Nationalities Papers, 2018

Vol. 46, No.3, 501-513, https://doi.org/lO.l080/00905992.2017.1369018 I~ ~~o~~~~~~~ouP

~-Check-for u~a;~;j
'-------->,

The allied occupation of istanbul and the construction of Turkish

national identity in the early twentieth century
Pinar Serusik"

Lecturer, International Relations Faculty, Dogus University, Istanbul, Turkey

(Received 22 November 2016; accepted 6 August 2017)

This article tells the story of the construction of Turkish national identity in the early
republican era by addressing two canonical novels about occupied istanbul: Sodom ve
Gomore ("Sodom and Gomorrah") by Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu and Biz insanlar
("We People") by Peyami Safa. Following the establishment of the Turkish Republic,
Turkish nationalist intellectuals attempted to offer certain formulations and
implemented various mechanisms to create a national self. The study aims to focus
on the ways in which Karaosmanoglu and Safa create the new Turkish national
identity and deals with the questions of how occupied istanbul was perceived by
these intellectuals and how the memory of the Allied occupation of istanbul, the
collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the National Liberation Struggle shaped Turkish
elites' self-identification as well as their formulation of the national identity.

Keywords: Turkish nationalism; national identity; occupied istanbul; allied occupation;

early republican era

Introduction
The Ottoman capital was occupied by the Allied powers shortly after the signing of the
Mudros Armistice. On 13 November 1918, the British, French, and Italian forces moved
in. This occupation was completed in two phases. First, from 13 November 1918 to 20
March 1920, istanbul was occupied de facto. Then, on 20 March 1920, the Allied
powers declared the city occupied de jure. Different districts of istanbul were occupied
by different European powers. While Pera, Galata, and ~i~li were held by the British
troops, Uskudar was under Italian occupation, and the old city and western suburbs were
controlled by the French forces (Criss 1999).
English-language academic studies focusing on the Armistice period (1918-1923) are
few, for a variety of reasons. Although Ottoman istanbul has long attracted attention from
scholars (EIdem 1993,2006; EIdem, Goffman, and Masters 1999; Cezar 2002; Yerasimos
2005; Boyar and Fleet 2010), occupied istanbul has not been the subject of historical study
that it deserves to be, partly because it has often been overshadowed by the National Lib-
eration Struggle that took place in Anatolia during the same period. However, various valu-
able studies discuss political and sociocultural life in occupied istanbul. Turkish historians
generally have paid special attention to the political struggles and deep social changes of the
period (Tunaya 1982; Dumesnil 1993; Toprak 1994; Aksin 1998; Sunata 2006; Ulker
2013). A significant work on occupied istanbul is Nur Bilge Criss' book (1999), which

*Email: psenisik@dogus.edu.tr

© 2018 Association for the Study of Nationalities

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 502 P. Senisilc

treats this issue from the political perspective and provides broad insights on the Allied
occupation.
In literature, a recent article focuses on the cultural history of the armistice period by
analyzing Halide Edib Adivar' s Atesten Giimlek (Shirt of Flame), Yakup Kadri Karaosma-
noglu's Sodom ve Gomore (Sodom and Gomorrah), and Ahmet Hamdi Tanpmar's Sahne-
nin Disindakiler (Outside the Scene). Goknar (2014) argues that these authors consider
occupied istanbul the stage for the construction of "homo secularis" as well as for the jus-
tification of the "severity of the Kemalist cultural revolution" between 1923 and 1938.
Indeed, although Goknar attempted to criticize the binary logics of Halide Edib, Tanpmar,
and Karaosmanoglu, his rhetoric is shaped by sharp cultural dualities pitting the cosmopo-
litan Ottoman past against the secular republic. In addition, Goknar explicitly defines the
"Kemalist cultural revolution" as "epistemic violence" to express the "severity" of Kemal-
ism in every field of life. In this regard, I suggest that this teleological construction of the
Turkish Republic as well as oversimplified notions and essentialist categories require cor-
rection. Here, the aim is not to portray the Kemalist reforms as an entirely unproblematic
event. Rather, it is my contention that the inclination to treat the "Kemalist cultural revolu-
tion" as "epistemic violence" or to perceive the single-party era as a "parenthesis" between
the Ottoman past and the multiparty regime in Turkey is not very different from the nation-
alist, ideological, and dichotomous views of the Turkish intelligentsia in the formative years
of the republic. Furthermore, these kinds of perspectives blinded the scholars to analysis of
the single-party era within a larger perspective and have not allowed a dialogue with the
Ottoman past. In the last two decades, revisionist Ottoman historiography has emphasized
the continuities between the late Ottoman Empire and the early republican era (Zurcher
2010; Yilmaz 2013). Therefore, the Kemalist reforms, as Yilmaz (2013) aptly puts it,
rested at least on the political, ideological, cultural, and institutional legacies of the nine-
teenth-century Ottoman Empire. In this sense, Turkish nationalism and the creation of
Turkish national identity in the early republic would be evaluated within the context of con-
tinuity paradigm.
The main purpose of this article is to discuss the dichotomous mindset of the Turkish
intellectuals in the early republican period through examining two novels that address
the Allied occupation of istanbul. The reason for this choice has partly to do with the par-
ticularities of this author's background. Having been born and raised in istanbul, I recog-
nized that the most problematic aspects of OttomanlTurkish culture are acute cultural
and terminological dichotomies and stereotypical oppositional categories, such as the
Empire/Republic, the West/the rest, secular/religious, modern/traditional, through which
people are indoctrinated. The dichotomous way of thinking appears in every aspect of
life, from politics, music, art, customs, and language to historical narratives, and is still
alive and dominant today. This mindset is not confined to these fields but also affects dis-
ciplines from philosophy, through literature and history to sociology.
Kafadar (1989) argues that Ottoman literary history and even all Ottoman cultural
history have been viewed within the context of the dualistic schema: courtly (high, ortho-
dox, and cosmopolitan) vs. popular (folk, unorthodox, pure, and simple in preserving the
"national" spirit). For Kafadar, two major factors influenced the shaping of this schema:
the sharp distinction between "high" and "low" traditions of cultural and religious
studies in nineteenth-century Europe, and the ideological needs of Turkish nationalism to
distance itself from the Ottoman elite.
Literary narratives in the Turkish Republic reproduced and used the same binary logic
and tautological dichotomies to define and legitimize the new Turkish identity at the discur-
sive level. My study concentrates primarily on the ways in which the early republican

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Nationalities Papers 503

intellectuals constructed the new Turkish national identity, how occupied istanbul was per-
ceived by these intellectuals, and how the memory of the Allied occupation of istanbul, the
collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the National Liberation Struggle shaped Turkish
elites' self-identification as well as their formulation of the national identity. The article
argues that the dichotomous worldview of the Turkish intelligentsia played a vital role in
constructing and introducing the Turkish national identity as well as in indoctrinating the
people into an "imagined community." As in many other Ottoman legacies, literature in
the republic was crucial to indoctrinating people into the concept of Turkishness (Koksal
2003). To understand the reproduction of the dichotomies, I examine two canonical
novels: Sodom ve Gomore (Sodom and Gomorrah) by Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu
(1889-1974) and Biz Insanlar (We People) by Peyami Safa (1899-1961). Both novels
are situated in occupied istanbul during the armistice period. 1
These novelists demarcated istanbul along binary oppositions so as to distance them-
selves from the Allied occupation and the Ottoman Empire as well as to establish the new
national identity.r Both Yakup Kadri Karaosrnanoglu and Peyami Safa divided istanbul
into two parts: Pera and the old istanbul. Whereas the former was associated with imperial
and moral decadence and a cosmopolitan past, the latter was associated with moral superior-
ity, national presence, and national honor. In other words, Pera was connected with the dis-
integration of the Ottoman Empire and European imperialism, while the intramural istanbul
was identified with the War of Independence, Anatolia, and the Turkish Republic.

Nationalist perspectives in formulating Turkishness in the early Turkish republic

During the post-1923 period, Turkish nationalist historiography had an ambivalent relation-
ship with the Ottoman legacy. The ruling elites and intellectuals were willing to conceptu-
alize the national present out of two opposing visions of the Ottoman past. For this purpose,
they diminished the Ottoman legacy and sought to shape the new republic by negating and
excluding the Ottoman past from Turkish history (Philliou 2011). In order to define the
Turkish "self," the Turkish state needed an "other," for which the Ottoman past served. Fur-
thermore, Turkish nationalist historiography tended to subordinate certain events, such as
World War I and the armistice period, to the story of the National Liberation Struggle or
tended to forget certain events and momentous changes for ideological and political pur-
poses (Yamkdag 2013). In this sense, Cemal Kafadar points out that nationalist intellectuals
and scholars tended to look at the Ottoman past with a rigid selectivity. 3 Conversely, some
intellectuals, rather than negating the Ottoman heritage, made various attempts at its con-
servation so as to create a new synthesis (Philliou 2011).
Furthermore, Turkish nationalism had an ambivalent attitude toward the impact ofWes-
ternization. While Western civilization was regarded as scientifically, technologically, and
materially "superior" to both the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic, it was also
seen as a threat to the morality of Ottoman/Turkish society and its territorial integrity.
The republican project of Westernization aimed to deconstruct the duality between
Ottoman identity and Western ideas that characterized mentality, lifestyle, and institutions
in the late Ottoman period (Kandiyoti and Saktanber 2002; Ahiska 2003; Aydin 2006;
Ertugrul 2009). Moreover, Gale (1999) points out that modernity is a synchronic and uni-
versal experience, not solely a European phenomenon. Indeed, there are different experi-
ences and multiple modernities and cultural programs, all of which are significant and
unique (Eisenstadt 2000).
In a broader perspective, in the early decades of the republic, the nationalist ideologies
and policies of the Turkish regime (Cagaptay 2006; Aktar 2009) went hand in hand with the

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 504 P. Serusik

gradual formation of a nationalist literature (Altan-Olcay 2009). The single-party regime

implemented various mechanisms to integrate the people into the Turkish national identity
while nationalist literary production aimed to shape people's identities. It should be noted
that in these works of Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu and Peyami Safa, Turkish nationalism
and ideological concerns of the Turkish state coalesced for the construction and definition
of a new Turkish national identity. In many respects, Sodom ve Gomore and Biz insanlar
reflect the ideals, ideologies, concerns, ambiguities, and confusions of the republican elites.
Here, the question that arises is: what were the similarities and differences between Karaos-
manoglu and Safa? Although there was a thematic unity among their novels under scrutiny,
they had different formulations for the national identity. I argue that the ideas and formu-
lations of Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu were fit for the modem and secular identity that was
put forward by the Turkish ruling elites. On the other hand, Peyami Safa advocated a third
alternative, a "synthesis" between past and future, East and West, modernity and tradition
(Sezer 2010). In away, Safa tried to overcome the contradictions and disputes about Eur-
opeanization, nationalism, and Islamic conservatism in Turkish political and social thought
with the idea of "synthesis." In other words, Safa advocated a "synthesis" reconciling Euro-
pean ideals and Turkey's own authentic and national values."
In the early republic, different voices and approaches emerged for understanding the
nature of the Turkish revolution and Turkish modernism among the republican ruling
elites. At the same time, the republican intelligentsia also put forward competing views
of the Turkish revolution. The statist-modernist elites, conservatives, and Islamists had
different views and programs. Inspired by Henri Bergson's philosophy and his criticism
of rationalism and liberal-progressive evolutionism, the republican-conservative intellec-
tuals, including Hilmi Ziya Ulken, Mustafa Sekip Tunc, ismail Hakki Baltaciglu, Ahmed
Agaoglu, and Peyami Safa, attempted to undermine the rationalist foundations of Kemalism
by paying special attention to the "uniqueness of the Kemalist state and the authenticity of
the national culture" (irem 2002). In a way, they aimed to demonstrate that Kemalism and
national tradition were compatible. Within this framework, Peyami Safa proposed an
alternative modernity that had two promises. Indeed, Safa's primary purpose was to
reject rationalism and positivism as the outstanding pillars of Kemalism and Turkish mod-
ernism, and to search for an East-West synthesis. In this sense, as irem (2002) points out,
Safa was influenced by Bergson, whose philosophy replaced rationality with intuition. In
contrast, the Kadro movement, of which Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu was one of the
leading figures, formulated a materialist interpretation of the Kemalist revolution by
depending on historical materialism. The debate and polemics between the republican-con-
servative intellectuals and the Kadro intellectuals started after the publication of Kadro
journal in 1932. While the Kadro intellectuals were critical of the republican-conservative
intellectuals' mystic moralism and Bergsonism, the conservatives rejected Kadro's histori-
cal materialism as a way of explaining and legitimizing the Turkish revolution. Moreover,
the conservative intellectuals sharply criticized the rationalist-elitist political theory of the
Kadro movement, arguing that the Kadro intellectuals were underestimating the impor-
tance of people and devoting too much attention to the role of the state. (For details of
the Kadro movement, see Akyaz 2003).

istanbul's "in-betweenness"
The dichotomy between Pera and the old istanbul in these novels is reminiscent of the nine-
teenth-century European bourgeoisie's constant definition and redefinition of itself through
the exclusion of "low," "poor," "dirty," and "repulsive." In a way, the "low" was

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Nationalities Papers 505

internalized by the sign of negation and antipathy (Stallybrass and White 1986). The high/
low opposition in the social order, physic forms, and geographical space provided an essen-
tial ground to mechanisms of ordering and constructing identities in European cultures.
However, cultural categories such as "high" and "low," "social" and "aesthetic" are not
entirely separable. Stallybrass and White (1986) point out that "high discourses, with
their lofty styIe, exalted aims and sublime ends, are structured in relation to the debasements
and degradations of low discourses." This illustrates that nineteenth-century intellectuals
and city administrators articulated these cultural categories and distinctive associations
for identity formation. My contention is that what is true for defining high culture in
Europe in the nineteenth century is also true for the novelists' perceptions of inferior
Pera and superior intramural istanbul. Moving away from rigid dichotomies, I suggest
that this dichotomy is not primarily based on geographical connotations but rather refers
to different mentalities, attitudes, cultures, and lifestyles.
Inspired by comprehensions and conceptualizations of "in-betweenness" put forward
by Bhabha (1994), I argue that the years between 1918 and 1923 can be considered a
"moment of in-betweenness" in the history of the imperial city. Bhabha contends that
people shape "a form of the future where the past is not originary, where the present is
not simply transitory. It is ... an interstitial future that emerges in-between the claims of
the past and the needs of the present." Bhabha grapples to find alternative theoretical
ways of demystifying endless transformations of identities. According to him, social
encounters create ambivalent spaces in which identities are questioned and negotiated.
The "boundaries" between Pera and the old istanbul were not rigid and illuminate the
points of transgressions, intersections, and interconnections between two parts of the
Golden Horn. At this point, evidence is in order to contextualize and clarify "in-between-
ness" in the imperial city. First, istanbul was put under the administration of the Allied
forces as the power of the Sultan was curtailed and the istanbul government continued to
lose its authority. Simultaneously, Anatolia became the scene of the War of Independence
and has since been a contested territory by forces of imperial competitions and various rival
nationalisms (Criss 1999). In this regard, being the epicenter of competing historical forces,
namely the ancien regime, the imperialist European powers, and the Turkish nationalist
struggle, istanbul had an "in-between" status and hybrid administration in the armistice
period.
Second, the city's population was not homogenous, its demographics shifting before
and during the occupation. Refugees, international humanitarian groups, Allied forces,
sailors, and foreign correspondents had intermingled with the city's Muslim and non-
Muslim residents (Duben and Behar 1991; Johnson 1995; Temel 1998; Woodhall 2015).
Third, the two sides of the Golden Hom were connected to each other in various ways.
Within the context of modernization and the reform process, Pera and the historical penin-
sula were closely linked by the bridges and came into contact with each other as well as
maintaining interactions in their economic, social, and cultural interests. Moreover, istanbul
experienced a series of important infrastructural projects and urban planning in the nine-
teenth century. With the introduction of a modem transportation system, trams connected
the neighborhoods of the old city and Pera (Rosenthal 1980; Celik 1993). The appearance
of Western-style arcades, shops, department stores, hotels, clubs, and theaters led to the
development of a modem and Westernized urban image in Pera as well as changes in
dress, manners, and values. For instance, along the famous street Grande Rue de Pera
cafes, patisseries, restaurants, hotels, theaters, and other places were opened and people
from different backgrounds met, mixed, and influenced one another (Yumul 2009).

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 506 P. Sentstk

Fourth, as a result of the expansion of capitalism and commercial relations, Galata and
Pera became the business centers and the residential district of the upper classes of Eur-
opeans and Ottomans. At the same time, the intramural markets, mosques, and imperial
buildings continued to be the center of commercial activities as well as cultural and political
lives. Therefore, one may assume that both sides of istanbul were the sites of encounters
and confrontations and catered to different classes, nationalities, and ethnicities. Although
the Muslim community constituted a relative majority in the historical peninsula, family ties
and networks played crucial roles in linking the historical peninsula to the other side of the
Golden Hom. Through family networks and interactions, Istanbulites moved into one
another's lives and spaces, and regenerated one another (Duben and Behar 1991; Woodhall
2015).
The Allied occupation affected the sociocultural composition of the city. istanbul's
encounter with European imperialism gave rise to new moral and social norms. Further-
more, the military barracks and the camps of the Allied soldiers paved the way for the mili-
tarization of urban space in which city and camp merged. The Allied occupation of the city
created new patterns for the use of time and space as well as transforming leisure practices
and the nocturnal world (MacArthur-Seal 2014). Finally, the inhabitants of istanbul experi-
enced a cultural "in-betweenness" that characterized thought, lifestyle, and institutions as
well as oscillating between modem and traditional, oriental, and occidental. As a result
of the sociocultural encounters and transgressions, the life of the istanbulites underwent
a process of accelerating change.

Yakup Kadri's "modern Sodom:" decadence and moral degeneration

Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu was born in Cairo, after which his family moved to Manisa,
Turkey. He came from the aristocratic Karaosmanoglu family, which owned vast lands in
western Anatolia and which held important posts in the Ottoman administration. He partici-
pated in the War of Independence in Anatolia and was elected twice to the Grand National
Assembly. He was a member of the Kadro movement, which aimed to provide ideological
foundations for the Turkish Republic. Later, he was appointed to various diplomatic posts
abroad (Karaomerlioglu 2002).
Sodom ve Gomore centers on Necdet, an elite cosmopolitan intellectual who studied in
Germany and France and assumes the character of national honor of the Turkish nation.
Necdet believes that English people are inferior and expresses hatred toward the Allied
powers. Unhappy living in occupied istanbul, he often mentions his desire to go to Anatolia
to participate in the national struggle. For this reason, he admires his friend Dr. Cemil Kami,
one of the most important figures in the novel, who is an ardent Turkish nationalist and
fights in the War of Independence.
At the same time, Necdet is the cousin/fiance of Leyla, who is the heroine of the novel
and represents an over-Westernized girl, growing up in an elite modem Ottoman family in
Sisli, north of Pera. Leyla is a snob, an ostentatious and capricious character who spends
much of her time with a handsome British officer named Captain Reid. She imitates the
European way of life and languages and gestures of the Britons. The Western way of
life, relations with an English officer and a wealthy American, her physical beauty, and
her love/hate relationship with Necdet alienate Leyla not only from her circle but also
from herself. Finally, Leyla suffers a nervous breakdown and leaves istanbul for a cure
in Europe. She symbolizes the denigration of cosmopolitan life in Sisli, whereas her
fiance is the representative of the nation and national duty. Leyla is presented as an impor-
tant representative of the urban upper class women who devoted their time to European

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Nationalities Papers 507

manners and fashion and had no interest in becoming involved in the national struggle in
Anatolia.
Thus, the reader is always aware of Necdet's psychological dilemmas, caught between
the nation and his lover as well as between istanbul and Anatolia.
Necdet expresses his admiration of the old city while looking on it from the balcony of
Mr. Jimsou' s house in Taksim. 5 According to Necdet, unlike Pera and its vicinity, full of
foreigners, Levantines, and alafranga Ottomans, such as Mrs. Jimson, Major Will,
Leyla, Fanny Moore, Orhan Bey, and Captain Marlow, the historical peninsula is full of
virtuous and long-suffering women whose husbands joined in the nationalist struggle,
cherubic elderly people, and poor patriots.
Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu attempts to depict the moral decadence of Pera by refer-
ring to the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Goknar 2014). Accordingly, Pera is por-
trayed as a "modem Sodom." Over-Westernized Ottoman Muslim elites, the representatives
of the Allied forces, Levantines, and non-Muslim Ottomans were gathering and socializing
in houses and entertainment places such as Lebon, Maksim, and Muscovite. Furthermore,
Yakup Kadri uses Orientalizing analogues, fantasies, and tastes, stating that the Allied
forces were able to penetrate into the hidden places of Pera in which they could taste all
kinds of spicy pleasures (Karaosmanoglu 2010, 245). While Karaosmanoglu is explaining
the erosion of morality in Pera, he implicitly and explicitly provides numerous examples
and refers to "sexuality" and "fantasies" seen in the paintings, publishing, or literary
works (44-45, 220, 246-247, 279).
Karaosmanoglu resurrected for the reader the sociocultural life of Pera, underlying the
imperial decadence and corruption that is related to the feeling of loss and defeat of the
Ottoman Empire. In the same vein, he describes Pera as the center of moral decline and
a "swamp." Pera's cosmopolitan life and conviviality, its multilingual and multiethnic com-
position appeared to pose a threat to the Turkish nation. Pera was referred to as an "Other" -
the other part of istanbul - and was regarded as the source of "cultural pollution" on
material and moral levels.
The Allied forces, foreigners, and non-Muslim Ottomans in istanbul are treated as the
main adversaries of the Turkish nation. In the interests of shaping the new Turkish Republic
by excluding the Ottoman past from the national present, Karaosmanoglu takes an anti-
imperialist and anti-Ottomanist stand. The language and tone of the novel are full of
anti-imperialist vocabulary. But ironically, Yakup Kadri develops a hierarchical represen-
tation of the British officers - putting Captain Reid at the top of this hierarchy in which
Major Will is presented as "a newborn pig."
Necdet criticizes the non-Muslim Ottomans that out of self-interest chose to collaborate
with the European imperialist powers and gave their full support to the occupation of istan-
bul. As they betrayed the Ottoman Empire by collaborating with the European powers, they
were responsible for the moral corruption and decline as well as the real threat to the inter-
ests of the Muslims and the integrity of the Turkish nation. According to Necdet, Pera
embodies the over-Westernized, ignorant, and morally corrupted people, as opposed to
those of intramural istanbul. The passage below shows Necdet's observation:
At a table across from him [Necdet] is a fat and shaved man with large, round spectacles on an
olive-skinned, thick-eyebrowed, barbarous face as if it is the only symbol of elegance and civi-
lization. This man must be an Armenian engaged in trade. And at that moment he is thinking of
the easiest and darkest way of profiteering that will suddenly enrich him,"
Likewise, Necdet bitterly criticizes the Muslim Ottoman urban intelligentsia for being
extremely Westernized at the expense of losing their own moral and traditional values

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 508

and accuses alafranga Ottomans of being ignorant of the real conditions and the War of
Independence that was taking place in Anatolia. For Necdet, the sociocultural milieu of
istanbul was badly damaged during the Allied occupation. This gave rise to alienation
and an identity crisis, and destroyed the historical and cultural connections of the
Ottoman society. Indeed, one may assume that Necdet's alienation both from Pera and
his social milieu, his contradictions and confusions about remembering and forgetting
the Ottoman legacy, as well as his sadness that comes with the occupation of istanbul
reflect the contradictions of the early Turkish Republic.

Safa's alternative modernity

Peyami Safa's Biz insanlar (Safa 2008) analyzes the dissociation between the elites and the
people in occupied istanbul. Safa was born in istanbul in 1899, the son of a poet who
opposed the Hamidian regime. His formal education ended at age 13 due to health problems
and his family's economic difficulties. He earned his living through his writings. In the mid-
1930s, his sharp polemics with Nazim Hikmet earned him a reputation as a determined con-
servative columnist. Safa ran unsuccessfully for parliament from the Republican People's
Party in the elections of 1950. Throughout the 1950s, he supported the Democratic Party
(Ayvazoglu 1999; Irern 2002; Aksoy 2009; Turan 2012).
The main storyline of Biz insanlar is a love relationship between a young woman,
Vedia, who lives in the Bosphorus, and the intellectual Orhan, living in intramural istanbul.
Vedia is an in-between character, hesitating between the two ways of life - Western and
traditional - and between Orhan and Rusdu (Gurbilek 2004). After her parents die, she
begins to live in Halim Bey's (Cemil's late father) yah together with Cemil's mother.
Due to her Westernized upbringing and education she maintains a Western lifestyle,
plays the piano, and reads novels.
Cemil is a primary school student who has been brought up according to European
ways. Unlike Cemil, Tahsin, the son of boater Mustafa, symbolizes the people. The prota-
gonist, Orhan Sakir, who represents the East, tradition, and the poor, teaches in a private
primary school in the Bosphorus and fluctuates between the ideology of idealism and his-
torical materialism, but remains a staunch and devoted Turkish nationalist. Cemil and his
family's yah (one of the wooden mansions of the elite along the Bosphorus) is a symbol
of a cosmopolitan lifestyle and the degradation of istanbul. Cemil's family is portrayed
as a cosmopolitan family who had great admiration for European manners and collaborated
with the Allied forces during the occupation. Symbolizing the demoralization of society in
the late Ottoman Empire, Cemil's family frequently hosts dinners for the representatives of
the occupied forces. Orhan criticizes Cemil's family for hoisting the French flag and for
calling their servants "savage Turk" and "esek Turk" (donkey Turks) (Safa 2008, 52). In
consciously "otherizing" and despising the servants, Cemil's mother expresses her hatred
of the Turks and Turkish identity.
School is one arena in which the contrasts between the elites and the ordinary people
play out. For instance, when Cemil insults Tahsin by stereotyping him as "esek Turk,"
Tahsin throws a stone at Cemil's face (Safa 2008,33-34). Here, Tahsin not only represents
a brave child who does not want to be considered "e§ek Turk," but also the entire Turkish
nation and the Turkish identity. Interestingly, the stone is associated with the spirit of the
Turkish nation, which is struggling against enemies in Anatolia, and is identified as the
last weapon of the Turkish people. Accordingly, the function of the stone may be explained
in different ways, such as the hatred of the national consciousness for the wealthy class as
well as the hatred of the people for the cosmopolitan family. The stone seems to have

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Nationalities Papers 509

metaphysical and metaphorical connotations. Orhan attributes great importance to this

event, claiming it is a national and historical event and a typical example, a microcosm
within the broader framework of the struggle of Anatolia against istanbul. Orhan further
mentions that istanbul had already believed the country had given up and then signed
the "document of decadence" at Sevres (Safa 2008, 77).
From Orhan's depictions, one may assume that Pera and the old city opposition has a
significant role in revealing the sociocultural milieu of istanbul. 7 Pera represents a world of
danger, marginality, and a threat to the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, whereas the old
city symbolizes the traditional lifestyle and national struggle against the occupying
forces. The protagonists move across the historical peninsula, Pera, and the Bosphorus
since cultural and social boundaries among different districts of istanbul are fluid. Coffee-
houses and patisseries in Pera give Orhan and Necati a chance to spend time away from the
historical part of the city and to express themselves on any issue or problem whatsoever,
and exchange ideas (Safa 2008,156-157). Safa's novel provides some of the most powerful
rhetoric on moral erosion in occupied istanbul. Necati pays special attention to the moral
decline iinkiraz buhranii that penetrated the people's souls, hearts, and characters. Accord-
ing to Necati, people's morality and honor are also under occupation (Safa 2008, 258).
Here, Necati is concerned with the moral uncertainty that was quite prevalent in occupied
istanbul.
As Bema Moran contends, in Safa's novels, there are generally three heroes: one rep-
resents the East, the second the West, and the third represents both. In Biz Insanlar, we see
this formulation clearly. Necati symbolizes the "synthesis" and balances between Orhan
and Siileyman (Moran 1991). Accordingly, it is fair to note that Necati reflects Safa's
own ideas and ambiguities. Throughout the novel, Necati accuses European colonialism,
the Allied occupation of upending the traditional values in istanbul and the inner balance
of individuals. Therefore, Necati (and Peyami Safa) suggests an alternative identity and
moral order in which a synthesis of two different mentalities should be constructed (Irem
2002; see also Safa 1996).

Conclusion
Both Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu and Peyami Safa can be considered Turkish nationalists
and devoted Kemalists, although their views, ideas, and formulas for creating the Turkish
national identity are different. As N azirn Irem underlines, both the republican conservatives
and the statist-modernist elites had an organic relationship with the power circle (2002).
Karaosmanoglu and Safa used the armistice period as a "rhetorical tool'" for formulating
the national identity. While Karaosmanoglu emphasized the total break from the
Ottoman Empire by excluding people and events from the collective memory, Safa tried
to reconcile traditional and modem to achieve a "synthesis." Indeed, their nationalist nar-
ratives intentionally aimed to highlight certain events as well as to "suppress," "forget,"
and "reinterpret" others. In a way, as Yarukdag (2013) states, the "reimagining and reinter-
preting of the past made possible what might be called selective nostalgia, or a politically
and ideologically determined reordering, representation and forgetting of the Ottoman past
to serve the needs of the republican present."
Moreover, one should not forget that nationalist contextualizations for the establishment
of the new nation and new identity are not sui generis to Turkish nationalism. This sort of
contextualizations had their counterparts in other Ottoman legacies. If one wants to identify
the similarities in the nation-building process, the Greek case provides a telling example.
Considering the Ottoman past as Tourkokratia (Turkish rule) and a "dark age" in the

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 510 P. Serusik

course of Greek history (Seton-Watson 1996; Liakos 2001), the supporters of Hellenic
ideology sought to construct the Greek national identity by excluding the Ottoman past
from Greek history. At the same time, they established a linkage between the classical
Greek civilization and modem Greece. On the contrary, the Romeic ideology emphasized
the continuity between the Byzantine Empire and the modem Greek state (Herzfeld
1982; Herzfeld 1987; Livanios 2006).
This paper rejected teleological approaches, suggesting instead that an investigation of
these two literary figures challenges the stigmatization of the imperial city with essentialist
cultural categories and rigid boundaries, and calls into question the ideas of distinct geo-
graphical spaces, social orders, and identities as homogeneous, unchanged, and fixed.
My perspective diverges from the conventional historiography and literature, which por-
trayed the armistice period as a moment that marked the disintegration of the Ottoman
Empire. I have indicated that all encounters, interactions, and conflicts within the imperial
city during this period provided a ground for the construction and reconstruction of iden-
tities, and the redefinition of "boundaries." To achieve a deeper understanding of
Turkish nationalist intellectuals in the early republican era, one should analyze the past
from different angles. In the early 1990s, Abou-El-Haj (1991) argued that modem
Ottoman historians were inclined to treat their subject-matter as "unique," "different,"
and "incomparable" and challenged the notion of the "differentness" of the Ottoman
Empire by proposing a comparative analysis. Within this framework, the early republican
history is to be analyzed through a comparative approach in which a particular phenomenon
has to be considered as part of larger historical processes.

Notes
1. For details of Turkish novels on armistice-era istanbul, see Erdogan (2005); Torenek (2002);
Coruk (1995); Kiymaz (1991).
2. Needless to say, these binary oppositions are as old as the ancient world. Moreover, long before the
establishment of the Turkish Republic, travel accounts and Orientalist literature and represen-
tations provided fertile ground for the construction of binary oppositions with regard to the imper-
ial capital. See Hutton (1904); De Amicis (1896); Pardoe (1839); Gautier (1875). For a critique of
the dichotomy within the "colonial cities," see Mitchell (1991).
3. Kafadar (1989) further notes that this teleological orientation is also very common in the historio-
graphies of all nation-states with an Ottoman past.
4. The roots of Turkish nationalism and the idea of synthesis can be traced back to the nineteenth-
century Ottoman Empire (Deringil 1993).
5. This part of the novel resembles the symbolic significance of the balcony in nineteenth-century
literature and painting in Europe. The bourgeoisie on their balconies could gaze on and participate
in the life of the streets but remained separated (Stallybrass and White 1986, 136).
6. This part is my translation.
7. For the issue of modernization over the dualities, see Mizrahi (1991).
8. I have borrowed this term from Yticel Yarukdags book (2013).

References
Abou-EI-Haj, Rifa'at 'Ali. 1991. Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to
Eighteenth Centuries. Albany: State University of New York.
Ahiska, Meltem. 2003. "Occidentalism: The Historical Fantasy of the Modem." The South Atlantic
Quarterly 102 (2-3): 351-379.
Aksin, Sina. 1998. Istanbul Hiikiimetleri ve Milli Miicadele [istanbul Governments and the National
Liberation Struggle]. istanbul: i§ Bankasi Kultur Yaymlan,
Aksoy, Stireyya Elif. 2009. "Peyami Safa'mn Romanlannda Modernlesme ve Mekan"
[Modernization and Place in the Novels of Peyami Safa]. PhD diss., Bilkent University.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Nationalities Papers 511

Aktar, Ayhan. 2009. "'Turkification' Policies in the Early Republican Era." In Turkish Literature and
Cultural Memory: "Muliticulturalism" as a Literary Theme after 1980, edited by Catharina
Dufft, 29-62. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Akyaz, Dogan. 2003. Modern Tiirkiye'de Siyasi Diisiince: Kemalirm [Political Thought in Modem
Turkey: Kemalism]. Istanbul: Iletisim Yaymlan.
Altan-Olcay, Ozlem. 2009. "Gendered Projects of National Identity Formation: The Case of Turkey."
National Identities 11 (2): 165-186.
De Amicis, Edmondo. 1896. Constantinople. Philadelphia, PA: Henry T. Coates.
Aydin, Cemil. 2006. "Between Occidentalism and the Global Left: Islamist Critiques of the West in
Turkey." The South Atlantic Quarterly 26 (3): 446-461.
Ayvazoglu, Besir. 1999. Peyami: Hayatt, Sanatt, Felsefesi, Drami. istanbul: Otuken Nesriyat.
Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Boyar, Ebru, and Kate Fleet. 2010. A Social History of Ottoman istanbul. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cagaptay, Soner. 2006. Islam, Secularism, and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who Is a Turk?
London: Routledge.
Celik, Zeynep. 1993. The Remaking of istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth
Century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cezar, Mustafa. 2002. Osmanli Baskenti [Ottoman Capital]. istanbul: Erol Kerim Aksoy Kultur,
Egitim, Spor ve Saghk Vakfi,
Coruk, Ali Sukru. 1995. Cumhuriyet Devri Turk Romaninda Beyoglu [Pera in the Republican Turkish
Novel]. istanbul: Kitabevi.
Criss, Nur Bilge. 1999. istanbul under Allied Occupation, 1918-1923. Leiden: Brill.
Deringil, Selim. 1993. "The Ottoman Origins of Kemalist Nationalism: Narruk Kemal to Mustafa
Kemal." European History Quarterly 23: 165-191.
Duben, Alan, and Cern Behar. 1991. istanbul Households: Marriage, Family and Fertility (1880-
1940). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dumesnil, Vera. 1993. Isgal istanbul'u [Occupied istanbul]. Translated from French by Emre Oktem,
istanbul: istanbul Kitaphgi Yaymlan.
Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 2000. "Multiple Modernities." Daedalus 129 (1): 1-29.
EIdem, Edhem. 1993. "Banhlasma, Modernlesme ve Kozmopolitizm: 19. Yuzyil Sonu ve 20. Yuzyil
Basinda istanbul." In Osman Hamdi Bey ve Diinemi, edited by Zeynep Rona, 12-26. istanbul:
Tarih Vakfi Yurt Yayinlan.
EIdem, Edhem. 2006. "Ottoman Galata and Pera between Myth and Reality." In From "milieu de
memoire" to "lieu de memoire": The Cultural Memory of Istanbul in the 20th Century,
edited by Ulrike Tischler, 19-36. Munich: Martin Meidenbauer.
EIdem, Edhem, Daniel Goffman, and Bruce Masters, eds. 1999. The Ottoman City between East and
West: Aleppo, Irmir, and istanbul. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Erdogan, Tamer. 2005. Turk Romaninda Miitareke istanbul'u [Armistice istanbul in the Turkish
Novel]. istanbul: Kanat Kitap.
Ertugrul, Kursad. 2009. "A Reading of the Turkish Novel: Three Ways of Constituting the 'Turkish
Modem. ,,, International Journal of Middle East Studies 41: 635-652.
Gautier, T. 1875. Constantinople. New York: H. Holt.
Goknar, Erdag. 2014. "Reading Occupied istanbul: Turkish Subject-formation from Historical
Trauma to Literary Scope." Culture, Theory and Critique 55 (3): 321-341.
Gale, Nilufer, 1999. "The Quest for the Islamic Self within the Context of Modernity." In Rethinking
Modernity and National Identity in Turkey, edited by Sibel Bozdogan and Resat Kasaba,
81-94. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Gurbilek, Nurdan. 2004. Kor Ayna, Kaytp Sark [The Blind Mirror, the Lost Orient]. istanbul: Metis
Yayinlan.
Herzfeld, Michael. 1982. Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology, and the Making of Modern Greece.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Herzfeld, Michael. 1987. Anthropology Through the Looking-glass: Critical Ethnography in the
Margins of Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hutton, W. H. 1904. Constantinople: The Story ofthe Old Capital ofthe Empire. London: J. M. Dent.
Irem, Naznn. 2002. "Turkish Conservative Modernism: Birth of a Nationalist Quest for Cultural
Renewal." International Journal of Middle East Studies 34: 87-112.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 512 P. Serustk

Johnson, Clarence Richard, ed. 1995. istanbul 1920 [istanbul in 1920]. Translated by Sonmez Taner.
istanbul: Tarih Vakfl Yurt Yaymlan.
Kafadar, Cemal. 1989. "Self and Others: The Diary of a Dervish in Seventeenth Century istanbul and
First-person Narratives in Ottoman Literature." Studia Islamica 69: 121-150.
Kandiyoti, Deniz, and Ayse Saktanber. 2002. Fragments ofCulture: The Everyday ofModern Turkey.
London: I.B. Tauris.
Karaosmanoglu, Yakup Kadri. 2010. Sodom ve Gomore [Sodom and Gomorrah]. istanbul: Iletisirn
Yaymlan.
Karaomerlioglu, Asim. 2002. "The Peasants in Early Turkish Literature." East European Quarterly
36 (2): 127-153.
Kiymaz, Ahmet. 1991. Turk Romanda Milli Miicadele [The National Liberation Struggle in the
Turkish Novel]. Ankara: Akcag.
Koksal, Duygu. 2003. "The Role of Art in Early Republican Modernization in Turkey." In La
Multiplication des Images en Pays d'Islam; de l'estampe a la Television, 17-21 siecle [The
Multiplication of Images in the Islamic Countries], edited by Bernard Heyberger and Sylvia
Naef, 209-227. istanbul: Orient Institut der DMG.
Liakos, Antonis. 2001. "The Construction of National Time: The Making of the Modem Greek
Historical Imagination." Mediterranean Historical Review 16 (1): 27-42.
Livanios, Dimitris. 2006. "The Quest for Hellenism: Religion, Nationalism and Collective Identities
in Greece." The Historical Review 3: 33-70.
MacArthur-Seal, Daniel-Joseph. 2014. "Britain's Levantine Empire, 1914-1923." PhD diss.,
University of Cambridge.
Mitchell, Timothy. 1991. Colonizing Egypt. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mizrahi, Daryo. 1991. "Popular Poetics Discourse on Modernity in Republican istanbul." The Turkish
Studies Association Bulletin 15: 83-96.
Moran, Bema. 1991. Turk Romanina Elestirel Bir Balas: Ahmet Mithat'tan A.H. Tanptnar'a [A
Critical Look at the Turkish Novel: From Ahmet Mithat to A.H. Tanpmar], istanbul:
Iletisim Yaymlan.
Pardoe, Julia. 1839. Beauties of the Bosphorus. London: Pub. for the proprietors, by G. Virtue.
Philliou, Christine. 2011. "When the Clock Strikes Twelve: The Inception of an Ottoman Past in Early
Republican Turkey." Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 31 (1):
172-182.
Rona, Zeynep, ed. 1993. Osman Hamdi Bey ve Donemi. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi Yurt Yaymlan,
Rosenthal, S. T. 1980. The Politics of Dependency: Urban Reform in Istanbul. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Safa, Peyami. 1996. Turk Inkildbtna Bakislar [Perspectives on the Turkish Revolution]. istanbul:
Otuken Nesriyat,
Safa, Peyami. 2008. Biz insanlar [We People]. istanbul: Alkim Yaymevi.
Seton-Watson, R. W. 1996. The Rise of Nationality in the Balkans. London: Constable.
Sezer, Devrim. 2010. "The Anxiety of Cultural Authenticity in Turkish Communitarian Thought:
Ahmet Hamdi Tanpmar and Peyami Safa on Europe and Modernity." History of European
Ideas 36: 427-437.
Stallybrass, Peter, and Allon White. 1986. The Politics and Poetics of Transgression. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Sunata, i. Hakki, 2006. istanbul'da Isgal Yillan [Occupation Years in istanbul]. istanbul: Ttirkiye i§
Bankasi Kultur Yaymlan.
Ternel, Mehrnet. 1998. Isgal Yillannda istanbul 'un Sosyal Durumu [Social Conditions of istanbul in
the Occupied Years]. Ankara: T.C. Kultur Bakanhgi.
Toprak, Zafer. 1994. "Mtitareke Doneminde istanbul" [istanbul in the Armistice Period]. Diinden
Bugiine istanbul Ansiklopedisi 6, istanbul: Ttirkiye Ekonomik ve Toplurnsal Tarih Vakfi
Yaymlan,
Torenek, Mehmet. 2002. Turk Romaninda Miitareke istanbulu [Armistice istanbul in the Turkish
Novel]. istanbul: Kitabevi.
Tunaya, Tank Zafer. 1982. "Mtitareke Devrinin Ozellikleri (1918-1922)," [Certain Features of the
Armistice Period, 1918-1922]. Prof Dr. Omit Doganay'tn Antsina Hatira 2 Volumes.
istanbul: istanbul Universitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Faktiltesi.
Turan, Orner. 2012. "Facing Eurocentrism, Facing Modernity: Questions of Modernization and
Global Hierarchies in Turkish Intellectual History." PhD diss., Central European University.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Nationalities Papers 513

Ulker, Erol. 2013. "Sultanists, Republicans, Communists: The Turkish National Movement in
Istanbul, 1918-1923." PhD diss., University of Chicago.
Woodhall, G. Carole. 2015. "Decadent Nights: A Cocaine-filled Reading of 1920s Post-Ottoman
Istanbul." In Mediterranean Encounters in the City: Frameworks of Mediation Between
East and West, North and South, edited by Michela Ardizzoni and Valerio Ferme, 17-36.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Yamkdag, Yticel. 2013. Healing the Nation: Prisoners of War, Medicine and Nationalism in Turkey,
1914-1939. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Yerasimos, Stefanos. 2005. Constantinople: Istanbul's Historical Heritage. Konemann: Princes
Risborough.
Yilrnaz, Hale. 2013. Becoming Turkish: Nationalist Reforms and Cultural Negotiations in Early
Republican Turkey, 1923-1945. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Yumul, Arus. 2009. "'A Prostitute Lodging in the Bosom of Turkishness': istanbul's Pera and its
Representation." Journal of Intercultural Studies 30 (1): 57-72.
Zurcher, Erik Jan. 2010. The Young Turk Legacy and Nation-Building from the Ottoman Empire to
Atatiirk's Turkey. London: Library of Modem Middle East Studies.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1369018 Published online by Cambridge University Press