foreign policy, and the
reforms in law, education, culture, economy and health until 1938. A specific section is
dedicated to the geopolitical location of Turkey and current internal and foreign threats to the
Turkish Republic, since preventing the spread of radical movements among youth is
considered a major aim of this course.55
As can be seen from the course content required by YÖK, the course focuses on a
limited time period, mainly between 1919 and 1938, with a brief summary of nineteenthcentury events. Compared to the 1930s, the course content and teaching methods have
changed significantly, while the aim of creating loyal citizens has remained the same. In the
1930s, comparisons to and analysis of other political ideologies in Europe were made in order
to prove the uniqueness of the Turkish Revolution. After the 1980 military coup, these aspects
were removed from the course, and memorization of events and great men dominated instead.
Moreover, the course was taught for two hours per week for four years until 1991. Since
1991, YÖK has required teaching the course on the Turkish Revolution for a minimum of 60
hours within one academic year. Universities adhere to this minimum requirement and some
universities teach it as a non-credit course. 56
15
Dilemmas and Challenges Related to Teaching the Course
Teaching the “History of the Turkish Revolution” course is challenging because of
difficulties rising from both general issues related to history education in Turkey and teaching
this course in a Liberal Arts program of a university in particular. University students are
exposed to a certain type of history education in their primary and secondary education whose
curriculum was controlled by the Ministry of National Education.
57
Among the major
problems in history education is the lack of attention to international context and world
history while increasingly emphasizing Turkish and Islamic past in the secondary school
textbooks since the 1990s.58 In addition to the content, there are issues about how the “nation”
was constructed in history education. Wars, conquests and military conflict are glorified while
peaceful coexistence of differences is not discussed in the history textbooks.59
History teaching in primary and secondary education follows a traditional approach
that prevailed in the nineteenth and early twentieth century: Courses are organised
chronologically (not thematically), and students are required to memorise events, dates and
the names of great men without looking at processes and causes that bring these events into
being. Major transformations such as the start of a century were taught in a single event such
as Mehmed II conquering Istanbul in 1453 and the French Revolution in 1789. Lack of
interest in analyzing processes and cause-effect relations prevents the development of
analytical skills of students since rote-memorization of events is the key for success.
These earlier experiences with history courses in secondary education have been a
challenge for most university students in the “History of the Turkish Revolution” course.
Students continue memorizing important events and dates without critical questioning. They
learn about the same subject using the same didactic methods since the elementary school. In
addition, repetition of the same issues over time starting with their secondary education
16
results in dislike and losing interest in the topics discussed in the “History of the Turkish
Revolution” course at the university level. Evaluation of student performance is based on how
well students can regurgitate memorised information, instead of encouraging students to
evaluate and analyse events and themes.60 The adoption of the same methodology for the
“History of the Turkish Revolution” course makes it difficult for university students to enjoy
the course. Moreover, in the 1990s the rise of Kurdish and Islamist proclivities among
university students pointed to the shortcomings of the course and led to the questioning of its
format and content.
Although the purpose of the course has been to provide loyalty to the regime and to
Kemalist principles, over time YÖK has recognised shortcomings of the course in achieving
these purposes. Between 1997 and 1998, six meetings brought together academics from
Atatürk Institutes and YÖK members in different universities. These meetings explained the
purposes of the course, listed the problems related to teaching the course, and offered a
number of solutions. In the 1998 Hacettepe University meeting, one of the speakers defined
the purpose of the course as follows:
… to ensure that the new generations embrace Atatürks’s principles and reforms and
to provide youth with knowledge and equipment that would awaken the youth about
dangerous and separatist ideas and actions. While the students are interpreting
contemporary national and international events from the angle of the recent past, they
will realise that they are the heirs of a rich history.61
Other speakers also acknowledged that this course was an ideological antidote which would
provide loyalty to the state.62
Having stated this important function, participants also voiced problems concerning
teaching the course. The Hacettepe University meeting was an example of general concerns of
instructors teaching it. Lack of interest among students, prejudices of students as a result of
17
their elementary and secondary education, a lack of qualified instructors, and a lack of
adequate visual and published teaching material, especially in smaller universities, were stated
as the common problems. Complaints also included the need to develop new teaching
methods, since the current program focused only on political history and chronology. As a
solution to these problems, an interdisciplinary approach focusing on history, society, culture,
economy and politics was suggested. Some participants argued that teaching Ottoman history
since the first modernization attempts in the late eighteenth century was necessary to
understand the formation of Atatürk’s ideas and policies.
Even though everyone agreed on the need to acknowledge the Ottoman past, there was
disagreement about the extent to which it should be covered. Some participants argued that
too much coverage of Ottoman history would prevent instructors from devoting sufficient
time and effort to the Turkish Revolution. The participants also agreed on the need to
acknowledge the current political, social and economic situation and to expand the curriculum
to contemporary events in Turkey and around the world. A comparative approach — that is, a
comparison of the Turkish Revolution with other revolutions and ideologies — was also
suggested by some participants in order to show the strength of Kemalist ideas.63
Although these meetings produced important suggestions for improvement, the
course’s content and teaching techniques have not improved much since then. Surveys
conducted in several universities (such as Gazi and Hacettepe Universities) show that students
had similar complaints in 2005 and 2006: the lack of coverage of current issues, and the need
to memorise chronology without comprehension.64 In fact, universities continue to follow the
course content suggested by YÖK.65
A quick look at commonly used textbooks also reveals trends similar to the ones
shown in YÖK’s textbook. A very brief introduction on the reasons for the Ottoman Empire’s
decline, followed by a focus on the Independence War, the formation of the Republic and
18
Atatürk’s six principles are the topics common to the frequently used textbook by Ahmet
Mumcu and the YÖK textbook. Mumcu’s textbook covers a longer chronology and includes
the transition to multi-party democracy in the 1950s.66 Karal’s above-mentioned book
expands the chronology to include the 1960s.67 Lack of interest in current events, inadequate
coverage of the Ottoman past, lack of comparisons with other revolutions, and an inability to
situate the events in a global context are the common characteristics of these texts.
Theory and Methods in Teaching History
Teaching methods in history are closely related to changes in theoretical paradigms. In
the last twenty to thirty years, there has been a shift from a traditional paradigm to a new
approach that has radically re-conceptualised the key concepts of history.68 The older writings
of history at the dawn of the twentieth century were concerned with politics and studied the
activities of states and great statesmen. History evaluated events from the standpoint of the
upper classes. War, diplomacy and high politics were the dominant subjects. History-writing
relied on state documents, such as treaties, letters and the memoirs of the ruling elites. It was
believed that the documents told the truth, and a simple narration based on these documents
would be enough for historical analysis.
As the authors of these documents -- kings, emperors, bureaucrats and the like -- were
the major players, they, as great men, made history. 69 Because of its singular focus on politics,
the traditional paradigm does not include social history which concerns the daily lives of
ordinary people. This approach teaches facts as objective given events and presents a
narrative without paying attention to causal linkages. It uses an abundance of evidence,
mainly state archives and written documents, in an attempt to study politics.70 Since this
traditional approach focuses almost exclusively on great men and a narration based on
19
documents, it cannot see the importance of broader factors at play, such as the social,
economic and political structures that constitute recurrent patterns of relationships in different
aspects of life.
Influential historians of this approach — such as Leopold von Ranke, a famous
representative of the German school, and Edward Gibbon, of the British school — shared the
same lack of concern for broader changes in general conditions. Gibbon explained the fall of
the Roman Empire as resulting from changes in the relations of the ruling class and the loss of
“civic virtues” among the elites. Ranke emphasised human agency, refuted the role of general
theories cutting across space and time, and concerned himself with the interpretation of
primary documents about specific periods. This lack of interest in general theories, structures
and ordinary people led historians to focus on details without seeing the general picture of the
time they studied. The uniqueness of each case, the individual, and the document were
emphasised, and comparisons that could lead to a broader analysis of general conditions were
ignored.
The New History emerged in reaction to the traditional approach, starting with Marc
Bloch’s writings and developed by the Annales School in the 1960s and 1970s.71 At that time,
the debate of structure versus agency had been a long-standing issue in the social sciences. In
an attempt to close the gap between history and the social sciences, the New History shifted
the focus from great men to long-term changes in social, economic and political conditions.
Rather than offering a particularistic interpretation of documents, its purpose is to reach a
general understanding of change in different aspects of life.
The new approach does not simply summarise events. Instead, it attempts to explain
structural changes over time and focuses on causal analysis. How and why certain events
influence subsequent events in the longue durée is the most important question for the new
type of historical analysis. Attempts to define causal linkages in long-term structures
20
emphasise the importance of comparative studies. Fernand Braudel’s The Mediterranean and
the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II is a major example of studying causal
linkages in the connected world of the Mediterranean and how trade between different regions
influenced politics, culture and economy across the region. Therefore, instead of focusing on
single area, Braudel studied the Mediterranean as a whole and compared different regions
over time.72
The New History expands the focus from politics to other areas of life. Society,
culture, economy and politics are studied as different aspects of social structures in order to
define recurrent patterns. It considers all human activity worthy of study, including the lives
of ordinary subjects, instead of focusing on the state and ruling groups. Thus, peasants,
beggars and women have become some of its subjects. This interest in “history from below”
provides new sources of evidence for historical research. In addition to state documents,
statistics (trade and population figures) and oral history (myths, folkloric tales and memoirs)
have become sources of evidence.73 In contrast to the traditional paradigm’s claim of
objective reality, the New History considers reality socially or culturally constituted. Instead
of telling how events actually happened, the New History is aware that present beliefs and
viewpoints shape the description of past events. This approach enhances our understanding,
by presenting opposite viewpoints.
A Brief Note on Experiences of Teaching the Course in a Liberal Arts Program
Differences between the traditional paradigm and the New History also reflect the
difficulty of fulfilling the state’s expectations in teaching the “History of the Turkish
Revolution” course. The course content required by YÖK represents the traditional approach.
It focuses on politics in terms of military conflict and state administration, demands history
21
from above, excludes the history of ordinary people, and studies the great statesmen and
world politics of the time. Atatürk and his close circle of political leaders form the main unit
of analysis. Their actions are presented as the main determinants of state administration. This
traditional approach presents the official history of the Turkish Revolution as ultimate truth
and does not provide any alternative readings of Turkish history. The purpose of the course is
to show the uniqueness of the Turkish case within the world of competing ideologies.
Kemalist ideology and the Republic are presented as a result of peculiar historical
circumstances and the strong will of a “unified nation.” In this framework, there is no room
for comparisons with other revolutions. The importance of the global context and comparison
with other revolutions which existed in the 1930s to prove the uniqueness of the Turkish
Revolution disappeared later.74
A handful of universities have started to experience with new curricula, teaching
materials and methods in the recent years as a result of an increasing need to improve the
course. Among the universities which have programs similar to Liberal Arts curricula,
Boğaziçi, Sabancı, METU and Bilkent extended the course content to cover the time period
from the19th century Ottoman Empire to the recent developments in Turkey. At Bilkent
University, the-two credit course has been taught in two semesters to sophomores, and covers
the time period from the early 19th century to 1980. Its focus is on political and diplomatic
history with domestic and foreign developments.75 At Sabancı University, the-two credit
course for sophomores begins with “a review of the pressures building in the Ottoman Empire
through the 17th and 19th centuries and covers the time period until transition to parliamentary
pluralism in 1946-50”.76 Political, intellectual and social history in explaining domestic
developments are emphasized. At Boğaziçi University, the two-credit course for juniors
surveys Turkish history from the mid-19th century to the present. They emphasize social and
cultural history by studying social movements, problems of urbanization, industrialization,
22
different interpretations of Kemalism, and cultural and ideological changes. They organize
course topics thematically to link current issues with past legacies.77 At METU, the course has
been taught as a non-credit course for sophomores and covers economic, social, political and
cultural developments from 1908 to 1980. 78
Among these universities, Koç University is the only university offering this course
with 3 credits and instructing it in English as part of its all English curriculum. This brings the
course in an equal standing with other courses at Koç University and differentiates Koç from
others. Similar to other universities trying new methods in the “History of the Turkish
Revolution” course, Koç University expands the time period covered in the course from the
19th century (even earlier Ottoman and European developments) to the present. In terms of its
coverage, it covers the broadest and the most current time period.79 Similar to Boğaziçi
University, in addition to political and diplomatic history we emphasize social and cultural
history as an attempt to understand daily lives of individuals.
At Koç University, we use new approaches in teaching this course in order to fit this
state-required course into our Liberal Arts program. Koç University’s mission states, “Koç
University’s graduates will be leaders in their respective professions, critical thinkers and
creative individuals and will be able to operate in any environment, adhere to the highest
ethical standards, feel social responsibility and be committed to the values of democracy.”80
In fact, the educational philosophy of Koç University is based on the principle of “creative
teaching/participatory learning.”81 The goal of Koç University is to produce humanist
graduates with multiple interests. For example, an engineering student at Koç should also
show interest in the arts and humanities.82 Creativity as well as analytical and critical thinking
skills outlined in the university’s mission statement does not fit well with the aims of the
“History of the Turkish Revolution” course, which requires rote memorization and social
23
engineering. The incorporation of some methods derived from the New History has helped us
reconcile both purposes.
We have been teaching this course as a part of the Liberal Arts program since 1993. In
the early years, we followed the course content as suggested by YÖK, with some minor
changes. The course was divided into two semesters, and the suggested coverage of the
Ottoman past was extended by devoting the first semester to the history of the Ottoman
Empire since the early reforms of the nineteenth century. The second semester covered the
history of the Turkish Republic from the War of Independence to the death of Atatürk in
1938. We made the first major change in the 1999-200 academic year. The second semester’s
coverage was extended from 1938 to contemporary events, including the transition to the
multi-party era, the military coups, the Cyprus issue, and European integration. Since then the
first part has been taught by a specialist in Ottoman history and the second part by a specialist
in a Republican era.
The current course format in terms of the Ottoman period was introduced in Fall 2003.
In this format, the time period ranges from the late eighteenth to the early twentieth century,
with a broader introduction to the changing global context since the French Revolution. The
use of virtual media and discussion sessions also started with this new format. In teaching this
course, we intend to motivate students to think and ask questions on the origins and causes of
historical events and to strive to create relationships between them. In the beginning, students
were expected to take the course in their freshman year — a mistake, as we realised, since
students need time to adapt to a system that significantly differs from secondary education.
Later, the course was shifted to the sophomore year and, even later, the junior year. This made
it easier for the students to read and understand the English-language material.
We have used many different methods to make the course attractive. We do not
require students to read a single textbook; instead, we assign different articles on the subject.
24
In this way, we want to present to them several approaches at the same time, in order to make
them think, analyse and evaluate. We have organised the course both chronologically and
thematically. The chronological order has proved necessary because we cover an extensive
time period, from the nineteenth century to today. Although most students have studied
Turkish history in secondary education, they still have difficulty remembering these dates and
names because of the way in which they were asked to acquire the information.
By offering a general overview of the Turkish transformation in a historical
perspective, we also deal with thematic issues such as secularism, parliamentary democracy,
and nationalism. Subjects including the role of the state in the economy and the role of social
classes in the making of the Turkish Revolution receive attention as well. The thematically
structured course provides students with the background knowledge necessary to evaluate
whether the revolution happened from above or below, and to what extent a civil society has
developed in Turkey.
At our university, the objective of this course is not only limited to the study of the
Kemalist reforms, but also includes a look at the history of Turkey, from its establishment to
where we stand now. It endeavours to establish a link between today and yesterday. We
intend for our students to ask themselves the following questions: What were the challenges
and main questions that the Kemalist leadership faced? Why did they aim for westernization,
and what kind of westernization did they want? Why did they feel a need for reforms? In
order to respond to these questions, we first discuss the reforms undertaken by the Ottomans
in the nineteenth century. In this way, students can see that the Kemalist reforms have a
historical basis.
In the YÖK-required course content, the Ottoman past is acknowledged only to show
the difficulties and challenges faced by the Kemalist leadership and to demonstrate how
different Kemalist reforms were from the Ottoman past. This required content assumes a
25
rupture with the Ottoman past, while we acknowledge the continuities between the Ottoman
past and the Turkish Republic. The leaders of the new republic were influenced by nineteenthcentury social, political and economic developments. The longue durée of the nineteenth
century — starting with the early reforms of Selim III and Mahmud II and continuing with the
Tanzimat era, Abdülhamid II, and the Young Turk regime — is examined in order to
introduce the general conditions of the time and to show how the ideas and actions of the
Kemalist leadership came into being in relation to the broader conditions of their times.
In an attempt to situate the Turkish case in an international context, the first semester
of the course starts with changes in Europe after the French Revolution. Key concepts — such
as nation-state, revolution, different political ideologies, secularization, and centralization —
are introduced in this first part of the course. Then, a brief introduction to the pre-nineteenthcentury Ottoman administration is given in order to examine the transformations of that
period. This part of the course acknowledges that the Ottoman system was not static, even
before the nineteenth century. Nor does it focus on the historical details of the period, but it
introduces key mechanisms of state administration, such as military organization, taxation, the
ruling elites and society, religious orders, and local notables. All these mechanisms underwent
important changes during the nineteenth century.
In the following course segment, we teach the domestic and international
developments of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. For every week of this segment,
we select a theme. For example, in the week on the rule of Selim III and Mahmud II, we
address the “Eastern Question,” since European involvement in the domestic affairs of the
Ottoman state intensified in this era. In the final segment of the first semester, we teach about
the conditions of the Ottoman state at the end of World War I, the emergence of the
independence movement, and the formation of the Turkish Republic.
26
In the second semester, moving on to the Republican period, we analyse the political,
social, economic and legal issues from the 1920s to the 2000s. In doing so, we situate Turkey
within world history and emphasise the importance of world economic conditions and
international relations. In fact, comparing the Turkish Revolution to other revolutions also
demonstrates the similarities and differences with the Turkish Revolution and gives
perspectives other than those based on state ideology. For example, as far as Kemalist
economic policy is concerned, we try to explain that étatist policies were not specific to
Turkey, but that they were also implemented by other Balkan countries in the 1930s.
Additionally, we discuss what types of authentic policies the Turkish leadership endeavoured
to develop.
In this part, we also deal with realpolitik, while analyzing Turkey’s attitude towards
World War II and regional wars such as the Gulf Wars. In this process, we take into
consideration the policies of Turkey as well as those of other regional countries (such as states
in the Middle East) during this period. In fact, we study Turkish policies within the general
context. For example, we examine how Turkish diplomacy changed from the Cold War to the
post-Cold War period and how the formation of the European Union has affected Turkey. In
other words, we do not evaluate the formation of Turkish foreign policy in a unilateral way or
in a bilateral relation with a specific country, but rather in a multi-dimensional way.
We consider that Turkish domestic and foreign policies have always been in
interaction with Western and Eastern European countries (including the Balkans and the
USSR), Middle Eastern countries, and the United States. By studying the case of Turkey not
in an isolated way but as an actor that influenced its environment and was influenced by it, we
believe that students better comprehend the choices available to the founders of the republic
and the constraints they had to face. When we use the comparative approach, we not only
27
draw comparisons between Turkey and its neighbours, but also between different periods
within Turkish history.
At the same time, we explore the issues of democracy and parliamentary systems in
focusing on Turkey’s transition from the single-party to the multi-party system. Hence, we not
only analyse the initiatives that political leaders took in Turkey, but also those of the different
social classes and their reactions to state initiatives. The effects of the military coups on
Turkish society are also an inevitable part of this course. Furthermore, we expose the factors
leading to changing constitutions in Turkey. The contribution of other countries’ constitutions
to the Turkish ones is discussed within this context. Moreover, in comparing the constitutional
periods of the Ottoman Empire with those of the Republic of Turkey, we clarify both
continuity and change from the Ottoman to the Republican social and political structure.
This organization of the course is an attempt to introduce New History to the teaching
of the course. The impact of the New History approach can be observed easily in the new
course content developed at Koç University: its emphasis on comparative history and history
from below, its focus on change over the longue durée and the world context, and a
presentation of alternative views. The comparative approach is valuable because it locates the
distinctive. What makes the Turkish revolution unique can be analysed by looking at the cases
of other revolutions around the world. This argument also fits the course content proposed by
YÖK and gives us space to manoeuvre within the required program. In addition to defining
what is distinctive, comparative history locates the common. It allows students to ask whether
or not an event is truly distinctive and helps them to construct broader global patterns.
Comparative history stimulates students to use thinking skills on a higher level.
Defining similarities and differences between cases improves the analytical understanding of
students. Comparison leads to defining the causal factors that exist or are absent in certain
events and opens a door for alternative readings of history. 83 An important component of
28
comparative history is to cultivate a geographical and cultural perspective in students’ minds.
Terms like location, place, region and human-environment interaction, as well as definitions
of what culture is in material and non-material terms provide such a framework.84 We have
integrated several world maps that show the geopolitical location of the Ottoman Empire and
Turkey interactively with other regions (such as maps showing population and trade
characteristics of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey in comparison with other states).
Instead of focusing on great personalities, the New History studies history from below.
We have incorporated the study of Atatürk as an influential figure of the revolution, but
shifted our emphasis to the analysis of different social groups in society. For example, lecture
topics include women, local notables, education and mass media, in order to show the
emergence of public opinion and civil society in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. These
lectures are enriched with slides showing photographs of women and local customs. Statistics,
population and trade figures document the religious and ethnic composition of the population.
These weekly lectures shift the focus away from statesmen and international politics to groups
underrepresented in history. Subjects such as women, mass media, education and population
generate student interest, especially because of the use of pictorial material, as photographs
about the daily lives of ordinary people and change in the patterns of social interaction show
the influence of the revolution on culture and social life.
Another key component of the course is the discussion sessions. Since the course is
obligatory for all students, lectures have to be held in very large classrooms. This limits
instructor-student interaction and decreases student interest in the course. The solution to this
problem is to implement discussion sessions which are held by advanced graduate students or
instructors in a group of 20 students, based on an interactive model. Every week a group of
students are responsible to make presentation about readings and lectures. They also reply to
the questions asked by classmates and instructors. The format of the discussion sessions is
29
very useful, since students have to work in a group, exchange opinions, stimulate discussion
and present material to the classroom. The format of the presentations may be improved by
using Web postings and opening a discussion group on the Internet.85
Conclusion
In this paper, we have explained the reasons why at Turkish universities there has
existed a state-required course on the History of the Turkish Revolution since the early years
of the Republic of Turkey, as well as the evolution of this course over time. The reason why
we deal with this issue is that this course is a unique case in the 20th and 21st century Europe,
apart from the earlier Soviet case, which presents similarities as well as differences. Teaching
this course poses the challenge of teaching a mandatory course with a number of stateimposed requirements in the context of a Liberal Arts program. But the challenge does not
come only from above but also from below. There is a strong dislike and a negative reaction
of the students who have been taking this course since their secondary education in a very
traditional way. Even though our experience has shown positive student responses to the
innovations introduced in the course, it has not been very easy to overcome the prejudices of
the students who resist learning. To some extent, we were able to overcome these challenges
by developing new teaching methods from New History perspective.
In conclusion, we believe that students should learn about the history of their own
country.86 However, this learning process should acknowledge different social actors within
the country concerned. The students should also be exposed to alternative viewpoints and be
aware of global changes. By introducing new teaching methods and content, the “History of
30
the Turkish Revolution” course can become an important medium to challenge traditional
paradigm of history teaching in Turkey. Our efforts have been an initiative to reach this goal.
31
1
We analyze Turkey within the European context. There is no other case in Europe where the
same course was taught from the elementary to the undergraduate education all along under
state control.
2
Koç University is a private, nonprofit institution founded in 1993 and located in Istanbul. It
is the second private university in Turkey after Bilkent and the first one in İstanbul. Koç
University is founded on the principle that a substantial liberal arts education is essential for
all University students. The curricula of all Colleges of the University contain required
courses in mathematics, the physical and social sciences, humanities, philosophy, computing,
communications, Turkish language, and history. Students have to complete these “core”
courses during their freshman and sophomore years before they begin specialised courses in a
chosen area of concentration. The medium of instruction at Koç University is English. For
that reason, the “History of the Turkish Revolution” course is taught in English only at Koç
University in Turkey. Koç University, Catalog 1996-1997, pp. 22-23.
3
Corrigan, Philip and Sayer, Derek (1985). The Great Arch: English State Formation as
Cultural Revolution, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985, p. 2 and 4.
4
Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terrence (eds) (1992). The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
5
Anderson, Benedict (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism (Rev. and extended ed.), London: Verso.
6
Altınay, Ayşe Gül (2004). The myth of the military-nation: militarism, gender, and
education in Turkey, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 119.
7
It was called Maarif Vekâleti in the 1920s and Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı in the 1930s.
8
Altınay, 120.
9
Neumann, Christoph K. (1995). “Tarihin Yararı ve Zararı Olarak Türk Kimliği : Bir
Akademik Deneme,” in Salih Özbaran (ed.): Tarih Öğretimi ve Ders Kitapları : Buca
Sempozyumu ; 29 Eylül - 1 Ekim 1994, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, pp. 98-106.
10
Ersanlı Behar, Büşra (1992). İktidar ve Tarih, Istanbul: Afa Yayınları, p. 202.
11
The Ottoman Empire, which participated in WWI on Germany’s side, collapsed at the end
of the war in 1918. Following the signing of the Mudros Armistice in October, the Allied
forces (British, French, Italian and later Greek) occupied territories under Ottoman rule
including Istanbul. Beginning in 1919, various groups began fighting under the National
Independence Forces on different fronts in Anatolia. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was able to
establish links among local resistance groups and organise new ones. These resistance
movements led by M. K. Atatürk continued until 1922, when the Turkish forces advanced into
Chanak to drive the Greeks out of eastern Thrace. This period between 1919 and 1922 is
known in Turkey as the War of Independence. For more detailed information see Shaw,
Stanford J. (2000). From Empire to Republic, v. 1, Istanbul: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
12
For the general relationship between citizenship and education, see Weber, Eugene (1976).
Peasants to Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Altınay, 119.
Ahmad, Feroz (2003). The Quest for Identity, Oxford: One World, p. 87.
15
Tarih IV, Kemalist Eğitim Tarih Dersleri (1931-1941) (2001), Istanbul: Kaynak Yayınları,
262.
13
14
32
Ibid., III. Afet İnan was one of the foremost Turkish scholars of the time and an adopted
daughter of Atatürk.
17
Ersanlı Behar, 159.
18
On the eve of the world economic crisis, the economic implications of the Lausanne Treaty
(1923) had already come to an end by 1928. The treaty required Turkey to pay two-third of
the Ottoman Debt. Moreover, it prevented Turkey to develop a new customs policy and
imposed that the fetters of capitulations continue for an additional five year. The capitulations
were special extraterritorial privileges given to subjects of foreign powers in judicial and
commercial-economic fields by the Ottomans. For more detailed information see İnalcık,
Halil (1971). “İmtiyaz”, Encyclopedia of Islam, 3, 1179-89.
19
Barlas, Dilek. (1998) Etatism and Diplomacy in Turkey, Leiden: Brill, pp. 105-106.
20
Tarih IV, Kemalist Eğitim Tarih Dersleri (1931-1941), p. IV.
21
Kaplan, İsmail (1999). Türkiye’de Milli Eğitim İdeolojisi, Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, p.
181.
22
Between 1930 and 1933, İsmet İnönü was Prime Minister, Prof. Y. Hikmet Bayur the
Minister of Education, and Prof. Y. Kemal Tengirşenk the Minister of Economy, the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of Justice. Between 1931-1937, Recep Peker was the
general secretary of the Republican People’s Party (Cumhurriyet Halk Partisi, CHP), the
party in power. M. Esat Bozkurt was Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister of Justice in
the 1920s. İlk İnkilap Tarihi Ders Notları (1997), İstanbul: Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı,
pp. 11-15.
23
Bayur, Yusuf Hikmet (1991). Türk İnkilabı Tarihi, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi,
XII.
24
Ibid., XIII.
25
İlk İnkilap Tarihi Ders Notları, 99-101.
26
İbid., 71-74.
27
İnkilap Kürsüsünde İsmet Paşanın Dersi. (April 1934) Ülkü, 3 (14), 81-87.
28
Ibid., 85.
29
Ibid., 86.
30
Gülalp, Haldun and Barlas, Dilek. (1998). “Bilginin Evrenselliği, Farklılığın Sorunsallığı”,
in Semih Dikmen, Tanıl Bora and Kaya Şahin (Eds.), Sosyal Bilimleri Yeniden Düşünmek (pp.
281-86). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları. As a result of these efforts, the six arrows (republican,
nationalist, étatist, populist, revolutionary, and secular) of the CHP were incorporated into the
constitution in 1937. The General Secretary of the CHP especially emphasised in his lectures
that nobody in Turkey would be in favor of socialism and liberalism, which contradicted
étatism. “1932 Senesi Bütçesi Hakkında Yeniden Tanzim Kılınan 1/317 Numaralı Kanun
Layihası ve Bütçe Encümeni Mazbatası,” T.B.M.M. Zabıt Ceridesi. (21. VI. 1932), 9, 211212.
31
Tengirşenk, Yusuf Kemal. Ankara İnkilap Kürsüsünde, Hakimiyeti Milliye, 8 April 1934.
32
Tengirşenk, Yusuf Kemal. Ankara İnkilap Kürsüsünde, Hakimiyeti Milliye, 10 May 1934.
He also discussed other economic revolutions such as the Agricultural and Transportation
Revolution (mainly railroads). Tengirşenk, Yusuf Kemal. Türk İnkilabı Dersleri, Ekonomik
Değişmeler (1935). İstanbul: Resimli Ay Basımevi, pp. 37-58.
33
Peker, Recep. İnkilap Dersleri (1936). Ankara: Ulus Basımevi, pp. 15-27.
34
Dorotich, Daniel. (Fall 1967). “A Turning Point in the Soviet School: The Seventeenth
Party Congress and the Teaching of History”, History of Education Quarterly, 7 (3), 297.
35
Ibid.
16
33
Bradenberger, D. L. and Dubrovsky, A. M. (July 1998). “The People Need a Tsar: The
Emergence of National Bolshevism as Stalinist Ideology, 1931-1941”, Europe-Asia Studies,
50 (5), 874.
37
Laugla, Jon. (1988). “Soviet Education Policy 1917-1935: From Ideology to Bureaucratic
Control”, Oxford Review of Education, 14 (3), 295.
38
Bradenberger and Dubrovsky, 875.
39
Hoffmann, David L. (2004). “Was There a “Great Retreat” from Soviet Socialism?”
Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 5 (4), 666.
40
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/x01/x01.htm
41
Hoffman, 666.
42
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/index.htm
43
İnan, Süleyman. (July 2007). “The First “History of the Turkish Revolution” Lectures and
Courses in Turkish Universities (1934-42)”, Middle Eastern Studies 43 (4), 605.
44
İnan, 605.
45
Aslan, Erdal (1995). “Devrim Tarihi Ders Kitapları”, in S. Özbaran (Eds.), Tarih Öğretimi
ve Ders Kitapları, Buca Sempozyumu. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, pp. 295-313.
46
The leading intellectuals of the time, namely, Behice Boran, Niyazi Berkes, Sabiha Sertel
and Zekeriya Sertel, published leftist newspapers and periodicals (Tan and Yurt ve Dünya)
during WWII. But they were forced to close them down towards the end of the war.
47
Özüçetin, Yaşar, and Nadar, Senem (2010). “Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılâb Tarihi Dersinin
Üniversiteler Düzeyinde Okutulmaya Başlanması ve Gelinen Süreç”, The Journal of
International Social Research, 3(11), 474.
48
Akbaba, Bülent (2009). “Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılâp Tarihi Dersinin Öğretimine Yönelik Bir
Durum Değerlendirmesi (Gazi Üniversitesi Örneği)”, Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi
13(1), 32.
49
Karal, Enver Ziya (1971). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Tarihi (1918-1965), Istanbul: Milli Eğitim
Basımevi.
50
Özüçetin and Nadar, 474.
51
Although YÖK regulations have changed many times, the basic structure and function of
the council have remained the same since its foundation. YÖK regulates university
organizations and has authority concerning structural and curricular initiations and changes in
universities. Public and private universities, institutes, two-year vocational schools, and threeyear educational institutes are all dependent on YÖK. See Mızıkacı Fatma (2003). “Quality
Systems and Accreditation in Higher Education: An Overview of Turkish Higher Education”,
Quality in Higher Education, 9 (1), 96.
52
These institutes were established at Hacettepe, Ankara, Dokuz Eylül, Boğaziçi, Istanbul and
Atatürk Universities. See Yılmaz, Mustafa (2000). “Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Dersleri
ve Bu Konuda Yapılan Araştırmalar”, Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, 46 (XVI), 313-326.
53
Translated by the authors. Doğaner, Yasemin (2005). Yüksek Öğretimde Atatürk İlke ve
İnkılaplarının Öğretimi ile İlgili Düşünceler, p. 2. See
http://www.ait.hacettepe.edu.tr/akademik/arsiv/yuksek_ogretim.pdf
54
The faculty teaching the History of Turkish Revolution course at Koç University was
interviewed by YÖK representatives in Fall 2007.
55
Kürkçüoğlu, Ömer et al. (1989). Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılâp Tarihi, Ankara:Yüksek Öğrenim
Kurulu Yayınları.
56
Akbaba 2009, 32.
57
The Turkish Revolution is taught as a subject in Social Sciences courses starting in the fifth
grade. The History of the Turkish Revolution is taught as a separate course for the first time in
36
34
the eighth grade; that is the last year of elementary school. Students continue to take courses
on the Turkish Revolution in high schools, including grades nine to twelve.
58
Koullapis, Lory-Grcgory (1995). “Türkiye'de Tarih Ders Kitaplan ve UNESCO'nun
Önerileri”, in Salih Özbaran (ed.): Tarih Öğretimi ve Ders Kitapları : Buca Sempozyumu ; 29
Eylül - 1 Ekim 1994. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, pp: 273-282.
59
Tekeli, İlhan (1995). “Küreselleşen Dünyada Tarih Öğretiminin Amaçlan Ne Olabilir?” in
Salih Özbaran (ed.): Tarih Öğretimi ve Ders Kitapları : Buca Sempozyumu ; 29 Eylül - 1
Ekim 1994. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, pp: 34-42.
60
Özbaran, Salih (1992). Tarih ve Öğretimi, Istanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 184- 218.
61
From Murat Hatipoğlu’s speech at Hacettepe University meeting on the “History of the
Turkish Revolution” course. Translated by the authors. See Yediyıldız, Bahaeddin, Ertan, T.
Faik, and Üstün, Kutay (2004). Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılâp Tarihi’nde Yöntem Arayışları,
Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları, p.22.
62
For Şevket Pamuk’s speech, see Yediyıldız, Bahaeddin, Ertan, T. Faik, and Üstün, Kutay
2004, 28.
63
Yediyıldız, Bahaeddin, Ertan, T. Faik, and Üstün, Kutay 2004, 79-85. Similar meetings
were organised at İstanbul Technical University in 1997 and Boğaziçi University in 1999. For
proceedings of the Istanbul Technical University meeting, see Tanör, Bülent, Toprak, Zafer
and Berktay, Halil (Eds.) (1997). “İnkilap Tarihi” Dersleri Nasıl Okutulmalı, Istanbul:
Sarmal Yayınevi.
64
Akbaba , 44-50; Doğaner, 6-14.
65
Universities which are experiencing with new curricula will be discussed in the below
section.
66
Mumcu, Ahmet (1998). Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılâp Tarihi, Eskişehir: AÖF Yayınları.
67
Karal 1971.
68
In the recent years, alternative approaches have emerged such as post-modern readings. In
this paper, we only discuss general theory and methods that we use in the History of Turkish
Revolution course.
69
A good example of traditional approach in history is Gibbon, Edward (1776). The History
of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, London: Strahan & Cadell. For an earlier
critique of the traditional approach, see Oppenheimer, Franz (1927). History and Sociology.
In W.F. Ogburn & A. Goldenweiser (Eds.), The Social Sciences and Their interrelations,
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, pp. 221-234.
70
For a definition and critique, see Burke, Peter (1992). Overture: The New History, its Past
and its Future. In New Perspectives on Historical Writing, P. Burke (Eds.), University Park,
Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 3-23.
71
Interestingly, the impact of Bloch and Febvre’s work was visible on the famous four
volumes of Tarih, Kemalist Eğitim Tarih Dersleri (1931-1941).
72
Braudel, Fernand (1995). The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of
Philip II, v. 1, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
73
Burke, 3-23.
74
Özbaran, Salih (1998). “Türkiye’de Tarih Eğitimi ve Ders Kitapları Üstüne Düşünceler”, in
Tarih Eğitimi ve Tarihteki Öteki Sorunu, 2. Uluslararası Tarih Kongresi. Istanbul: Tarih
Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, pp: 61-70.
75
See the online catalogue of Bilkent University.
http://catalog.bilkent.edu.tr/current/course/c94202.html
76
See Sabancı University course offerings.
http://www.sabanciuniv.edu/syllabus/courses.cfm?term=01&year=2005&subject=HIST&cod
e=191&lan=eng
35
77
See the web page of Atatürk Institute for Modern Turkish History.
http://www.boun.edu.tr/undergraduate/institutes/ataturk_institute.html Also, personal
communication with Nadir Özbek, 24 July 2010.
78
See METU Academic Catalogue.
https://catalog.metu.edu.tr/course.php?course_code=2402206.
79
Zafer Toprak, in Üniversitelerde Atatürk İlkeleri ve Devrim Tarihi Dersleri (A seminar
organized by METU Faculty Association –ODTÜ Öğretim Üyeleri Derneği, 11 May 2001),
pp. 10-11.
http://www.oed.org.tr/oed/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=12&Itemi
d=13
80
Emphasis added. See
http://www.ku.edu.tr/ku/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2189&Itemid=1016
81
Koç University, Catalogue 2000-2001, p. 28.
82
Geleceğe Açılan Bilim Kapısı, Koç Üniversitesi Kuruluş Tarihi (2002). İstanbul: Vehbi Koç
Vakfı, p. 175.
83
Bain, Robert B. (1997). “Building an Essential World History Tool: Teaching Comparative
History”, in Heidi Roupp (Eds.), Teaching World History, 29-33, and Winks, Robert W.
(1968). Comparative Studies and History. The History Teacher, 1 (4), 39-43.
84
Andrian, Bob (1997) “World History: Not Why? But What? And How?”, in Heidi Roupp
(Eds.) Teaching World History, 20-28.
85
For an effective example of Web discussion boards in teaching history, see Zarate, Eloy
(1998). “Cyberspace, Scholarship, and Survey Courses: A Prototype for Teaching World
History”, The History Teacher 32 (1), 57-65.
86
But, the course must not be required by the state.
36