A Bridge with Multiple Faces: Competing Identities in Turkish Parliamentary Debates (1988-2016)

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of Volume: DIYÂR Volume 2 (2021), Issue 2
Full access

DIYÂR

Volume 2 (2021), Issue 2

Authors:
Publisher
Ergon, Baden-Baden
Copyright Year
2021
ISSN-Online
2942-3155
ISSN-Print
2625-9842

Chapter information

Full access

Volume 2 (2021), Issue 2

A Bridge with Multiple Faces: Competing Identities in Turkish Parliamentary Debates (1988-2016)

Authors:
ISSN-Print
2625-9842
ISSN-Online
2942-3155
Preview:

This article examines how Turkish parliamentarians continuously (re)shape Turkey’s identity and geopolitical role by using the metaphor of a bridge in parliamentary debates from 1988 to 2016. First, the article argues that parliamentarians use this metaphor in identity-formation processes to mediate between competing identities, thereby constituting Turkey’s liminal identity. Second, it illustrates how the bridge metaphor remained a dominant discourse even though parliamentarians constantly challenged and refilled the meaning of it. This constantly (re)shapes Turkey’s geopolitical role to function as a bridge between the West and East.

Bibliography

  1. Aksu, Kenan. 2014. Turkey: A Regional Power in the Making. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  2. Altunışık, Meliha. 2014. ‘Geopolitical Representations of Turkey’s Cuspness: Discourse and Practice’. In The Role, Position and Agency of Cusp States in International Relations, by Marc Herzog and Philip Robins. United Kingdom: Routledge. 25-41. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  3. Aras, Bülent, and Aylin Gorener. 2010. ‘National Role Conceptions and Foreign Policy Orientation: The Ideational Bases of the Justice and Development Party’s Foreign Policy Activism in the Middle East’. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 12.1. 73-92. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  4. Arkan, Zeynep, and Müge Kınacıoğlu. 2016. ‘Enabling ‘ambitious Activism’: Davutoğlu’s Vision of a New Foreign Policy Identity for Turkey’. Turkish Studies 17.3. 381-405. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  5. Aydın-Düzgit, Senem. 2013. ‘European Security and the Accession of Turkey: Identity and Foreign Policy in the European Commission’. Cooperation and Conflict 48.4. 522-541. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  6. Benhaïm, Yohanan, and Kerem Öktem. 2015. ‘The Rise and Fall of Turkey’s Soft Power Discourse’. European Journal of Turkish Studies. Social Sciences on Contemporary Turkey. 21. 1-25. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  7. Bilgin, Pinar. 2007. ‘‘Only Strong States Can Survive in Turkey’s Geography’: The Uses of ‘geopolitical Truths’ in Turkey’. Political Geography 26.7. 740-56. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  8. Bucher, Bernd, and Ursula Jasper. 2017. ‘Revisiting ‘identity’ in International Relations: From Identity as Substance to Identifications in Action’. European Journal of International Relations 23.2. 391-415. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  9. Cameron, Lynne. 2011. ‘Metaphor in Spoken Discourse’. In Gee, James Paul and Handford, Michael (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. 342-355. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  10. Campbell, David. 1992. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. University of Minnesota Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  11. Chilton, Paul A. 1996. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  12. Davutoğlu, Ahmet. 2011. Teoriden Pratige: Turk Dis Politikasi Uzerine Konusmalar. Istanbul: Küre Yayınları. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  13. Doty, Roxanne Lynn. 1993. ‘Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines’. International Studies Quarterly 37.3. 297-320. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  14. Durgun, Sezgin. 2011. Memalik-I Şahane’den Vatan’a. Istanbul: Iletisim Yayinlari. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  15. Flanik, William. 2011. ‘‘Bringing FPA Back Home:’ Cognition, Constructivism, and Conceptual Metaphor’. Foreign Policy Analysis 7.4. 423-446. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  16. Guillaume, Xavier. 2014. International Relations and Identity: A Dialogical Approach. 1st ed. New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  17. Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Taylor & Francis. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  18. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Verso. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  19. Lesser, Ian O. 1992. ‘Bridge or Barrier? Turkey and the West After the Cold War’. Report R-4204-AF/A. RAND Corporation. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  20. Miles, Matthew B., A. Michael Huberman and Johnny Saldaña. 2013. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Califorinia: SAGE Publications, Inc. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  21. Müftüler-Baç, Meltem. 2000. ‘Through the Looking Glass: Turkey in Europe’. Turkish Studies 1.1. 21-35. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  22. Neumann, Iver B. 1999. Uses of the Other: “The East” in European Identity Formation. Manchester University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  23. Öḡütçü, Mehmet. 1994. ‘Islam and the West: Can Turkey Bridge the Gap?’. Futures 26.8. 811-829. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  24. Ongur, Hakan Ovunc. 2015. ‘Identifying Ottomanisms: The Discursive Evolution of Ottoman Pasts in the Turkish Presents’. Middle Eastern Studies 51.3. 416-432. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  25. Öniş, Ziya. 2014. ‘Turkey and the Arab Revolutions: Boundaries of Regional Power Influence in a Turbulent Middle East’. Mediterranean Politics 19.2. 203-219. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  26. Öztürk, Murat, Yunus Emre Yüksel, and Nuri Özek. 2011. ‘A Bridge between East and West: Turkey’s Natural Gas Policy’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15.9. 4286-4294. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  27. Putz, Orsolya. 2019. Metaphor and National Identity: Alternative Conceptualization of the Treaty of Trianon. Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts (CLSCC). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  28. Rumelili, Bahar. 2004. ‘Constructing Identity and Relating to Difference: Understanding the EU’s Mode of Differentiation’. Review of International Studies 30.1. 27-47. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  29. Rumelili, Bahar. 2007. Constructing Regional Community and Order in Europe and Southeast Asia. Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  30. Rumelili, Bahar. 2008. ‘Negotiating Europe: EU-Turkey Relations from an Identity Perspective’. Insight Turkey 10.1. 97-110. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  31. Rumelili, Bahar, and Rahime Suleymanoglu-Kurum. 2017. ‘Brand Turkey: Liminal Identity and Its Limits’. Geopolitics 22.3. 549-570. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  32. Šaric, Ljiljana, and Mateusz-Milan Stanojevic. 2019. Metaphor, Nation and Discourse. Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  33. Tank, Pinar. 2006. ‘Dressing for the Occasion: Reconstructing Turkey’s Identity?’. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 6.4. 463-478. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  34. Tezcür, Güneş Murat, and Alexandru Grigorescu. 2014. ‘Activism in Turkish Foreign Policy: Balancing European and Regional Interests’. International Studies Perspectives 15.3. 257-276. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  35. Tufekci, Ozgur. 2017. The Foreign Policy of Modern Turkey: Power and the Ideology of Eurasianism. London: I.B. Tauris. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  36. Váli, Ferenc A. 1971. Bridge Across the Bosphorus: The Foreign Policy of Turkey. London: The Johns Hopkins Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  37. Volfová, Gabriela Özel. 2016. ‘Turkey’s Middle Eastern Endeavors: Discourses and Practices of Neo-Ottomanism under the AKP’. Die Welt Des Islams 56.3-4. 489-510. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  38. Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Cillia, Martin Reisigl, Ruth Rodger, and Karin Liebhart. 2009. The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  39. Yanık, Lerna K. 2009. “The Metamorphosis of Metaphors of Vision: ‘Bridging’ Turkey’s Location, Role and Identity After the End of the Cold War’. Geopolitics 14.3. 531-549. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  40. Yanık, Lerna K. 2011. ‘Constructing Turkish ‘exceptionalism’: Discourses of Liminality and Hybridity in Post-Cold War Turkish Foreign Policy’. Political Geography 30.2. 80-89. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  41. Yanık, Lerna K. 2012. ‘Atlantik Paktı’ndan NATO’ya: Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi’nde Türkiye’nin Konumu ve Uluslararası Rolü Tartışmalarından Bir Kesit’. Uluslararası İlişkiler 9.34. 29-50. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279
  42. Yanık, Lerna K. 2016. ‘Bringing the Empire Back In: The Gradual Discovery of the Ottoman Empire in Turkish Foreign Policy’. Die Welt Des Islams 56.3-4. 466-488. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-279

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF)

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Share via email

Media