International Relations Studies in Turkey: Theoretical Considerations

Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika Cilt 8, Sayı: 29 ss.143-160, 2012 International Relations Studies in Turkey: Theoretical Considerations Nilüfer KARACASULU Abstract The aim of this article is to examine the unique disciplinary history of International Relations (IR) in Turkey. It aspires to contribute to the previous scholarship by presenting significance of theoretical considerations in a historical perspective, in relation to the Western theoretical developments. Also, it explains impact of cultural and institutional factors on development of international relations theorizing. It concludes that theoretical studies in Turkey are weak due to institutional and cultural conditions. Keywords: Core / Periphery Relations, International Relations Studies, Turkey, International Relations Theory, Institutional Structure, Research Culture INTRODUCTION In the mid 1990 s a group of esteemed Turkish IR 1 scholars were concerned about the weakness of theoretical and conceptual studies in Turkey. 2 In the last decade, this concern is indicated once more in several meetings among the Turkish IR academic community as they evaluated the state of discipline. 3 In Atatürk Üniversitesi, Hukuk Fakültesi Öğretim Görevlisi 1 In the text, abbreviation as IR denotes the academic discipline. 2 Atila Eralp (ed.), Devlet, Sistem ve Kimlik: Uluslararası Ilişkilerde Temel Yaklaşımlar, (Istanbul: Iletisim, 1996), p. 9. 3 In April 2005, Council on International Relations- Uluslararası İlişkiler Konseyi, Faculty of Social Sciences of Ankara University, the Turkish Union of Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Commodity Exchanges-TOBB organized a meeting by bringing together 50 scholars from 22 different universities to brainstorm on the current state of international relations studies in Turkey. Academic discussions held at this meeting were published by Uluslararası İlişkiler 143

N. Karacasulu fact, there are no original theoretical ideas developed by the Turkish IR academia, and there are very limited reviews and critical essays about the original approaches and concepts which developed elsewhere. 4 Without a sufficient understanding of how the field has evolved in Turkey, it is not possible to understand why so far theoretical studies were weak. Thus, the aim of this article is to examine the unique disciplinary history of IR in Turkey. However, we cannot provide a comprehensive history of the discipline since this is impossible to cover in one article; thus, we will mainly focus on the theoretical considerations. In 2008 Aydınlı and Mathews examined, particularly through interviews with local disciplinary community, when and how IR theory was introduced to the local disciplinary community, the factors surrounding its emergence and the forms of scholarly activity that fall under the title of theorizing. 5 In 2010 Bilgin wrote a review article about the recent edited volumes on international relations produced by non-western scholars. 6 Bilgin also presented an article about the state of IR studies in Turkey. 7 In fact, Aydınlı and Mathews as well as Bilgin have contributed to the growth of the literature about study of international relations beyond the West and the state of IR studies in Turkey. That said this article aspires to contribute to the previous scholarship by presenting significance of theoretical considerations in a historical perspective, in relation to the Western theoretical developments. Looking at the history will be fruitful for engaging in critical disciplinary reflection of the present. The way the article intends to analyze is as follows. The article considers that it is useful to apply institutional-cultural context 8. Firstly, it will review origins Dergisi, Special Issue, Vol. 2, No. 6, 2005. Council on International Relations has organized two more meetings in 2007 and 2009 respectively. 4 Nevertheless, the Turkish IR scholars are debating whether they have to create their own distinct body of theoretical thinking in international relations. See Ersel Aydınlı ve Julie Mathews, Periphery Theorizing for a Truly Internationalized Discipline: Spinning IR Theory out of Anatolia, Review of International Studies, Vol. 34, 2008, p. 693-712; Pınar Bilgin ve Oktay Tanrısever, A Telling Story of IR in the Periphery: Telling Turkey about the World, Telling the World about Turkey, Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2009, p. 174-179; Ersel Aydınlı, Erol Kurubaş ve Haluk Özdemir, Yöntem, Kuram, Komplo: Türk Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininde Vizyon Arayışları, (Ankara: Asil Yayın, 2009), p. 62. 5 Aydınlı and Mathews, Periphery Theorizing for. 6 Pınar Bilgin, Looking for the International Beyond the West, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 5, 2010, p. 817-828. 7 Pınar Bilgin, The State of IR in Turkey, BISA News, 2008. 8 Institutional-cultural context is adapted from the study by Knud Erik Jorgenson, Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2000, p. 9-42. 144

International Relations Studies in Turkey: Theoretical Considerations of the discipline in Turkey. Secondly, it will explain the impact of internal factors: cultural as well as institutional on the development of international relations theorizing. Taking an institutional-cultural perspective can be an insightful strategy to understand the current weakness in production of theory and paradigm. Does the institutional structure encourage theoretical research? Is there a research culture? Limitation of the article should also be noted. In the last part of the article although we try to talk about Turkish theoretical IR literature, it is not possible to make a profound analysis since this literature is limited. Also, it should be noted that this article does not aim to criticize the present situation, but to stimulate theoretical studies. WESTERN/NON-WESTERN DEBATE Western/non-Western debate in the international relations studies has been going on for more than thirty years. In the development of this debate, scholars have given attention to American hegemony. In fact, American hegemony in IR has existed and influenced the policy agenda and theoretical profile of the discipline. In this regard, Smith notes that The study of international relations was dominated by the US academic community in much the same way as the US dominated the world politics through its size and its role in producing the theory. 9 Hoffman argued that international relations studies have been an American social science. 10 According to Smith 11 and Tickner 12, Hoffman s argument that international relations studies have been an American social science has remained in the beginning of the twenty first century. The concern about the Anglo-Saxon hegemony is not only true for Turkey, because there is intense competition in the strongly US-dominated IR world market between center and periphery groups. As rightly argued by Bilgin, there is not radical difference in non-western ways of thinking and doing world politics 13, but as argued by Smith there is something about the study of international relations in the United States that marks it out from other 9 Steve Smith, The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline, International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2002, p. 67-68. 10 Stanley Hoffmann, An American Social Science: International Relations, Daedalus, Vol. 106, No. 3, Summer 1977, p. 41-60. 11 Steve Smith, The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1990, p. 399-400; Smith, The United States and, p. 81. 12 Arlene Tickner, Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World, Millenium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2003, p. 297. 13 Pınar Bilgin, Thinking Past Western IR?, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2008, p. 5-23. 145

N. Karacasulu international relations academic community 14, which is related with epistemological assumptions; that is the US dominated the discipline by adhering to one dominant theory, rationalism. Furthermore, International relations was launched in the image of social science as understood in the US 15, meaning that power seems to determine IR discipline. Yet, influence and hegemony of the US has not been without critique. In fact, if we accept the dominance of the US because of its hegemonic power, we can talk about the necessity for contribution from periphery, rather than simply accepting its dominance. As argued by Ayoob, Breaking the monopoly that controls the knowledge demands that we seriously attempt to present conceptual alternatives to the dominant theories of international relations. 16 Interestingly, the concern among the Turkish intellectuals coincides with the international scholarly agenda about the increasing literature on non-western international relations theories. 17 There have been attempts from the periphery to bring up their contributions. For example, Latin American IR thinking created dependency theory, which was influential until the late 1980s. Nowadays, in China there are significant efforts to produce a distinctive international relations theory. 18 Acharya and Buzan have questioned why there is no non-western international theory, particularly focusing on Asia. 19 Nevertheless, due to language as well as other problems such as the international position of a country and disciplinary 14 Smith, The United States, p. 68. 15 Knud Erik Jorgenson, Towards a Six-continents Social Science: International Relations, Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2003, p. 331. 16 Muhammed Ayoob, Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism, International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, Fall 2002, p. 27-48. 17 Acharya ve Buzan, Why There Is No Non-Western International Relations Theory?, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2007, p. 287-312; Amitav Acharya ve Barry Buzan, On the Possibility of a non-western IR Theory in Asia, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2007, p. 427-438; Amitav Acharya ve Barry Buzan, (ed.), Non- Western International Relations Theory Perspectives on and Beyond Asia, (London: Routledge, 2010); Qin Yaging, Why Is There No Chinese International Relations Theory?, International Relations of the Asia Pacific, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2007, p. 313-340; Richard Adigbuo, Beyond the Theories: the Case for National Role Conceptions, POLİTIKON, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2007, p. 83-97. 18 William A. Callahan, China and the Globalisation of IR Theory: Discussion of Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics, Journal of Contemporary China, Vol. 10, No. 26, 2001, p. 75-88; Song Xinning, Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics, Journal of Contemporary China, Vol. 10, No. 26, 2001, p. 61-74. 19 The special issue of International Relations of Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2007 included articles about non-western international relations traditions in China, India, Japan and Southeast Asia. 146

International Relations Studies in Turkey: Theoretical Considerations division of labor 20 it is difficult for periphery to be involved in Western discourse. At the same time, it is difficult for the center particularly due to the language barrier to study local developments in international relations theorizing, though their interest can be considered little. The value of theorizing in international relations cannot be ignored as stated by Rothstein. 21 Yet, as argued by Cox Theory is always for someone and for some purpose. 22 Thus, there cannot be a universal or value-free international relations theory as well as there cannot be a single perspective or a single theoretical vision. Indeed, non-western international relations voices are not unique, likewise the mainstream international relations theory. For many years, the mainstream IR dominated the discipline, not ignoring that on the evolution of the theoretical debate there were many contributions. In the last two decades, with an increasing focus on critical and constructivist approaches, epistemological and methodological as well as ontological debates are observed. In other words, alternative theories to the dominant rationalist mainstream IR theories have developed since the end of the Cold War. Yet, the core/periphery or the West/non-West division still remains, but we have to recognize the variation among the periphery and try to clearly articulate their unique potentials for IR discipline. DEVELOPMENT OF IR STUDIES IN TURKEY The study of international relations in Turkey has undergone a number of changes since its emergence as a field in the 1950s. The context has shifted over time, though national foreign policy as well as questions of identity formation and national security have attracted most attention and dominated the larger part of the scholarly output. The founding fathers of the Turkish IR discipline did not have theoretical concerns. This is due to the circumstances during the birth of the discipline. Looking at the history, in the 19 th century, there were modernization efforts in the Ottoman Empire, which are called Tanzimat. Under Tanzimat, the first steps are taken to train civil servants, who can speak foreign languages besides 20 About the division of labor in the academic world of international relations, see: Bilgin ve Tanrısever, A Telling Story, p. 176; about the explanation on hegemonic domination, see: Amitav Acharya ve Barry Buzan, Why There is no, p. 297. 21 Robert L. Rothstein, (ed.), Introduction, The Evolution of Theory in International Relations, (South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1992), p. Xii. 22 Robert W. Cox, Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory, Millennium- Journal of International Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1981, p. 128. 147

N. Karacasulu Turkish 23 and are informed about public administration and the European culture. It is observed that Ottoman elite group developed within this training system. 24 During those reformist years in the Ottoman Empire, the School of Public Service known as Mülkiye, was found in Istanbul in 1859, to train civil servants particularly the diplomats, based on the French discipline. 25 Mülkiye moved to Ankara in 1936. 26 In 1950, with the law no. 5627, the Faculty of Political Science (Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi- SBF), originally called as Mülkiye, was established in Ankara University. 27 In the 1950s while the French influence decreased, US influence increased over the SBF. 28 The first phase: In pre-disciplinary phase of the 1930s and 1940s, there were no institutions teaching a course titled international relations. Only in the 1950s, a course on International Relations has started to be offered in the SBF. According to Bilgin this course was offered for two purposes: to introduce students with Western advances in international relations and symbolize the Westernness of university education in Turkey. 29 Therefore, academic studies of international relations have not started with a view to contribute to the classical discussions on prevention of war and establishment of peace, but rather by identity concerns. The institutionalization of international relations discipline under a single chair can be traced back to the 1960s in the SBF. 30 In the mid 1960 s international relations became a separate discipline in the SBF. 31 Since the first generation of scholars contributing to the development of discipline was educated in the US, the earlier development of curriculum was 23 In those years it is called as Osmanlıca. 24 İlber Ortaylı, Osmanlı Düşünce Dünyası ve Tarihyazımı, (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2010), p. 104. 25 See: Gökhan Erdem, Türkiye de Siyasi Tarih in Gelişimi ve Sorunları Sempozyumu: Bildiriler Tartışmalar, No. 592, (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları, 2006), p. 25-27. 26 Ibid., p. 25-27. 27 İlhan Tekeli, Tarihsel Bağlamı İçinde Türkiye de Yükseköğretimin ve YÖK ün Tarihi, (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2010), p. 171. 28 Pınar Bilgin, The State of IR in Turkey, BISA News, 2008, p. 5. 29 Ibid., p. 5. 30 Duygu Bazoğlu Sezer, Türkiye de Uluslararası İlişkiler Çalışmalarının Bilim Dalı Olarak Gelişmesine Güncel ve Tarihsel bir Bakış, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, Vol. 2, No. 6, 2005, p. 38; Aydinli ve Mathews, Periphery Theorizing, p. 697. 31 Mehmet Gönlübol s statement in the preface of his book, Uluslararası Politika: İlkeler; Kavramlar, Kurumlar, 4. Baskı, (Ankara: Atilla Kitapevi, 1993). 148

International Relations Studies in Turkey: Theoretical Considerations highly effected by the American IR discipline. 32 However, the evolution of discipline has not continued in parallel with the US. Because even though in the formative years of its development, the discipline was shaped by scholars with a keen interest in history, during the evolution of discipline the scholars in the US moved away from this emphasis on history to establish international relations on a more scientific base. 33 Thus, in the US emphasis was given to theoretical development of discipline in the 1950s. Hanson 34 states that according to William T. R. Fox, who helped to shape international relations as a major academic field in the US, International Relations has to be viewed as a subject which is something more than contemporary history. 35 Furthermore, in the socalled second debate of the 1960s, the assumption about the incommensurability of historical and scientific research was developed. Turning our attention to local conditions in Turkey, since the main aim of the SBF was to educate potential diplomats, its academic program continued to emphasize on history of international relations, Turkish foreign policy and international law 36 unlike the situation in the US. Thus, until the establishment of other universities in the 1980s, the discipline of IR was closely connected with foreign policy making world. In short, theoretical frameworks have not dominated in the first phase of its evolution. Because of this, a lot of research has tended to be very practical, policy-oriented and mostly theory-free, usually about the strategies and events of foreign policy or on various aspects of diplomatic history and international law. 37 Furthermore, in the first phase, academic texts were limited and have not reflected traditional theoretical debates. According to Bilgin and Tanrısever 38 there was only one book on international politics during the foundation phase of the discipline. 39 But the literature on history of international relations started 32 Bilgin ve Tanrısever, A Telling Story, p. 175. 33 Simon Curtis ve Marjo Koivisto, Towards a Second Second Debate? Rethinking the Relationship between Science and History in International Theory, International Relations, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2010, p. 435. 34 Elizabeth C. Hanson, William T. R. Fox and the Study of World Politics, in Robert L. Rothstein, (ed.), The Evolution of Theory in International Relations, (South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1992), p. 1. 35 Preface in W. T. R. Fox, (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of International Relations, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959), p. ix. 36 Aydınlı ve Mathews, Periphery Theorizing for, p. 697. 37 Some examples are: Faruk Sönmezoglu, (ed.), Türk Dış Politikası Analizi, (Istanbul: Der Yayınları, 1994); Oral Sander, Siyasi Tarih: 1918-1990, 3. Baskı, (Ankara: Imge, 1993). 38 Bilgin ve Tanrısever, A Telling Story, p. 175. 39 A. Suat Bilge, Milletlerarası Politika, (Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası, 1966). 149

N. Karacasulu much earlier, in the 1850s. 40 Furthermore, theoretical studies were limited to translation during the 1960s and 1970s. According to Aydınlı and Mathews the SBF members have not contributed to theorizing, because of minimal external reading and critical engagement. 41 Moreover, in those early years of the discipline general meetings on the state of IR discipline is rarely found. 42 Therefore, whether there were concerns about academic theoretical studies or not cannot be put forward. Yet, concern about applying a methodological turn in international relations, which involves an emphasis on quantitative research as parallel to the studies in the core, is not observed. Furthermore, while the students of international relations in the core have been following the debate between the realist/neorealist schools, as well as with neo-liberal institutional approach, it was not possible for the ones in Turkey, unless they were fluent in English. The second phase: At the beginning of 1980s a sharp institutional change occurred. There was stagnation in the discipline due to political developments within the country. Significant percentage of faculty members of the SBF were imprisoned or fired with the coup of 1980. After the coup the main factor that affected development of higher education was the emergence of Higher Education Law no 2547 in November 1981, which was followed with the creation of the Turkish Higher Education Council, known with its acronym, YÖK. 43 While the number of faculties has reduced after the Law no 2547, several departments have been gathered under single faculties such as Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences and Faculty of Science and Literature. 44 In this connection, IR became a department under Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences in many universities. While discipline in the core moved towards inter-paradigm debate in these years, there has not been contribution from Turkey. Only in teaching theories of international relations this framework started to be applied. 40 The first book has been written by Abdurrahman Şeref Bey on Tarih-i Devlet-i Osmaniye to teach a course on history of relations of the Ottoman Empire. See: Erdem, Türkiye de Siyasi Tarih in, p. 24. 41 Aydınlı ve Mathews, Periphery Theorizing for, p. 698. 42 It is noted that there was a meeting in March 1961 at the Siyasal Bilgiler Fakultesi of Ankara University; and a second meeting was held after more than two decades in April 1996, at the International Relations Department of Middle East Technical University. See: Preface, Uluslararası Ilişkiler Dergisi, Special Issue, Vol. 2, No. 6, 2005. 43 Tekeli, Tarihsel Bağlamı İçinde, p. 193. 44 Ibid., p. 236. 150

International Relations Studies in Turkey: Theoretical Considerations The third phase: Gradually IR discipline received a higher intellectual status. The number of academicians in IR was 13 in 1986 45 while it is more than 750 in 2009. 46 There was also an increase in the number of IR journals. 47 As the number of universities and academicians studying on international relations studies increased particularly after 1992 48, an application phase of Anglo-Saxon world produced theories observed in the late 1990s and 2000s. The application phase began because YÖK have sent a high number of students for graduate studies abroad especially to the US. 49 As argued by Aydınlı and Mathews, this group started to compete in the discipline by using international relations theory, slowly originating a theoretical community. 50 They have emphasized on theory application and use of the theoretical frameworks. This has been considered negatively from the aspect of intellectuals studying history of international relations. For example, the SBF has been struggling since the 1980s on emphasis of history rather than theory of international relations. 51 Thus, there has been dissatisfaction among diplomatic historians in Turkey towards marginalization of historical perspectives. Meanwhile, interest on international relations studies has expanded. It became a highly attractive subject. The number of students as well as number of departments has increased. As of 2011, international relations is taught in about 80 public and private universities, either as independent department of International Relations or in combination with Political Science or European Union departments. 52 According to Jorgenson 53 these sorts of combinations can 45 Şule Kut, Türkiye de Uluslararası İlişkiler Eğitiminin Geleceği, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, Vol. 2, No. 6, 2005, p. 89. 46 Mustafa Aydın ve Korhan Yazgan, Türkiye de Uluslararası İlişkiler Akademisyenleri Araştırması, Eğitim ve Displin Değerlendirmeleri Anketi, 2009, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, Vol 17, No. 25, Spring 2010, p. 9. 47 The oldest journal of International Relations is the Turkish Yearbook of International Relations published by the Faculty of Political Science, Ankara University since 1960. Today, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Insight Turkey, Perception-Journal of International Affairs, New Perspectives on Turkey, Dış Politika/Foreign Policy are considered among the influential national scholarly journals in Turkey. See: Aydın ve Yazgan, Türkiye de Uluslararası İlişkiler, p. 25. 48 For the Table about the establishment years of 114 universities in Turkey, See: Tekeli, Tarihsel Bağlamı İçinde, p. 218-221. 49 Tekeli, Tarihsel Bağlamı İçinde, p. 309. 50 Aydınlı ve Mathews, Periphery Theorizing for, p. 699-700. 51 Erdem, Türkiye de Siyasi Tarih in, p. 68. 52 For the list of universities see official page of the Turkish Higher Educational Council: http://www.yok.gov.tr. 53 Jorgenson, Towards a Six-continents, p. 333. 151

N. Karacasulu be found elsewhere, and this intellectual environment might indirectly effect theorizing. For example, in the US, IR is typically part of a political science department, while in the UK though there is IR/political science combination there are also a lot of independent IR departments alongside department of politics, sociology and history. Thus, Jorgenson considers that in the UK there is more tolerance towards pluralism than in the US. In Turkey, this combination with political science is observed in about 15 % of universities whereas there are only two universities with IR/EU studies combination. Yet, IR departments exist alongside business and economics departments in a single faculty in almost all of the universities. This structural factor might have affected curriculum development of international relations studies. It is argued that different cultural as well as institutional conditions shape academic reflections. Thus local institutional and cultural conditions will be examined in the following sections. Institutional Context IR discipline in Turkey has seen rapid growth in institutional terms over the last decade as new departments, centers and think-tanks opened. The number of students graduating in international relations has increased at both graduate and undergraduate levels. In addition, research on international relations studies has grown. Despite such development of the discipline, there is still an underachievement in theoretical studies. There are many institutional factors that have inhibited development of international relations theorizing in Turkey. First of all due to teaching loads, academia has been concerned on the issue of not having enough time for academic research. In addition, there are too many PhD candidates supervised by one scholar. Hence, publication record decreases due to teaching as well as supervising loads. On the other hand, in Western academia, research is encouraged by the career structure, while theoretical research generally has high standing. 54 Secondly, resources for academic research such as support given for attending international conferences abroad, access to adequate computer and library services, electronic databases, archival materials on-line and research grants are limited. Again in the West, research is funded and supported, up to a point. According to Acharya and Buzan, these two institutional factors are also related with the absence of a research culture in the periphery, which we will consider in the next section. 55 54 Acharya ve Buzan, Why There Is No?, p. 298. 55 Ibid., p.298. 152

International Relations Studies in Turkey: Theoretical Considerations There are also other institutional factors. First of all, the Turkish textbooks on international relations theory are very rare, because academicians do not get any credentials due to promotion policies at universities. This was also the reason why scholars preferred to publish articles on refereed journals either in Turkish or in English. Furthermore, they increasingly chose foreign periodicals (if they do not have language barrier) because YÖK and top-ranking universities encourage publishing internationally. 56 Secondly, studying abroad (particularly in Anglo-Saxon discipline) gives more chance to have a job as an academician. Yet, when the Turkish graduate students abroad are choosing their specialization their advisors usually guide to regional studies rather than to theory. 57 Lastly, if a candidate completed her/his dissertation in Ankara or Istanbul might easily obtain a job in a provincial university, but not vice versa. This limits cross-fertilization in Turkey. Cultural Context What are the cultural factors that cause weakness in theorizing? For many decades while there were efforts for theory building at center, due to economic and political problems, intellectuals in Turkey have mostly concentrated on national foreign policy rather than on international system. Thus, there are many studies focusing on Turkish foreign policy rather than on international theories. Secondly, there is poor training in analytical and methodological thinking. While leading journals are usually highly theoretical and have bias toward quantitative methodologies, since Turkish scholars lack this training they are not able to publish in these journals. Thus many scholars avoid leading journals and try to publish in policy journals. But this contributes to under representation in the discipline. Moreover, history and law are the two sub-fields that have dominated IR discipline in Turkey. This high influence of history and law kept the discipline less open to theorizing. In fact, today in most of IR departments in Turkey there are three main sub-fields or chairs: Diplomatic History (History of International Relations), International Law and International Relations. Historians consider that still there is a close tie between two sub-fields. 58 Thus, it is difficult to emancipate IR from other fields, especially from the monopoly of history of 56 Bilgin, The State of, p. 6. 57 Aydınlı ve Mathews, Periphery Theorizing for, p. 709. 58 Erdem, Türkiye de Siyasi Tarih in, p. 4. This book involves information about the establishment of studies on diplomatic history. 153

N. Karacasulu international relations. Historians usually show distrust toward theorization and question the gap between theory and reality. As regards to main schools of thought, classical realist and neo-realist perspectives are well established. In fact, especially Turkish foreign and security policies are analyzed with realist strategies. Nevertheless, in recent years two theoretical positions have clearly attracted attention: constructivism and critical theory. 59 This situation is a little bit unusual compared with earlier methodological tendencies towards a positivist domain. Realist tradition based on geopolitical approach has been dominant because the general assumption was that ability of state to use its geographical position determines its place and role in international politics. The main driving force for the development of constructivist and critical studies in the last years can be considered to be more theoretical and critical towards policy oriented community. But still constructivists and critical researchers in Turkey rarely debate among themselves. Aydınlı and Mathews also indicated another periphery-based cause for the underachievement in theorizing as a loose IR disciplinary community. 60 In other words, this state of affairs is also due partly to the failure of researchers to consolidate their field of study. As rightly argued by Bilgin and Yurdusev 61, lack of loose dialogue among local academics is highly due to the reason that YÖK have encouraged publishing internationally, especially in journals covered by the Social Science Citation Index. THEORETICAL SCHOLARSHIP The first principal Turkish IR book was written by Mehmet Gönlübol in 1978 62 which includes general principles, concepts and actors of international relations. Subsequently, there were two other principal books written by Faruk Sönmezoğlu. 63 These productions of the first generation of international relations scholars involved a brief review of balance of power system and omitted any other theoretical discussions. 59 Aydın ve Yazgan, Türkiye de Uluslararası İlişkiler, 2009, p. 31. 60 Aydınlı and Mathews, Periphery Theorizing for, p. 706-709. 61 Bilgin ve Tanrısever, A Telling Story, p. 178. 62 Gönlübol, Uluslararası Politika 63 Faruk Sönmezoğlu, Uluslararası Politika Dersleri, (Istanbul: Filiz Kitapevi, 1990). This book involves topics on foreign policy making; Faruk Sönmezoğlu, Uluslararası Politika ve Dış Politika Analizi, 2. Baskı, (ed.), (Istanbul: Filiz Kitapevi, 1995). This book mainly focuses on foreign policy analysis, strategies, and instruments. 154

International Relations Studies in Turkey: Theoretical Considerations On the other hand, one can find well-developed Turkish IR literature on policy studies. The purpose of this essay is not to identify them in detail but to present general trends of theoretical insights in this literature. There is not a new theory put forward by these studies, but regional studies, here in the context of Turkish security and foreign policy studies, can contribute to theoretical discussions. For instance in the last years, a literature has developed about impact of Europeanization on Turkish foreign policy. 64 Studying Turkish foreign policy within a framework defined by Europeanization allows employing new conceptual tools. This approach to foreign policy analysis also provides opportunity for European focused IR scholars to engage in empirical testing, and in turn, forming building blocks for a theory of Europeanization. Second example is an edited book on Turkish foreign policy. 65 In general great powers get the most attention from IR scholars. Although definitions vary, middle powers rank somewhat below great powers in terms of their influence on world affairs. Baskın Oran has applied mid-size power analysis to Turkey, in which he considered middle power as a regional power. 66 Ahmet Davutoğlu, the incumbent Turkish Foreign Minister, presented another theoretical framework. 67 Davutoğlu s Strategic Depth approach is based on geographical and historical continuity. Geographical continuity based on place, is considered influencing many geopolitical areas; whereas historical continuity based on time, influencing soul of issues. 68 In other words, an analysis of Turkey s power in the world should involve historical developments with reference to geographical relations. Such a claim coincides with the argument of Cox; All the theories have a perspective. Perspectives derive from a position in time and space, specifically social and political time and space. 69 Overall, these examples indicate that conceptual arguments in foreign policy studies are developing. 64 Çiğdem Üstün, Europenization of Foreign Policy: the Case of Turkish Foreign Policy towards the Black Sea, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Vol. 10, No 2, 2010, p. 225-242; Tarık Oğuzlu, The Impact of Democratization in the Context of the EU Accession Process on Turkish Foreign Policy, Mediterrenean Politics, Vol. 9, No 1, 2004, p. 94-113; Ziya Öniş ve Şuhnaz Yılmaz, Between Europenization and Euro-Asianism: Foreign Policy Activism in Turkey during the AKP Era, Turkish Studies, Vol. 10, No 1, 2009, p. 7-24; Mustafa Aydın ve Sinem A. Açıkmeşe, Europenization Through EU Conditionality: Understanding the New Era in Turkish Foreign Policy, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2007, p. 263-274; Meltem Müftüler Baç ve Yaprak Gürsoy, Is There a Europeanization of Turkish Foreign Policy? An Addendum to the Literature on EU Candidates, Turkish Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2010, p. 405-427. 65 Baskın Oran, (ed.), Türk Dış Politikası: Kurtuluş Savaşından Bugüne Olgular, Belgeler, Yorumlar, Vol. 1 and Vol. II, (Istanbul: Iletişim, 2001). 66 Ibid., p. 29-30. 67 Ahmet Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye nin Uluslararası Konumu, (Istanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2001). 68 Ibid., p. 6. 69 Robert W. Cox, Social Forces, States,..., p. 128. 155

N. Karacasulu Nevertheless, through a quick survey over contents of major IR journals published in Turkey during the past decade, we can say that very few studies contain titles related with IR theories. Furthermore, among international relations journals, there is not yet one that is solely dedicated to theoretical investigations. Though the Turkish-medium international relations journals, named International Relations (Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi) which is included in the SSCI since 2008, as well as Review of International Law and Politics (Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika Dergisi) which is published by USAK - one of the Turkish think tanks - attempt to include theoretical studies. There are also other efforts to advance Turkish literature on international relations theorizing. For example, there are two edited books published in the mid-1990s and in the mid-2000s subsequently. The first one covers main traditional theoretical perspectives 70, while the second one focuses on main concepts such as power, state and hegemony. 71 Thirdly, there is a book written about critical international relations theory and globalization. 72 Similarly, there is a book on the actors of globalization that involves theoretical discussions. 73 In addition, there are two recent books published by Faruk Yalvaç about contributions of two political thinkers Rousseau and Hegel to international relations. 74 There are several other review books 75, which can be considered also as important contributions to Turkish literature. CONCLUSION We have endeavored to show historical evolution of Turkish IR studies. Encompassed in this discussion are theoretical considerations. Theorizing of international relations today is still in its primary stage, and the Turkish scholars are largely outside discourse in the core. How to improve institutional and cultural conditions is the question to answer if a Turkish school is to emerge in 70 Eralp, Devlet, Sistem ve Kimlik 71 Atila Eralp, (ed.), Devlet ve Ötesi: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Temel Kavramlar, (Istanbul: Iletişim, 2005). 72 E. Fuat Keyman, Küreselleşme, Devlet, Kimlik/Farklılık: Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramını Yeniden Düşünmek, (Istanbul: Alfa Basım, 2000). 73 Deniz Ülke Arıboğan, Globalleşme Senaryosunun Aktörleri: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Güç Mücadelesi, (D R Yayınları: Istanbul, 2001). 74 Faruk Yalvaç, Hegel in Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramı: Dünya Tini, Devlet ve Savaş, (Ankara: Phoenix, 2008); Faruk Yalvaç, Rousseau ve Uluslararası İlişkiler, (Ankara: Phoenix, 2008). 75 Some examples are: Tayyar Arı, Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Dış Politika, (Istanbul: Alfa, 1996); Tayyar Arı, Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri, (Istanbul: Alfa, 2002); Burcu Bostanoğlu ve Mehmet Akif Okur, Uluslararası İlişkilerde Eleştirel Kuram, (Ankara: İmge Kitapevi, 2009); Hasret Çomak, (ed.), Teorik Bakış: Uluslararası İlişkilere Giriş, (Kocaeli: Umuttepe Yayınları, 2009); Deniz Ülke Arıboğan, Uluslararası İlişkiler Düşüncesi, (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2007). 156

International Relations Studies in Turkey: Theoretical Considerations the next decade. One can be optimistic about the future of Turkish international relations studies, because it is observed that interest on theoretical studies has grown potentially. Moreover, as Turkey redefines its identity in foreign policy, she realizes that it has not only a regional but global role to play. In other words, with increasing self-reliance, it can also export terminology and paradigms. But an academic bridge should be built between historical studies and theorizing to create a Turkish school of international relations. It is suggested that to move from application of theory to theory-building, scholars should formulate theoretically informed questions and enhance their contribution. In order to include more academicians to this process, first of all translation of English sources is required in the short-term. Though it cannot nationalize international relations, in the long-term it can contribute to IR discipline with a national paradigm by further efforts to internalize theorizing in the field of international relations, and by improving research culture and institutional structure. REFERENCES Acharya, Amitav ve Barry Buzan, Why There is No Non-Western International Relations Theory?, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2007, p. 287-312. Acharya, Amitav ve Barry Buzan, On the Possibility of a Non-Western IR Theory in Asia, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2007, p. 427-438. Acharya, Amitav ve Barry Buzan, (ed.), Non-Western International Relations Theory Perspectives on and Beyond Asia, (London: Routledge, 2010). Adigbuo, Richard, Beyond the Theories: The Case for National Role Conceptions, POLİTIKON, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2007, p. 83-97. Arı, Tayyar, Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Dış Politika, (Istanbul: Alfa, 1996) Arı, Tayyar, Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri, (Istanbul: Alfa, 2002). Arıboğan, Deniz Ülke, Uluslararası İlişkiler Düşüncesi, (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2007). Arıboğan, Deniz Ülke. Globalleşme Senaryosunun Aktörleri: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Güç Mücadelesi, (D R Yayınları: Istanbul, 2001). Aydın, Mustafa ve Korhan Yazgan, Türkiye de Uluslararası İlişkiler Akademisyenleri Araştırması, Eğitim ve Displin Değerlendirmeleri Anketi, 2009, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, Vol 17, No. 25, Bahar 2010, p. 3-42. Aydın, Mustafa ve Sinem A. Açıkmeşe, Europenization through EU Conditionality: Understanding the New Era in Turkish Foreign Policy, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2007, p. 263-274. Aydınlı, Ersel, Erol Kurubaş ve Haluk Özdemir, Yöntem, Kuram, Komplo: Türk Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininde Vizyon Arayışları, (Ankara: Asil Yayın, 2009). 157

N. Karacasulu Aydınlı, Ersel ve Julie Mathews, Periphery Theorizing for a Truly Internationalized Discipline: Spinning IR Theory out of Anatolia, Review of International Studies, Vol. 34, 2008, p. 693-712. Ayoob, Muhammed, Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism, International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, Sonbahar 2002, p. 27-48. Baç, Meltem Müftüler ve Yaprak Gürsoy, Is There a Europeanization of Turkish Foreign Policy? An Addendum to the Literature on EU candidates, Turkish Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2010, p. 405-427. Bilge, A. Suat, Milletlerarası Politika, (Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası, 1966). Bilgin, Pınar ve Oktay Tanrısever, A Telling Story of IR in the Periphery: Telling Turkey about the World, Telling the World about Turkey, Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2009, p. 174-179. Bilgin, Pınar, Looking for the International Beyond the West, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 5, 2010, p. 817-828. Bilgin, Pınar, Thinking Past Western IR?, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2008, p. 5-23. Bilgin, Pınar, The State of IR in Turkey, BISA News, 2008. Bostanoğlu, Burcu ve Mehmet Akif Okur, Uluslararası İlişkilerde Eleştirel Kuram, (Ankara: İmge Kitapevi, 2009). Callahan, William A., China and the Globalisation of IR Theory: Discussion of Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics, Journal of Contemporary China, Vol. 10, No. 26, 2001, p. 75-88. Cox, Robert W., Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory, Millennium- Journal of International Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1981, p. 126-155. Curtis, Simon ve Marjo Koivisto, Towards a Second Second Debate? Rethinking the Relationship between Science and History in International Theory, International Relations, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2010, p. 433-455. Çomak, Hasret, (ed.), Teorik Bakış: Uluslararası İlişkilere Giriş, (Kocaeli: Umuttepe Yayınları, 2009). Davutoğlu, Ahmet, Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye nin Uluslararası Konumu, (Istanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2001). Eralp, Atila, (ed.), Devlet, Sistem ve Kimlik: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Temel Yaklaşımlar, (Istanbul: İletişim, 1996). Eralp, Atila (ed), Devlet ve Otesi: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Temel Kavramlar, (Istanbul: Iletişim, 2005). Erdem, Gökhan, Türkiye de Siyasi Tarih in Gelişimi ve Sorunları Sempozyumu: Bildiriler Tartışmalar, (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları, No. 592, 2006). 158

International Relations Studies in Turkey: Theoretical Considerations Fox, W. T. R., (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of International Relations, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959). Gönlübol, Mehmet, Uluslararası Politika: İlkeler, Kavramlar, Kurumlar, 4. Baskı, (Ankara: Atilla Kitapevi, 1993). Hanson, Elizabeth C., William T. R. Fox and the Study of World Politics, in Robert L. Rothstein, (ed.), The Evolution of Theory in International Relations, (South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1992), p. 1-20. Hoffmann, Stanley, An American Social Science: International Relations, Daedalus, Vol. 106, No. 3, Yaz 1977, p. 41-60. Jorgenson, Knud Erik, Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2000, p. 9-42. Jorgenson, Knud Erik, Towards a Six-continents Social Science: International Relations, Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2003, p. 330-343. Keyman, E. Fuat, Küreselleşme, Devlet, Kimlik/Farklılık: Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramını Yeniden Düşünmek, (Istanbul: Alfa Basım, 2000). Kut, Şule, Türkiye de Uluslararası İlişkiler Eğitiminin Geleceği, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, Vol. 2, No. 6, 2005, p. 87-105. Oğuzlu, Tarık, The Impact of Democratization in the Context of the EU Accession Process on Turkish Foreign Policy, Mediterrenean Politics, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2004, p. 94-113. Oran, Baskın, (ed.), Türk Dış Politikası: Kurtuluş Savaşından Bugüne Olgular, Belgeler, Yorumlar, Vol. 1 and Vol. II, (Istanbul: İletişim, 2001). Ortaylı, İlber, Osmanlı Düşünce Dünyası ve Tarihyazımı, (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2010). Öniş, Ziya ve Şuhnaz Yılmaz, Between Europenization and Euro-Asianism: Foreign Policy Activism in Turkey during the AKP Era, Turkish Studies, Vol. 10, No 1, 2009, p. 7-24. Robert L. Rothstein, (ed.), Introduction, The Evolution of Theory in International Relations, (South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1992). Sander, Oral, Siyasi Tarih: 1918-1990, 3. Baskı, (Ankara: İmge, 1993). Sezer, Duygu Bazoğlu, Türkiye de Uluslararası İlişkiler Çalışmalarının Bilim Dalı Olarak Gelişmesine Güncel ve Tarihsel bir Bakış, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, Vol. 2, No. 6, 2005, p. 30-53. Smith, Steve The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline, International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2002, p. 67-86. Smith, Steve, The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1990, p. 374-402. Sönmezoğlu, Faruk, Uluslararası Politika Dersleri, (Istanbul: Filiz Kitapevi, 1990). Sönmezoğlu, Faruk, (ed.), Türk Dış Politikası Analizi, (Istanbul: Der Yayınları, 1994). 159

N. Karacasulu Tekeli, İlhan, Tarihsel Bağlamı İçinde Türkiye de Yükseköğretimin ve YÖK ün Tarihi, (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2010). Tickner, Arlene, Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World, Millenium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2003, p. 295-324. Üstün, Çiğdem, Europenization of Foreign Policy: the Case of Turkish Foreign Policy towards the Black Sea, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Vol. 10, No 2, 2010, p. 225-242. Xinning, Song, Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics, Journal of Contemporary China, Vol. 10, No. 26, 2001, p. 61-74. Yaging, Qin, Why is there no Chinese International Relations Theory?, International Relations of the Asia Pacific, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2007, p. 313-340. Yalvaç, Faruk, Hegel in Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramı: Dünya Tini, Devlet ve Savaş, (Ankara: Phoenix, 2008). Yalvaç, Faruk, Rousseau ve Uluslararası İlişkiler, (Ankara: Phoenix, 2008). 160