Notes

Chapter 1

1. This study excludes the branch of civil society theory inspired by JürgenHabermas, which defines civil society as public sphere (Cohen and Arato 1992:210–212; Edwards 2004: 10, 57–58).

2. Civic activists use samimi and gerçek interchangeably. I have chosen to usesamimi consistently. I am aware that the Turkish word samimi can hold conno-tations of intimacy and closeness, which is not the case with the word gerçek.In fact, some interlocutors used samimi deliberately, because they wanted tostress such intimacy.

3. Pseudonyms are used for all interlocutors and organizations throughout thebook.

4. Hometown organizations (hemsehri dernekleri) unite people from the samegeographical place of origin in their place of immigration (Hersant andToumarkine 2005).

5. The category cami yaptırma dernekleri (associations for the construction of amosque) is by far the category with the largest number of associations (Hersantand Toumarkine 2005: paragraph 26).

6. A number of foundations established in Ottoman times still formally exist.Very few, though, are currently active (TÜSEV 2006a: 46).

7. The Kemalist state elite denotes a range of persons: personnel from the Turkishmilitary, including the high command; prosecutors and judges from the juridi-cal system; a number of bureaucrats; and rectors from the universities inTurkey (Rumford 2003). They have alliances with particular political parties—particularly the CHP—intellectuals, and Kemalist-nationalist CSOs. The elitedefines the Kemalist principles as the unchanging and unchangeable founda-tion of the Turkish republic, that is, a state ideology, and perceives itself to bethe guardians and caretakers of the Kemalist heritage.

8. Eickelman and Anderson have emphasized how new media contributes to theemergence of civil society in the Middle East in general (2003: 1). However, inthe Turkish context media liberalization is impeded by the ownership struc-ture, where few holding companies own the majority of media, as well as by arange of legislative legacies restricting freedom of speech (Alpay 2010).

9. As Keyman and Içduygu put it: “[t]hese two disasters made it very clear toTurkish people that the strong state is in fact very weak in responding and

186 NOTES

coping with serious problems. This failure of the Turkish state to respondquickly to crisis situations has given rise to a common belief among peoplethat CSOs and a more participatory political culture are necessary for theefficient and effective solution of the problem confronting Turkish society”(2003: 227). However, it has been argued elsewhere that although important,the earthquakes did not lead to a sustained grassroots movement that was ableto thoroughly challenge state authority. Instead, the statist elite found a way offorging alliances with segments within civil society (Kubicek 2005: 367).

10. Regarding the reforms of the nineteenth and early twentieth century versusthose in the republican era, it is worth underlining that the Kemalists did notrecognize these two reform movements as being continuous. Pre-republicanreforms are seen as the result of Western imperialism, whereas the reformefforts in the republican era were also an anti-imperialist endeavor aimed atestablishing national independence and sovereignty (Timur 1987: 23).

11. Some have pointed to the increased autonomous role of the local notables, theayan, and see them as a social force partly outside the state (Zürcher 2004: 24).

12. Simsek argues that civil society is “weak” quality-wise (organizational capacity,horizontal networks), not quantity-wise (2004a: 68–69).

13. The interest in studying the social use of civil society should also be recog-nized more broadly as a feature of the postmodern turn, where the analyticalemphasis has shifted toward social conflict and contestations, dynamic anddiachronic analyses, and a rejection of formal political structures as theprimary locus of politics (Kurz 2001: 197–198).

14. Public life is the concept Navaro-Yashin uses as an analytical term with regardto fencing in the political. Public life is a site for the generation of the political(2002: 2). Public life is preferred to existing analytical categories such as “pub-lic sphere,” “public culture,” and “civil society” since such categories all rest ona distinction between power and resistance. By way of the analytical concept ofpublic life, she claims that she can coin how people and state are not opposi-tions but part of the same domain in which the political is recast and produced(ibid.).

15. Kaliber and Tocci are not only concerned with Kurdish civil society. Theirarticle deals with how various civil society actors look at the Kurdish Ques-tion. However, they make use of the prevalent ideological and cultural lines ofdemarcation in order to structure their data.

16. When the term perceived is underlined, it is because in line with Marxist think-ing, Berman argues how this authentic self is not in reality something thatsets an individual outside structure. Rather it reproduces a particular form ofpower. Nevertheless, the ideal of authenticity is seen as a politically explosiveand revolutionary force in modern times.

17. Both strands were shaped in the nineteenth century and have had a profoundimpact on the features of the concept of civil society today. The Marxist, mostnotably reworked by Antonio Gramsci, emphasizes the reality of class exploita-tion, whereas the liberal strand privileges freely associating individuals (Hann1996: 5). This must, however, not be understood in the sense that Gramsci

NOTES 187

did not recognize the creative potential for liberation and social change incivil society, although he saw civil society as structured by class and ideology(cf. Cohen and Arato 1992: 147–148, 158–159).

18. This is not to say that the various theoretical contributions focusing upon thequestion of agency and structure grasp the relationship in similar ways. On thecontrary, there are different analytical assessments of what structure has todo with agency, ranging from Giddens’ recognition of structure as that whichenables agency rather than constrains it (1979: 5), and Bourdieu’s notion ofstructures as biased toward their own reproduction through actions embed-ded in these structures—epitomized by his notion of habitus (1977: 72)—to deCerteau’s recognition of the potential of subversiveness and resistance withinstructures, hence locating agency itself somewhat outside structures as a cre-ative source (1988: xiv; cf. Napolitano and Pratten 2007: 6), to Sewell Jr.’sattempt at distinguishing between the capacity of agency as a general featureof human life and how structures then affect the realization of this agency andempower agents differently under differing circumstances (1992: 20–21).

19. Dissolving the agency-structure dichotomy is actually also the objective ofPierre Bourdieu, and the motive for developing the concept of habitus (2001:27–36; cf. Mitchell 2007: 101).

20. Jackson recognizes that agency features in the lives of human beings with vary-ing degrees of intensity (2005: x). This brings to mind Sewell Jr.’s insights onthe varying intensity of agency (1992: 20–21), although Jackson works withinan experiential context not a realist one.

Chapter 2

1. The notion that internal cleavages result in a fragile civil society is no new-comer to debates on civil society (Hall and Trentmann 2005: 45). Recently,Muthiah Alagappa pointed out how civil society “. . . like other realms, isan arena of power, inequality, struggle, conflict, and cooperation amongcompeting identities and interests” (2004: 46).

2. Irtica was already used by the Kemalist elite in the one-party period to denotereligious reactionism (Ahmad 1993: 58; Zürcher 2002: 5). Hence, as Zürcherconcludes, “[t]he term ‘religious reaction’ (irtica) specifically refers to theoverthrow of the secular republican order established in 1923–24” (ibid.).

3. The ban is based on a dress code directive from the early 1980s that bans theuse of headscarf for public employees. Later, it became enforced at universitycampuses (Özdalga 1998).

4. In Turkey the unlikely community of interests between right-wing nationalistsand radical leftists is known as the kızılelma koalısyonu, the red apple coalition.They both represent an anti-EU stance in Turkey.

5. Pamuk in an interview with a Swiss magazine said that “thirty thousand Kurdsand one million Armenians were killed here. Almost nobody dares to speakabout it, so I do, and therefore they hate me” (Tages Anzeiger, January 27,

188 NOTES

2011). The use of the word “genocide” (soykırım) and/or portraying the eventsas genocide is punishable by law in Turkey.

6. His assassination was the culmination of a campaign against him that tookoff in the mainstream daily Hürriyet in 2004 after Dink had written an articlewhere he claimed that the adopted daughter of Atatürk, Sabiha Gökçen, wasof Armenian origin (Göktas 2010). But his assassination also mobilized a verybroad segment of Turkish society against violence, hate speech, and animosity.

7. In a survey on nationalism in Turkey in spring 2006, 33 percent of 800 Turksstated that they agree with the observation that the reforms demanded by theEU in order for Turkey to become eligible for membership are no differentfrom the conditions of the Sevrés Treaty (Tempo, April 6, 2006).

8. The coalition governments of the late 1970s depended on the right-wingnationalist party for their mandate. At the same time the so-called GreyWolves, the youth branch of the ultranationalist party, established themselvesas self-proclaimed guardians of law and order on the streets. However, theywere de facto acting under the protection of a party in government. Right-wingnationalists simultaneously came to dominate among others the police force.In this way the right-wing nationalists became part of politics and close tostate powers and authorities (Ahmad 1993: 165). The traditionally strong linkbetween right-wing nationalists and the military in Turkey has moreover beenpointed out (Hale 1994; Cizre-Sakallıoglu 1997).

9. Also the religiously conservative industrialist organization MÜSIAD attemptsto draw a line from the ahılıks—associations for craftsmen, artisans, traderset cetera in Anatolia during Selcuk rule and Ottoman times—to itself, henceunderlining continuity from Ottoman to present times. It has been an explicitstrategy of the pro-Islamic movement in Turkey to emphasize continuity fromthe Ottoman Empire (an Islamic Empire) to Turkey as a counter discourse tothe Kemalist elite’s attempts to denounce such continuity (Houston 2001).

10. When I say particularly from the 1960s onward it is because of the politicalliberalization in the aftermath of the 1960 military coup (Ahmad 1993: 139;Zürcher 2004: 246).

Chapter 3

1. Murat and Selma’s accounts echo what sociologist Anthony Giddens in his studyon modernity refers to as self-identity. Self-identity is defined as a person’s expe-rience of herself as an autonomous individual in charge of her own life coursethrough the construction of biographical narratives, where past, present, andfuture become part of coherent accounts and life strategies (1991: 53).

Chapter 4

1. The prevalence of conspiracy thinking is reflected in popular cultural produc-tions, for example, books like those by Soner Yalçın (2004, 2006), or films andTV series like Kurtlar Vadisi (Valley of Wolves).

NOTES 189

2. Constructed on the basis of field notes, January 30, February 2, February 4,February 5, February 7, 2006.

3. Although the reference is to an academic article, the article is written by twomembers of the ARI organization and is here treated as a primary source onactivists’ perceptions of civil society.

4. The same author later wrote a similar book about “project democracy” inAzerbaijan (2009).

5. Plagemann describes this “factionalism” (2000: 471) in Human rights organi-zations, and argues that it is the result of ideological struggles and personalanimosities (2000: 434–436, 441).

6. Kubicek mentions that Turkish “. . . NGOs that gain attention in the Turkishmedia, even those in Istanbul, often have rather shabby, Spartan offices” andis “struck by how many appeared to be a little more than an office worker ortwo, a phone, computer, and fax machine” (2005: 377, note 44). However, asshown here one cannot necessarily assess the capacity of an organization basedon their office or number of staff, since this gives no insights into the socialnetworks they can activate.

7. Singerman argues how people in poor urban residential areas in Cairo per-ceive social networks as a prime resource. They evaluate their own and others’capacity to act on their life circumstances according to networks (1989: 223).

Chapter 5

1. STGP (Sivil Toplum Gelistirme Projesi, the Civil Society Development Project)has since then become a permanent center entitled STGM (Sivil ToplumGelistirme Merkezi, the Civil Society Development Center). STGM is an Ankara-based CSO aimed at enhancing the capacity of NGOs by offering training, forexample, in relation to project preparation and management.

Glossary of Turkish Words

Aile: FamilyArka planı: Back schemeAydınlatmak: To enlightenAyıp: ShamefulBagımsız(lık): Independent, IndependenceBasörtü(sü): HeadscarfBilgi: Knowledge, connoting objective informationBölge: RegionBölücü: SeparatistÇagdas: Modern, contemporaryDerin devlet: Deep stateDernek: AssociationDevlet: StateDindar: Devout, pious, religiousDini: Religious, pertaining to religionFasist: FascistFon: FundsGerçek: True, sincereGönüllü: VolunteerGöre -a/-e: According toGüç: Strength, powerGüçlü: PowerfulHalk: PeopleHizmet: Service, dutyHizmet etmek: To serveHükümet: GovernmentIdeoloji: IdeologyIktidar: PowerIliskiler: Relations, connectionsInsan hakları: Human rightsIrtica: Reactionism, refers to pro-IslamistsKadın: WomanKatılım: ParticipationKaynak: Source (here funding source)Kisi: PersonKisiye göre: According to person

192 GLOSSARY OF TURKISH WORDS

Kurulus: Association, organizationKürt: KurdishLiberal: LiberalMedeniyet: CivilizationMillet: NationMilliyetçi: Right-wing nationalistMuhafazakâr: Conservative, traditionalistMücadele: StruggleÖn görüs: Front sightÖrgüt: Network, organizationProfesyonellesme: ProfessionalizationProje: ProjectProje kültürü: Project cultureProjecilik: Project makingPropaganda: PropagandaRenk: Color, flavorSamimi: True, genuine, sincereSamimiyet: Genuineness, sinceritySivil toplum: Civil societySivil toplum kurulusu: Civil society organizationSivil toplum örgütü: Civil society organizationSiyaset: PoliticsSolcu: LeftistSTK: Abbreviation of sivil toplum kurulusuSTÖ: Abbreviation of sivil toplum örgütüSirket: CompanySube: Branch officeUlusalcı: Kemalist-nationalistUzman: ExpertVakıf : FoundationVatandas: CitizenYabancı: Stranger, foreigner

Bibliography

Adaman, Fikret and Murat Arsel (eds.) (2005) Environmentalism in Turkey.Aldershot: Ashgate.

Adem, Çigdem (2008) [2005] “Non-state Actors and Environmentalism,” in AliÇarkoglu and William Hale (eds.) The Politics of Modern Turkey: Critical Issuesin Modern Politics. London and New York: Routledge.

Ahıska, Meltem (2003) “Occidentalism: The Historical Fantasy of the Modern,”South Atlantic Quarterly, 102(2/3): 351–379.

Ahmad, Feroz (1993) The Making of Modern Turkey. London: Routledge.———(2003) Turkey: The Quest for Identity. Oxford: Oneworld.Alagappa, Muthiah (2004) Civil Society and Political Change in Asia, Expanding and

Containing Democratic Space. Stanford, NJ: Stanford University Press.Alemdar, Zeynep (2008) Turkish Civil Society and the European Union. Frankfurt

am Main: VDM Verlag.Alexander, Catherine (2002) Personal States: Making Connections Between People

and Bureaucracy in Turkey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Alpay, Sahin (2010) “Two Faces of the Press in Turkey: The Role of the Media in

Turkey’s Modernisation and Democracy,” in Cecilia J. Kerslake, Kerem Öktemand Philip Robins (eds.) Turkey’s Engagement with the Modern: Conflict andChange in the Twentieth Century. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Anderson, Jon W. (1996) “Conspiracy Theories, Premature Entextualization, andPopular Political Analysis,” Arab Studies Journal, IV: 96–103.

Arat, Yesim (1994) “Women’s Movement of the 1980’s in Turkey: Radical Out-come of Liberal Kemalism,” in Fatma Müge Göçek and Shiva Balaghi (eds.)Reconstructing Gender in Middle East. New York: Columbia University Press.

Arat, Zehra F. (1998) “Educating the Daughters of the Republic,” in ZehraF. Arat (ed.) Deconstructing Images of “The Turkish Woman.” London: PalgraveMacMillan.

Beckman, Björn (1997): “Explaining Democratization: Notes on the Concept ofCivil Society,” in Elisabeth Özdalga and Sune Persson (eds.) Civil Society, Democ-racy and the Muslim World. Transactions, volume 7. Istanbul: Swedish ResearchInstitute.

Belge, Murat (1996) “Sivil Toplum Örgütleri,” in Taciser Belge (der.) Merhaba SivilToplum. Istanbul: Helsinki Yurttaslar Dernegi Yayını.

Belge, Taciser (der.) (1996) Merhaba Sivil Toplum. Istanbul: Helsinki YurttaslarDernegi Yayını.

194 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bellér-Hann, Idikó and Chris Hann (2000) Turkish Region State, Market & SocialIdentities on the East Black Sea Coast. Oxford: James Currey.

Benthall, Jonathan (2000) “Civil society’s need for de-deconstruction,” Anthropol-ogy Today, 16(2): 1–3.

Berman, Marshall (2009) [1970] The Politics of Authenticity: Radical Individualismand the Emergence of Modern Society. New York: Verso.

Bilen, Gülhan and Serdar M. Kabukçuoglu (2005) Proje süreci Yönetimi veMantıksal Çerçeve Matrisi Hazırlama Ilkeleri. Istanbul: Bilgi ÜniversitesiYayınları.

Bora, Tanıl (2000) “Professional chambers and Non-voluntary Organizations: TheIntersection of Public, Civil and National,” in Stefanos Yerasimos, Günter Seufertand Karin Vorhoff (eds.) Civil Society in the Grip of Nationalism: Studies onPolitical Culture in Contemporary Turkey. Istanbul: Orient-Institut.

———(2003) “Nationalist Discourses in Turkey,” The South Atlantic Quarterly,102(2/3): 433–451.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

———(1998) Practical Reason, on the Theory of Action. Cambridge: PolityPress.

———(2001) “Habitus,” in Jean Hillier and Emma Rooksby (eds.) Habitus: A Senseof Place. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishers.

Brink-Danan, Marcy (2012) Jewish Life in 21st-Century Turkey: The Other Side ofTolerance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Burak, Begüm (2011) “Turkish Political Culture and Civil Society: An UnsettlingCoupling,” Alternatives, 10(1): 59–71.

Can, Kemal (2000) “Youth, Turkism and the Extreme Right: The ‘Idealist Hearths’, ”in Stefanos Yerasimos, Günter Seufert and Karin Vorhoff (eds.) Civil Societyin the Grip of Nationalism: Studies on Political Culture in Contemporary Turkey.Istanbul: Orient-Institut.

Casier, Marlies (2009) “Contesting the ‘Truth’ of Turkey’s Human Rights Situation:State-Association Interactions in and outside the Southeast,” European Journalof Turkish Studies, (10): 1–18.

Chatterjee, Partha (1993) The Nations and Its Fragments: Colonial and PostcolonialHistories. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

———(2004) The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most ofthe World. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cheater, Angela (1999) “Power in the post-modern era,” in Angela Cheater (ed.)The Anthropology of Power: Empowerment and Disempowerment in ChangingStructures. London: Routledge.

Cizre-Sakallıoglu, Ümit (1997) “The Anatomy of the Turkish Military’s Autonomy,”Comparative Politics, 29(2): 151–166.

Clayton, Andrew (ed.) (1996) NGOs, Civil Society and the State: Building Democra-cies in Transitional Societies. Oxford: INTRAC.

Cohen, Jean L. and Andrew Arato (1992) Civil Society and Political Theory.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 195

Comaroff, John L. and Jean Comaroff (eds.) (1999) Civil Society and the Politi-cal Imagination in Africa: Critical Perspectives. Chicago, IL: Chicago UniversityPress.

Comaroff, John L. and Jean Comaroff (1999) “Introduction,” in John L. Comaroffand Jean Comaroff (eds.) Civil Society and the Political Imagination in Africa:Critical Perspectives. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

———(2003) “Transparant Fictions; or, The Conspiracies of a Liberal Imagina-tion: An Afterword,” in Harry G. West and Todd Sanders (eds.) Transparancyand Conspiracy: Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order. Durhamand London: Duke University Press.

Crick, Malcolm R. (1982) “Anthropology of Knowledge,” Annual Review of Anthro-pology, 11: 287–313.

Cruikshank, Barbara (1999) The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and otherSubjects. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Çaha, Ömer (2004) “The Role of the Media in the Revival of Alevi Identity inTurkey,” Social Identities, 10(3): 325–338.

Çınar, Alev (2001) “History as a Contested Site: The Conquest of Istanbul andIslamist Negotiations of the Nation,” Comparative Studies in Society and History,43: 364–391.

———(2005) Modernity, Islam and Secularism in Turkey: Bodies, Places, Time.Minneapolis and London: Minnesota University Press.

Dagı, Ihsan (2004) “Rethinking Human Rights, Democracy, and the West: Post-Islamist Intellectuals in Turkey,” Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, 13(2):135–151.

Dalsgaard, Anne Line (2004) Matters of Life and Longing: Female Sterilisation inNortheast Brazil. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Das, Veena (2007) Life and Words: Violence and the Descent into the Ordinary.Berkeley: University of California Press.

de Certeau, Michel (1988) The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press.

Delaney, Carol (1991) The Seed and the Soil: Gender and Cosmology in a TurkishVillage Society. Berkeley: California University Press.

———(1995) “Fatherstate, Motherland and the Birth of Modern Turkey,” inS. Yanagisako and C. Delaney (eds.) Naturalizing Power: Essays in FeministCultural Analysis. New York and London: Routledge.

Demir, Ömer, Mustafa Acar and Metin Toprak (2004) “Anatolian Tigers orIslamic Capital: Prospects and Challenges,” Middle Eastern Studies, 40(6):166–188.

Diamond, Larry (1994) “Rethinking Civil Society: Toward Democratic Consolida-tion,” Journal of Democracy, 5(3): 4–17.

Diez, Thomas, Apostolos Agnantopoulos and Alper Kaliber (2005) “Introduction:Turkey, Europeanization, and Civil Society,” South European Society & Politics,10(1): 1–15.

Diken, Seyhmus (2006) Türkiye’deki Sivil Hayat ve Demokrasi: Sivil Toplum Sorun-larını Tartısıyor. Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları.

196 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Durakbasa, Ayse (1998) “Kemalism as Identity Politics in Turkey,” in ZehraF. Arat (ed.) Deconstructing Images of “The Turkish Woman.” London: PalgraveMacMillan.

Duran, Burhanettin (2004) “Islamist redefinition(s) of European and Islamic iden-tities in Turkey,” in Mehmet Ugur and Nergis Canafe (eds.) Turkey and EuropeanIntegration: Accession Prospects and Issues. London: Routledge.

Duran, Burhanettin and Engin Yıldırım (2005) “Islamism, Trade Unionism andCivil Society: The Case of Hak-Is Labour Confederation in Turkey,” MiddleEastern Studies, 41(2): 227–247.

Edelman, Marc (2004) “When Networks Don’t Work: The Fall and Rise of CivilSociety Initiatives in Central America,” in June Nash (ed.) Social Movements:An Anthropological Reader. London: Blackwell Publishers.

Edwards, Michael (2004) Civil Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Eickelman, Dale F. and Jon W. Anderson (2003) “Redefining Muslim Publics,” in

Dale F. Eickelman and Jon W. Anderson (eds.) New Media in the Muslim World:The Emerging Public Sphere, 2nd edition. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress.

Ekicioglu, M. Tuncer (2006) “Adnan Ertem: Osmanlı’yı Ihya Eden Vakıf KurumunuInsanlara Anlatmalıyız,” Sivil Toplum Dergisi, 4(15), http://www.siviltoplum.com.tr/?ynt=icerikdetay&icerik=98&id=569 (last accessed February 17, 2012).

Eralp, Atila (1990) “The Politics of Turkish Development Strategies,” in AndrewFinkel and Nükhet Sirman (eds.) Turkish State, Turkish Society. London:Routledge.

Erdogan, Necmi (2000) “Kemalist Non-Governmental Organizations: TroubledElites in Defence of Sacred national Heritage,” in Stefanos Yerasimos, GünterSeufert and Karin Vorhoff (eds.) Civil Society in the Grip of Nationalism: Studieson Political Culture in Contemporary Turkey. Istanbul: Orient-Institut.

Ergil, Dogu (2005) “Politics of Power,” Turkish Daily News, September 19, 2005.Esim, Simel and Dilek Cindoglu (1999) “Women’s organizations in 1990’s Turkey:

Predicaments and Prospects,” Middle Eastern Studies, 35(1): 178–188.EU delegation to Turkey (2008) “European instrument for democracy and human

rights (EIDHR) Turkey programme,” http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/human-rights/documents/turkey_eidhr_projects_en.pdf (last accessed May 19,2012).

Ezzat, Heba Raouf (2004) “Beyond Methodological Modernism: TowardsA Multicultural Paradigm Shift in the Social Sciences,” in Helmut Anheier,Marlies Glasius and Mary Kaldor (eds.) Global Civil Society 2004/5. London:Sage.

Fenster, Mark (2008) Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture,2nd edition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ferguson, James (2007) [2004] “Power Topographies,” in David Nugent and JoanVincent (eds.) A Companion to the Anthropology of Politics. London: BlackwellPublishing.

Foucault, Michel (2001) “Governmentality,” in James D. Faubion (ed.) MichelFoucault: Power. London: Allen Lane—The Penguin Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 197

Gellner, Ernest (1991) “Civil Society in Historical Context,” International SocialScience Journal, 43(129): 495–510.

Giddens, Anthony (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure andContradiction in Social Analysis. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

———(1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.Cambridge: Polity Press.

Glasius, Marlies (2001) Civil Society—A Very Brief History. Briefing No 1, Centrefor Civil Society, http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/pdf/Glasius_briefing1.pdf (last accessed July 12, 2010).

Göçek, Fatma Müge (2006) “Turkish Historiography on the ArmenianDeportations and Massacres of 1915,” in Israel Gershomi, Amy Singer andY. Hakan Erdem (eds.) Middle East Historiographies: Narrating the TwentiethCentury. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Göktas, Kemal (2010) “How Did the Media Make Hrant Dink a Target?” in HateCrimes and Hate Speech. Istanbul: Hrant Dink Foundation.

Göle, Nilüfer (1994) “Toward an Autonomization of Politics and Civil Society inTurkey,” in Metin Heper and Ahmet Evin (eds.) Politics in the Third TurkishRepublic. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

———(1996a) The Forbidden Modern: Civilisation and Veiling. Ann Arbor: TheUniversity of Michigan Press.

———(1996b) “Authoritarian secularism and Islamist Politics: The Case ofTurkey,” in August R. Norton (ed.) Civil Society in the Middle East, Volume2. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

———(1997) “Secularism and Islamism in Turkey: The Making of Elites andCounter-elites,” The Middle East Journal, 51(1): 46–58.

Göksel, Diba Nigar and Rana Birden Günes (2005) “The Role of NGOs in theEuropean Integration Process: The Turkish Experience,” South European Society& Politics, 10(1): 57–72.

Guida, Michelangelo (2008) “The Sevrés Syndrome and ‘Komplo’ Theories in theIslamist and Secular Press,” Turkish Studies, 9(1): 37–52.

Gunter, Michael M. (2006) “Deep State: The Arcane Parallel State in Turkey,”ORIENT, 47(3): 334–348.

Gupta, Akhil (2006) [1995] “Blurred Boundaries: The Discourse of Corrup-tion and the Culture of Politics, and the Imagined State,” in A. Sharma andA. Gupta (eds.) The Anthropology of the State: A Reader. London: BlackwellPublishing.

Gümüs, Korhan (2005) Türkiye’de sivil topluma iliskin genel sorunlar ve öneriler.Ankara: STGM (http://www.stgm.org.tr/docs/1123446503sorunlarveoneriler.doc) (last accessed October 7, 2008).

Gür, Aslı (2007) “Stories in Three Dimensions: Narratives of the Nation and theAnatolian Civilizations Museum,” in Esra Özyürek (ed.) The Politics of PublicMemory in Turkey. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Hale, William (1994) Turkish Politics and the Military. London: Routledge.Hall, John A. and Frank Trentmann (2005) Civil Society: A Reader in History, Theory

and Global Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

198 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hann, Chris (1990) Tea and the Domestication of the Turkish State. Huntingdon:The Eothen Press.

———(1996) “Introduction: Political Society and Civil Anthropology,” in ChrisHann and Elizabeth Dunn (eds.) Civil Society: Challenging Western Notions.London: Routledge.

Hann, Chris and Elizabeth Dunn (eds.) (1996) Civil Society: Challenging WesternNotions. London: Routledge.

Hannerz, Ulf (1993) “Hvilken global kultur? Seks teser om globalisering, kultur ogmennesker,” Samtiden, 4: 2–9.

Hansen, Thomas Blom and Finn Stepputat (2001) “Introduction: ‘States of imag-ination’, ” in Thomas Blom Hansen and Finn Stepputat (eds.) States of Imagi-nation: Ethnographic. Explorations of the Postcolonial State. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press.

Hastrup, Kirsten (1994) “Anthropological Knowledge Incorporated,” in KirstenHastrup and Peter Hervik (eds.) Social Experience and Anthropological Knowl-edge. London: Routledge.

———(1995) A Passage to Anthropology: Between Experience and Theory. London:Routledge.

———(2004) Kultur. Det fleksible fællesskab. Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Hastrup, Kirsten and Peter Hervik (1994) “Introduction,” in Kirsten Hastrup and

Peter Hervik (eds.) Social Experience and Anthropological Knowledge. London:Routledge.

Hersant, Jeanne and Alexandre Toumarkine (2005) “Hometown organisations inTurkey: an overview,” European Journal of Turkish Studies, Issue 2(2). http://www.ejts.org/document397.html (last accessed February 17, 2012).

Hofstadter, Richard (1965) The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays.New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Hojbjerg, Christian Kordt (1995) “Antropologiens hemmelighed: Refleksioner overetnografens rolle i studiet af hemmelige ritualer,” Tidsskriftet Antropologi, 31:165–176.

Holland, Dorothy, William Lachicotte Jr., Debra Skinner and Carole Cain (1998)Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Houston, Christopher (2001) Islam, Kurds and the Turkish Nation State. Oxford:Berg.

Ibrahim, Barbara (2007) “Youth exclusion and voluntarism,” lecture at semi-nar on Islam and Civil Society in the Middle East, November 16, 2007, DIIS,Copenhagen.

ICNL (2011) NGO Law Monitor: Turkey. The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. http://www.icnl.org/research/monitor/turkey.pdf (last accessedFebruary 22, 2012).

Içduygu, Ahmet (2007) “The Anatomy of Civil Society in Turkey: Locat-ing it in the EU Context,” in E. Fuat Keyman (ed.) Remaking Turkey:Globalization, Alternative Modernities and Democracy. Lanham: LexingtonBooks.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 199

Jackson, Michael (1989) Paths Towards a Clearing: Radical Empiricism andEthnographical Inquiry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

———(1996) “Introduction: Phenomenology, Radical Empiricism and Anthropo-logical Critique,” in Michael Jackson (ed.) Things as They Are: New Directions inPhenomenological Anthropology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

———(1998) Minima Ethnographica: Intersubjectivity and the AnthropologicalProject. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

———(2002) The Politics of Story Telling: Violence, Transgression andIntersubjectivity. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

———(2005) Existential Anthropology: Events, Exigencies and Effects. New York:Berghahn Books.

Jalali, Rita (2002) “Civil Society and the State: Turkey after the Earthquake,”Disasters, 26(2): 120–139.

Jensen, Maren Ottar (2001) En intim sag: En antropologisk analyse af studenterpoli-tisk praksis på et tyrkisk universitetscampus. MA thesis, Institute of Antropology,University of Copenhagen.

Jung, Dietrich with Wolfango Piccoli (2001) Turkey at the Crossroads: OttomanLegacies and a Greater Middle East. London: Zed Books.

Kadioglu, Ayse (1996) “The Paradox of Turkish Nationalism and the Constructionof Official Identity,” in S. Kedourie (ed.) Turkey: Identity, Democracy, Politics.London: Frank Cass.

———(2005) “Civil Society, Islam and Democracy in Turkey: A Study of ThreeIslamic NGOs,” The Muslim World, 95(1): 23–43.

Kalaycıoglu, Ersin (2002) “State and Civil Society in Turkey: Democracy, Devel-opment and Protest,” in Amin B. Sajoo (ed.) Civil society in the Muslim World:Contemporary Perspectives. London: I.B. Tauris.

Kaldor, Mary (2003) “The Idea of Global Civil Society,” International Affairs, 79(3):583–593.

Kaliber, Alter and Nathalie Tocci (2010) “Civil Society and the Transformation ofTurkey’s Kurdish Question,” Security Dialogue, 41(2): 191–215.

Kaplan, Sam (2006) The Pedagogical State: Education and the Politics of NationalCulture in Post-1980 Turkey. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Karaman, M. Lutfullah and Bülent Aras (2000) “The Crisis of Civil Society inTurkey,” Journal of Economic and Social Research, 2(2): 39–58.

Karpat, Kemal H. (2000) “Historical Continuity and Identity Change or How toBe Modern Muslim, Ottoman and Turk,” in Kemal H. Karpat (ed.) OttomanPast and Today’s Turkey. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Kaviraj, Sudipta and Sunil Khilnani (2001) “Introduction: Ideas of Civil Society,” inSudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani (eds.) Civil Society: History and Possibilities.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keane, John (1988) Democracy and Civil Society. London: Verso.———(1998) Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.Ketola, Markus (2011) “EU Democracy Promotion in Turkey: Funding NGOs,

Funding Conflict?,” The International Journal of Human Rights, 15(6): 787–800.

200 BIBLIOGRAPHY

———(2012) “ ‘A Gap in the Bridge?’: European Union Civil Society Finan-cial Assistance in Turkey,” European Journal of Development Research, 24(1):89–104.

Keyman E. Fuat (2005) “Modernity, Democracy and Civil Society,” in F. Adamanand M. Arsel (eds.) Environmentalism in Turkey. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Keyman, E. Fuat and Ahmet Içduygu (2003) “Globalization, Civil Society and Citi-zenship in Turkey: Actors, Boundaries and Discourses,” Citizenship Studies, 7(2):219–234.

———(2005) Citizenship in a Global World: European Questions and TurkishExperiences. London: Routledge.

Kızılyaprak, Zeynel Abidin (ed.) (2000) Sivil Toplum Kurulusları ve Yasarlar-Etik-Deprem. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.

Kramer, Heinz (2000) A Changing Turkey: The Challenge to Europe and the UnitedStates. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Kubicek, Paul (2002) “The Earthquake, Civil Society and Political Change inTurkey,” Political Studies, 50(4): 761–778.

———(2005) “The European Union and Grassroots Democratization in Turkey,”Turkish Studies, 6(3): 361–377.

Kucukozer, Mehmet (2007) “Civil Society: A Proposed Analytical Framework ForStudying its Development Using Turkey as a Case Study,” CIRSDIG work-ing paper, no. 21 (www.cirsdig.it/Pubblicazioni/Kucucozer.pdf) (last accessedFebruary 17, 2012).

Kumar, Krishhan (1993) “Civil Society: An Inquiry into the Usefulness of aHistorical Term,” The British Journal of Sociology, 44(3): 375–395.

Kurz, Donald V. (2001) Political Anthropology: Power and Paradigms. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Kuzmanovic, Daniella (2010) “Project Culture and Turkish Civil Society,” TurkishStudies, 11(3): 429–444.

La Fontaine, Jean (1977) “The Power of Rights,” Man, 12(3): 421–437.Lindholm, Charles (2002) “Authenticity, Anthropology, and the Sacred,” Anthropo-

logical Quarterly, 75(2): 331–338.———(2008) Culture and Authenticity. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Mardin, Serif (1969) “Power, Civil Society and Culture in the Ottoman Empire,”

Comparative Studies in Society and History, 11(3): 258–281.———(1973) “Center-Periphery Relations: A Key to Turkish Politics,” Daedalus,

102(1): 169–190.Meeker, Michael E. (2002) A Nation of Empire: The Ottoman Legacy of Turkish

Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Meyer, John W. and Ronald L. Jepperson (2000) “The ‘Actors’ of Modern Soci-

ety: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency,” Sociological Theory, 18(1):100–120.

Miller, Peter and Nikolas Rose (2008) Governing the Present: Administering Eco-nomic, Social and Personal Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Mitchell, Jon P. (2007) “A Fourth Critique of Enlightenment: Michel deCerteau and the Ethnography of Subjectivity,” Social Anthropology, 15(1):89–106.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 201

Mortensen, Lotte Bøggild (1998) “Diskurs og deltagelse i dagens Tyrkiet,”Tidsskriftet Antropologi, (37): 35–46.

Napolitano, Valentine and David Pratten (2007) “Michel de Certeau: Ethnographyand the Challenge of Plurality,” Social Anthropology, 15(1): 1–12.

Navaro-Yashin, Yael (1998) “Uses and abuses of ‘state and civil society’ in contem-porary Turkey,” New Perspectives on Turkey, (18): 1–22.

———(2002) Faces of the State: Secularism and Public Life in Turkey. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Nuijten, Monique (2003) Power, Community and the State: The Political Anthropol-ogy of Organisation in Mexico. London: Pluto Press.

OECD (2008) OECD, Environmental Performance Reviews—Turkey. Paris: OECDPublishing.

Onbası, Funda Gençoglu (2010) Civil Society Debate in Turkey: A Critical Analysisof the Usage of a Popular Concept. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.

Ortner, Sherry (1984) “Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties,” ComparativeStudies in Society and History, 26(1): 126–166.

———(1995) “Resistance and the Problem of Ethnographic Refusal,” ComparativeStudies in Society and History, 37(1): 173–193.

———(2005) “Subjectivity and Cultural Critique,” Anthropological Theory, 5(1):31–52.

Ottaway, Marina and Thomas Carothers (2000) “The Bourgeoning World ofCivil Society Aid,” in Marina Ottaway and Thomas Carothers (eds.) FundingVirtue: Civil Society aid and Democracy Promotion. Washington, DC: CarnegieEndowment for International Peace.

———(2005) “The New Democracy Imperative,” in Marina Ottaway and ThomasCarothers (eds.) Uncharted Journey: Promoting Democracy in the Middle East.Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Öktem, Kerem (2011) Angry Nation: Turkey since 1989. London and New York: ZedBooks.

Özbudun, Ergun (1996) “Turkey: How far from Consolidation,” Journal of Democ-racy, 7(3): 123–138.

Özdalga, Elisabeth (1998) The Veiling Issue: Official Secularism and Popular Islam inModern Turkey. Surrey: Curzon Press.

Özerdem, Alpaslan and Tim Jacoby (2005) Disaster Management and Civil Society:Earthquake Relief in Japan, India, Turkey. London: I.B. Tauris.

Özyürek, Esra (2007) Nostalgia for the Modern: State Secularism and EverydayPolitics in Turkey. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Plagemann, Gottfried (2000) “Human Rights Organizations: Defending the Partic-ular or the Universal?,” in Stefanos Yerasimos, Günter Seufert and Karin Vorhoff(eds.) Civil Society in the Grip of Nationalism: Studies on Political Culture inContemporary Turkey. Istanbul: Orient-Institut.

Pusch, Barbara (2000) “Stepping into the Public Sphere: The Rise of Islamistand Religious-Conservative Women’s Non-Governmental Organizations,” inStefanos Yerasimos, Günter Seufert and Karin Vorhoff (eds.) Civil Society inthe Grip of Nationalism: Studies on Political Culture in Contemporary Turkey.Istanbul: Orient-Institut.

202 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Robins, Kevin (1996) “Interrupting Identities: Turkey/Europe,” in Stuart Hall andPaul du Gay (eds.) Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage.

Rose, Nikolas (1999) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self, 2nd edition.London and New York: Free Association Books.

Rumelili, Bahar (2005) “Civil Society and the Europeanization of Greek-TurkishCo-operation,” South European Society & Politics, 10(1): 45–56.

Rumford, Chris (2002) “Placing Democratization within the Global Frame: Soci-ological Approaches to Universalism, and Democratic Contestation in Contem-porary Turkey,” The Sociological Review, 50(2): 258–277.

———(2003) “Resisting Globalisation?,” International Sociology, 18(2): 379–394.Saktanber, Ayse (2002) Living Islam: Women, Religion and the Politicization of

Culture in Turkey. London: I.B. Tauris.Sahlins, Marshall (1999) “Two or Three Things that I Know about Culture,” The

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5(3): 399–421.Sampson, Steven (1996) “The Social Life of Projects: Importing Civil Society to

Albania,” in Chris Hann and Elizabeth Dunn (eds.) Civil Society: ChallengingWestern Models. London: Routledge.

———(2002) “Weak States, Uncivil Societies and Thousands of NGOs: WesternDemocracy Export as Benevolent Colonialism in the Balkans,” http://www.anthrobase.com/Txt/S/Sampson_S_01.htm (last accessed February 17, 2012).

Seçkinelgin, Hakan (2002) “Civil Society as a Metaphor for Western Liberal-ism,” Civil Society Working Paper Series, no. 21, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29063/1/CSWP21.pdf (last accessed February 17, 2012).

———(2004) “Contradictions of a Socio-cultural Reflex: Civil Society in Turkey,”in Marlies Glasius, David Lewis and Hakan Seçkinelgin (eds.) Exploring CivilSociety: Political and Cultural Contexts. London: Routledge.

Seligman, Adam B. (1992) The Idea of Civil Society. New York: The Free Press.Seufert, Günter (2000) “The Impact of Nationalist Discourses on Civil Society,”

in Stefanos Yerasimos, Günter Seufert and Karin Vorhoff (eds.) Civil Societyin the Grip of Nationalism: Studies on Political Culture in Contemporary Turkey.Istanbul: Orient-Institut.

Seumour-Smith, Charlotte (1986) Macmillan Dictionary of Anthropology. Londonand Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sewell Jr., William H. (1992) “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Trans-formation,” The American Journal of Sociology, 98(1): 1–29.

Shryock, Andrew (2004) “Other Conscious / Self Aware: First Thoughts on CulturalIntimacy and Mass Mediations,” in Andrew Shryock (ed.) Off Stage/On Display:Intimacy and Ethnography in the Age of Public Culture. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Silverstein, Brian (2011) Islam and Modernity in Turkey. New York: PalgraveMacMillan.

Singerman, Diane (1989) Avenues of Participation: Family, Politics and Networks inUrban Quarters of Cairo. Dissertation, Princeton University.

Sirman, Nükhet (1989) “Feminism in Turkey: A Short History,” New Perspectiveson Turkey, 3(1): 1–34.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 203

Spradley, James (1979) The Ethnographic Interview. Orlando, FA: Harcourt BraceJovanovich College Publishers.

Stephen, Lynn (2004) “Gender, Citizenship and the Politics of Identity,” in JuneNash (ed.) Social Movements: An Anthropological Reader. London: BlackwellPublishers.

STGM (2003) STGP (Sivil Toplum Gelistirme Programı)—Needs Assessment Report.Ankara: STGM.

STGM (2005) STGMs Mapping Study: Civil Society Organizations—Needs andConstraints. Ankara: STGM.

Stoller, Paul (1989) The Taste of Ethnographic Things: The Senses in Anthropology.Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Stokes, Martin (1992) The Arabesk Debate: Music and Musicians in Modern Turkey.Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

———(1994) “Turkish Arabesk and the City: Urban Popular Culture as SpatialPractice,” in Akbar S. Ahmad and Hastings Donnan (eds.) Islam, Globalizationand Postmodernity. London: Routledge.

———(2010) The Republic of Love: Cultural Intimacy in Turkish Popular Music.University of Chicago Press.

Strathern, Marilyn (ed.) (2000) Audit Cultures. Anthropological Studies in Account-ability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge.

Simsek, Sefa (2004a) “New Social Movements in Turkey since 1980,” TurkishStudies, 5(2): 111–139.

———(2004b): “The Transformation of Civil Society in Turkey: From Quantity toQuality,” Turkish Studies, 5(3): 46–74.

Tapper, Richard and Nancy Tapper (1991) “Religion, Education and Continuity ina Provincial Town,” in Richard Tapper (ed.) Islam in Modern Turkey: Religion,Politics and Literature in a Secular State. London: I.B. Tauris.

Tarih Vakfı (2003) Projeler, Projecilik ve Sivil Toplum Kuruluslar. Istanbul: TarihVakfı.

Tarih Vakfı (2005) Sivil Toplum Kurulusları Rehberi 2005. Istanbul: Tarih VakfıYayını.

Taussig, Michael (1999) Defacement, Public Secrecy and the Labor of the Negative.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Taylor, Charles (1992) The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Timur, Taner (1987) “The Ottoman Heritage,” in Irvin C. Schick and ErtugulAhmet Tonak (eds.) Turkey in Transition: New Perspectives. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Toprak, Binnaz (1996) “Civil Society in Turkey,” in August R. Norton (ed.) CivilSociety in the Middle East, Volume 2. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Toros, Emre (2007) “Understanding the Role of Civil Society as an Agent forDemocratic Consolidation: The Turkish Case,” Turkish Studies, 8(3): 395–415.

Türköne, Mümtaz (2003) “Devletli Sivil Toplum,” Sivil Toplum Dergisi, 1(2): 61–68.———(2005) “ ‘Derin Devlet’ in Ideolojisi,” Sivil Toplum Dergisi, 3(10): 12–20.TÜSEV (2003) Data on Civil Society Organisations in Turkey. December 2003.

204 BIBLIOGRAPHY

TÜSEV (2006a) Philanthropy in Turkey: Citizens, Foundations and the Pursuitof Social Justice. Istanbul: TÜSEV, http://www.tusev.org.tr/userfiles/image/the%20landscape%20of%20philanthropy%20and%20civil%20society%20in%20turkey%20key%20findings%20reflections%20and%20recommenda.pdf(last accessed February 17, 2012).

TÜSEV (2006b) Civil Society in Turkey: An Era of Transition. CIVICUS CivilSociety Index Country Report for Turkey. Istanbul: TÜSEV, http://www.tusev.org.tr/userfiles/image/civil%20society%20in%20turkey%20an%20era%20of%20transition%20civicus%20civil%20s.pdf (last accessed February 17, 2012).

TÜSEV (2011) Civil Society in Turkey: At a Turning Point. CIVICUS Civil SocietyIndex Project. Analytical Country Report for Turkey II. Istanbul: TÜSEV, http://www.tusev.org.tr/userfiles/image/step_eng_web.pdf (last accessed February 17,2012).

Utkulu, Utku (2001) “The Turkish Economy: Past and Present,” in Debbie Lovatt(ed.) Turkey since 1970: Politics, Economics and Society. New York: PalgraveMacMillan.

Vorhoff, Karin (2000) “Businessmen and their Organizations: Between Instrumen-tal Solidarity, Cultural Diversity and the State,” in Stefanos Yerasimos, GünterSeufert and Karin Vorhoff (eds.) Civil Society in the Grip of Nationalism: Studieson Political Culture in Contemporary Turkey. Istanbul: Orient-Institut.

West, Harry G. and Todd Sanders (eds.) (2003) Transparancy and Conspiracy:Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order. Durham and London: DukeUniversity Press.

White, Jenny B. (1994) Money Makes Us Relatives: Women’s Labour in Urban Turkey.Austin, TX: Texas University Press.

———(1996) “Civic Culture and Islam in Urban Turkey,” in Chris Hann andElizabeth Dunn (eds.) Civil Society: Challenging Western Models. London:Routledge.

———(2002) Islamist Mobilization in Turkey: A Study in Vernacular Politics.Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Yalçın, Soner (2004) Efendi: Beyaz Türklerin Büyük Sırrı. Istanbul: DoganKitapçılık.

———(2006) Efendi 2: Beyaz Müslümanların Büyük Sırrı. Istanbul: DoganKitapçılık.

Yerasimos, Stefanos (2000) “Civil Society, Europe and Turkey,” in StefanosYerasimos, Günter Seufert and Karin Vorhoff (eds.) Civil Society in the Gripof Nationalism: Studies on Political Culture in Contemporary Turkey. Istanbul:Orient-Institut.

Yerasimos, Stefanos, Günter Seufert and Karin Vorhoff (eds.) (2000) Civil Societyin the Grip of Nationalism: Studies on Political Culture in Contemporary Turkey.Istanbul: Orient-Institut.

Yıldırım, Ergün (2005) “Apolitik Politikaların Insacısı Olarak Sıvıl Toplum,” SivilToplum Dergisi, 3(10): 53–60.

Yıldırım, Mustafa (2006) [2004] “Project democracy”: Sivil örümcegin agında. 10.basım. Ankara: Ulus Dagı Yayınları.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 205

———(2009) Aserbaycan’da Proje Demokratiya: Adım, adım teslimiyet. Ankara:Ulus Dagı Yayınları.

Yılmaz, Hakan (2006) “Two pillars of nationalist euroscepticism in Turkey: theTanzimat and the Sevres Syndrom,” http://hakanyilmaz.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/HakanYilmaz-2006-TanzimatSevresSyndromes-English-SIEPS.28455418.pdf (last accessed February 17, 2012).

Zabci, Filiz (2000) “Devlet Dısı Örgütler: Tanımlayıcı Bir Çerçeve,” Kültür veIletisim, 3(2): 99–127.

Zürcher, Erik Jan (2000) “Young Turks, Ottoman Muslims and Turkish Nation-alists: Identity Politics 1908–1938,” in Kemal Karpat (ed.) Ottoman Past andToday’s Turkey. Leiden: Brill.

———(2002) The Terakkıperver Cumhuriyet Fırkası and Political Conservatism,http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/tcimo/tulp/Research/ejz17.pdf (last accessedApril 2, 2008).

———(2004) Turkey: A Modern History, 3rd edition. London: I.B. Tauris.

Articles from newspapers and magazines(listed according to publication place)

“Hersey Beyoglu için,” Cosmopolitan, December 2005.EU-Turkey Review, fall 2007(9).“Ankara’nın Hitit Günesi Batmadı!,” Radikal, September 13, 2011.“Der meistgehasste Türke,” Tages Anzeiger, February 5, 2005.“Türkiye’de Milliyetçilik Arastırması,” Tempo, 14/957, April 6, 2006.“2.3. bln. Euros in EU funds for Turkey until 2010,” Turkish Daily News,

February 28, 2007.“Women’s Organisation Looking for Men,” Turkish Daily News, November 19,

2007.“Foundations Law at the Heart of New Debate,” Turkish Daily News, February 22,

2008.

Index

Note: The letter ‘n’ followed by the locator refers to notes in the text.

Adem, Çigdem, 15, 20age issues, 49, 52–3, 161–2, 171agency

existential anthropology and agency,5–6, 23, 27–9, 182, 187n20

experience of agency, 5, 6, 27–31, 35,70, 72, 77, 101, 103, 106, 111, 136,138–9, 146, 171–2, 178, 181–3

general theoretical debates, 26–7,181, 187n18, 187n19, 187n20

subjectivity and agency, 5, 6, 16,23–9, 68–71, 101–3, 106–7, 111,136, 138, 146, 175, 176, 178,181–3

aile/family (as metaphor), 77, 97–101,102, 179

AKP (Justice and Development Party),10, 36, 37, 39, 41, 85, 89–90, 111,115–16, 124, 125, 166

Alagappa, Muthiah, 187n1Alemdar, Zeynep, 2, 7, 14, 16, 20, 21,

34, 57, 72Alevi, 40–1

see also minoritiesissues/multiculturalism

Alexander, Catherine, 64, 75–6Anderson, Jon W., 111–12anthropological knowledge,

119–21anti-imperialism, 42, 122, 164, 186n10

see also ideological divides;conspiracy thinking

arka planı. see back scheme

authenticityagency and authenticity, 5, 23,

26–30, 70–1, 77, 107, 111, 136,176, 178, 182–3

modernity and authenticity, 24,29–30, 175, 178, 183, 186n16

autonomy, 5, 23, 25–31, 35, 68–71, 77,101–3, 106, 171, 175, 178, 181–3,188n1

back scheme. see conspiracy thinking,in Turkey

bagımsız(lık)/independence, 66, 77, 81,85, 90–3, 93–5, 95–7, 115, 117,127, 162, 179

Beckman, Björn, 6, 7, 23, 147, 149, 182Belge, Murat, 47–8, 54Berman, Marshall, 6, 25, 30, 183,

186n16biography (significance of).

see individuals (significance of)Bora, Tanıl, 20, 42

Casier, Marlies, 92, 144categories (significance of), 34, 68–72CEDAW, 14, 154Chatterjee, Partha, 5, 17, 23, 24, 174,

180–1civil society (general)

agency and civil society, 6, 23–9anthropology of civil society, 17–19,

21, 22authenticity and civil society, 2, 3, 4,

18–19, 20, 23

208 INDEX

civil society (general)—continueddemocratizing force, 2, 5, 6–7, 12, 14,

34, 144–5, 146–9, 150–1dominant western notion of civil

society, 2, 4, 7, 12, 21, 23, 27, 75,77, 82, 93, 97, 102–3, 107, 144,146–9, 151, 156, 177, 182, 186n17,187n1

empowerment, 23–5, 27, 145–6, 151,180

export of civil society, 4–5, 7, 25,144–6, 154, 177, 180

form of resistance, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24,186n14

object of ethnographic enquiry, 3, 4,17–19, 20, 177–8

political parties and civil society, 93post-colonial critique of civil society,

23–4, 174, 180power of civil society, 5, 6, 22, 23, 24,

25, 27, 30–1, 180–1, 183revival of civil society, 5, 6, 7, 12,

146–9state and civil society, 7, 12, 17–19,

23–4, 26, 30, 75, 77, 82, 151civil society (in Turkey)

Dernek and Vakıf, 9, 11, 55–6, 56–60,81–2

existing studies of, 3, 14, 16–22, 24,34, 53, 72, 144, 163, 178–9,186n12, 186n14, 186n15

family and civil society, 77, 97–101,102, 179

history before 1980, 15–16, 85,185n6, 186n11

history after 1980, 10–15, 16, 143,180

kinds of activities and organizations,1, 2, 7–11, 19–20, 30, 33–4, 40

knowledge transmission and civilsociety, 78–81, 96, 105, 145, 155–9

legal framework, 8, 9–11, 15, 56–60,93, 96

market/business and civil society, 77,95–7, 116, 118

new versus old history of civilsociety, 11–12, 15–16, 49–50, 53–6,84–5, 165, 188n9

political parties and civil society, 11,12, 66, 78, 86–8, 89, 90, 93–5,115–16

state and civil society, 9, 10, 11, 12,15, 16, 17, 18, 46–9, 54, 57, 65–6,126, 129, 131, 148, 150–1, 160

class issues, 19, 24, 49–51, 100, 162,171, 173–4, 180

Cohen, Jean L. and Andrew Arato, 2, 4,5, 6, 7, 149, 185n1, 187n17

collective identifications (significanceof), 35, 77, 98–9, 100–1, 117, 118,125, 133, 136, 163

Comaroff, John L. and Jean ComaroffOn civil society, 3, 4, 5, 18, 19, 24,

177, 179, 180, 181On conspiracy thinking, 111, 134,

138committee for Union and Progress,

15conspiracy thinking

theoretical assessments, 111–12, 120,134, 138

in Turkey, 42, 46controlling capacity, 110–111, 134, 136,

138Cruikshank, Barbara, 6, 25, 28–9, 183

de Certeau, Michel, 26, 187n18deep state, 111, 126–30Dink, Hrant, 45, 188n6

see also minoritiesissues/multiculturalism

earthquakes 1999 (significance of), 13,14, 150, 186n9

East-West divide. see geographicalissues

Edwards, Michael, 2, 5, 6, 14, 21, 24,77, 79, 185n1

enlightenment, 78–81, 83, 88, 92, 96,103, 105–6, 157

Erdogan, Necmi, 20, 83

INDEX 209

Erdogan, Recep Tayyıp, 36, 125EU, 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 37–8, 41–2, 44, 46,

48, 50, 57, 79, 88–90, 95–6, 114,122, 132, 143–4, 146, 148, 150–1,154–5, 159, 162, 170, 173, 187n4,188n7

existential anthropology, 5, 6, 23, 27–9,181

family. see aile/family (as metaphor)feminism. see gender issuesFenster, Mark, 111, 112, 120Ferguson, James, 2, 5, 7, 14, 17, 18, 24,

107, 147, 180front sight. see conspiracy thinking, in

Turkeyfunding issues, 66–7, 94, 95–7, 116,

127, 143–5, 153, 155, 158–61, 164,166–70

gender issues, 49–50, 68–70, 86–8,168–9

geographical issues, 8, 44, 50–1, 63–8,100–1, 159, 168–70

Göle, Nilüfer, 2, 12, 13, 16, 18, 34, 53gönüllü/volunteer (significance of), 51,

84, 116, 118, 161–3

Habitat II. see UN Habitat IIHann, Chris, 2, 4, 18, 19, 21, 23,

25, 26, 75, 77, 149, 177,186n17

Hansen, Thomas Blom and FinnStepputat, 24, 76

Hastrup, Kirsten, 56, 119headscarf issue, 37, 39, 168, 187n3

see also pro-Islamic CSOs;pro-Islamism

Hersant, Jeanne and AlexandreToumarkine, 9, 17, 43, 65, 93,185n4, 185n5

hizmet/serve, 82–5, 105, 116, 118,162

human rights organizations, 11, 20,37–8, 40, 48, 64, 91–2, 102–3, 150,168, 189n5

Içduygu, Ahmet, 8, 12, 14, 16, 144ideological divides

leftism-right wing nationalist divide,46–9, 73, 86–9, 132

leftism-state divide, 46–9, 73, 86–9,102, 131

national identity and sovereignty,41–6, 79, 95–7, 122–3, 127, 149,154, 160, 164, 167

religious-secular divide, 36–41, 82,88–9, 105–6, 125, 126–7, 166–8

IMF, 14, 143, 146, 155individuals (significance of), 98, 100,

117, 123, 125, 130–4, 139, 153,189n5, 189n6

Istanbul versus Ankara, 64–7, 116, 118see also geographical issues

Jackson, Michael, 5, 6, 27–8, 35, 70, 72,101, 106, 111, 138, 181, 182, 187n20

justice and development Party. see AKP(justice and development Party)

Kaliber, Alter and Nathalie Tocci, 12,16, 20, 186n15

Kemalist-nationalism/-nationalist,42–6, 47–9, 82–3, 90, 103–6,121–2, 127, 162, 164, 166, 185n7

see also Turkish stateKemalist organizations, 11, 19, 36, 39,

44, 45, 47–9, 52–3, 54, 61, 78, 83,85, 149, 164–5, 185n7

Ketola, Markus, 7, 14, 16, 34, 72, 142,143, 144, 149, 154, 168

Keyman, Fuat and Ahmet Içduygu, 2,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 144

Kubicek, Paul, 16, 186n9, 189n6Kurds. see minorities

issues/multiculturalism

leftism/leftist, 42, 46–9, 57, 61, 64, 65,79, 85, 90–2, 99–100, 102–3, 134,164, 187n4

liberal(s), 48–9, 80–1, 85, 88, 92, 94–5,121, 134, 150

Lindholm, Charles, 4, 29, 178, 183

210 INDEX

Mardin, Serif, 16media in Turkey, 13, 185n8military coups

12 March 1971 (significance of),47–9, 73, 179

12 September 1980 (significance of),7–15, 47–9, 54, 62, 73, 80, 87, 92,99, 105, 146–9, 179

28 February 1997 (significanceof), 10, 37–8, 40, 69–71, 87,166, 179

milliyetçi(lik). see right-wingnationalism/nationalist

minorities issues/multiculturalism, 11,13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 40–1, 42–6, 49,50–1, 67, 89, 127, 148, 166,168–70, 187n5, 187n6

Navaro-Yashin, Yael, 3, 12, 17, 18,19, 39, 75, 76, 85, 106, 111,112, 129, 130, 139, 140, 178,186n14

neoliberalismideology, 6, 7, 23, 146–9, 151, 180,

182mode of governance, 6, 23, 25–6, 28,

175what is, 6, 7

ön görüs. see front sightorganizational forms (significance of),

56–60, 63, 82, 163Ortner, Sherry, 26Ottaway, Marina and Thomas

Carothers, 151Özerdem, Alpaslan and Tim Jacoby, 13,

16Özyürek, Esra, 39, 75, 85

Plagemann, Gottfried, 20, 40, 47, 92,189n5

politics (dominant notions of),111–12, 119, 123, 125, 130, 134,139–40

polyvalence (of civil society), 22, 179,181

professionalization, 160–9pro-Islamic CSOs, 37, 40, 55–6, 57–60,

65, 68–70, 84–5, 89–90, 92, 164,166–7, 188n9

pro-Islamism, 10, 13, 19, 20, 55, 57–60,69, 71, 84, 105, 166, 187n2, 188n9

project culture, 53, 96, 114, 116–18propaganda versus knowledge, 79–81,

92, 94, 96, 105, 110, 124, 151public knowledge (production of),

110–111, 136–8see also truth production

public sphere, 17, 185n1Pusch, Barbara, 20

relations. see social networks(significance of)

republican rallies 2007, 39–40right-wing nationalism/nationalist,

41–6, 47–9, 61, 67, 83, 90, 122,127, 162, 164, 187n4, 188n8

Rose, Nikolas, 6, 25, 27, 175, 182, 183Rumelili, Bahar, 14, 51, 144

Sampson, Steven, 143–5, 151, 154, 156,157, 159, 171, 173

scaling, 178, 182Seçkinelgin, Hakan, 6, 7, 16, 147Seligman, Adam B., 4, 25–6Seufert, Günter, 3, 7, 12, 13, 16, 34, 93,

180Sewell Jr., William H., 26–7, 187n18,

187n20Simsek, Sefa, 2, 8, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 34,

49, 53, 72, 144, 186n12Singerman, Diane, 101, 132, 189n7sirket/company versus CSO, 116, 118,

158–62social networks (significance of), 35,

93, 98, 100–1, 111, 117, 120,122–3, 125, 127, 130–2, 135–9,153, 170–1, 174, 176, 189n6, 189n7

solcu. see leftism/leftiststate (general theory), 76–7, 106–7STGM, xiii, 8, 67, 142, 151, 189n1STGP. see STGM

INDEX 211

STK versus STÖ, 60–3subjectivity. see agency, subjectivity and

agency

Tanzimat, 15Tarih Vakfı, 143, 149Taussig, Michael, 110, 121Taylor, Charles, 4, 29, 178Toprak, Binnaz, 2, 12, 13, 15–16, 17,

21, 34, 49, 53, 180Toros, Emre, 10, 16, 144transition, 143–4, 146–9, 152, 155,

175truth production, 110–112, 121, 138

see also conspiracy thinking; publicknowledge (production of)

Turkish stateauthoritarianism, militarism, 12, 13,

15, 16, 46–9, 50, 57, 61–2, 73, 80,84, 86, 87, 91, 147–8, 150, 170,186n9, 188n8

citizenship relations, 13, 75, 83–4,86–7, 92, 97, 99, 103, 129, 148–51,164–5

Kemalism, 15, 42–3, 48, 75, 79, 83,91, 99, 103, 106, 157, 165, 186n10

Kemalist elite, 10, 13, 15, 16, 42–3,65, 81, 88, 148, 156–7, 167, 185n7,186n10

locus of social change, 13, 15, 16, 79,83–4, 88, 146–7, 151

national history (dominantnarrative), 42–3, 46, 86, 88, 90,122, 127, 186n10

secularism, 36–40, 105TÜSEV, 2, 8–9, 11, 14, 17, 51, 55, 58,

61, 121, 146, 151, 185n6TÜSIAD, 42, 56, 131

ulusalcılık. see Kemalist-nationalism/-nationalist

UN, 2, 7, 14, 50, 95, 143, 146, 154see also CEDAW; UN Habitat II

UN Habitat II, 1996, 14, 54UN World Summit on Sustainable

Development, Johannesburg,2007, 14

urban-rural divide. see geographicalissues

White, Jenny, 10, 20, 21–2, 24, 35, 58,75, 98, 100, 101, 102, 133, 180

women’s organizations, 19, 20, 49–51,86–9, 99, 129, 132, 154, 158, 163,167–8

World Bank, 2, 7, 14, 96, 143, 146–9,155

Yerasimos, Stefanos et.al, 2, 16, 19,72

Young Turks, 15youth. see age issues