In the experience of Turkish modernity, ‘nationalization’ obviously occupies a prominent part. This is why the Turkish transition to modernity has often been seen merely as a transition from the Islamic Empire to the Turkish nation-state. With reference to this transformation, the Turkish experience has often been called unique, because of the perceived incompatibility of Islam with the idea of ‘nation’. The creation of a nation-state in a predominantly Islamic society is a major reason why Kemalism is seen as providing a model of modernity for Muslim societies.

The Turkish experience of modernity has thus been seen as dominated by the foundation of the Turkish nation-state (Kongar, 1985); in other words, the nation has been viewed as an end rather than as a means. To show that the nationalist principle of Kemalist modernity was a means to other ends, the nationalizing process and its aftermath need to be analysed. To put it more explicitly, the nation is generally seen as the dominant social configuration of modern times (Gellner, 1983; Giddens, 1985, 1991) and, thus, it seems necessary to explore the move towards a nationalized collectivity in Anatolia.

Some observers see the nationalization process as being obviously related to the ethnicity of the community (Smith, 1986; Gutierrez, 1997). This perspective reads nation as an expression of an earlier sense of ethnocentrism. Nationalization has also been stressed, by some observers, as having connections with an idea of ‘civilization’ that came into existence with the emergence of modernity (Gellner, 1964; Elias, 1994 [1982]). That is, modernization was seen to mean ‘civilization’; it is observed that civilization does not refer to a pre-existing category, but is only something to be reached, the goal of the process of ‘becoming civilized’. In the Turkish experience, this understanding of civilization was taken to be the case without being critically observed. Then, kültür or hars was seen as peculiar to the Turks, while medeniyet or uygarlik was emphasized as common to the whole of humanity. Therefore, it seems clear that kültür places essential stress on nationality, while uygarlik may be common to all human beings. From this observation, it becomes obvious that a study of nationalization should take ethnicity and civilization into account.