Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 51 Marrying Turkey to Global Citizenship: Tendencies in Citizenship Education in Modern Turkey Vahap Demir Purdue University Abstract: This paper reviews the literature on citizenship education and examines the factors that have influenced trends in citizenship education in the Republic of Turkey since its foundation in 1923. The aim of this paper is to discuss the general tendencies and practices in citizenship education that have shaped how Turkish youth perceived citizenship throughout the Republic’s history. By addressing three important aspects of these tendencies and traditions (history, geography, and geopolitics), the author will discuss whether Turkey is prepared to produce globally minded citizens in today’s interconnected world. The history of civic education in modern Turkey can be divided into four time periods, as organized by İnce (2012): The Single Party period (1923-1946), the Democratic Party period (1946-1960), the first military intervention period (1960-1980), and the second military intervention period (1980 onward). Key words: global citizenship, Turkey, citizenship education History of Citizenship Education in Modern Turkey Single Party Period (1923-1946) Modern Turkey, or The Republic of Turkey, came into existence on October 29, 1923, following the fall of the Ottoman Empire. According to Çayır (2015), “Turkish history [in this era] represents a painful transition from the multi-religious, multicultural and multilingual Ottoman Empire to the Turkish nation-state” (p. 523). This was a multifaceted and quick change. Because the Ottomans had fallen far behind Europe in terms of development before their empire fell apart, the Modern Turkish Republic sought to bring Turkey back into step with Europe and the modern world. mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 52 In Turkey, nationalism was a new concept that arose with the republic. The complicated circumstances and events that occurred during WWI may be considered as the source of Turkish nationalism. Until the end of WWI, Turkishness (the state of being Turkish), which refers to an ethno-nationalistic worldview that excludes all non-Turkish people, was never considered a term that distinguished between identities (Çayır, 2015). The Ottomans had no notion of citizenship; the Empire was made up of subjects (tebaa) who were treated equally regardless of their ethnicity, culture, or language. Religion was what made them different. The Ottoman Empire was primarily a Muslim empire. Non-Muslims, Christians, and Jews were all recognized as such and had considerable control over their own lives; nonetheless, they were forced to acknowledge Islam’s authority and were subjected to a Muslim state that granted them fewer privileges than Muslims. After the Empire was defeated in WWI and the Balkan Wars (1912-22) and lost territory in the Balkans and the Middle East, the country’s trend was toward Turkish nationalism, driven by the “modernizing elite” who subsequently formed the Republic (Çayır, 2015). The growth of nationalism in the early years of the Republic led to racial, religious, and linguistic classification, as well as a shift in the notion of citizenship in contemporary Turkey. During the period from 1923 to 1946, the only legal political party was the People’s Republican Party (CHP) (İnce, 2012). The CHP was built on a set of ideas known as the Six Pillars: Nationalism, Republicanism, Populism, Secularism (adopted in 1927), Statism, and Revolution (added in 1935). Ataturk’s Six Principles were the inspiration for these Six Pillars. He described these ideas as “essentials” that the nation should adhere to while it worked to rebuild and develop the country. The term “citizen” was narrowly defined throughout the CHP period. Citizenship was perceived “on the basis of a single religion (Sunni Islam) and a single language (Turkish), and the slogan of the period was ‘one language, one culture, one ideal’” (İnce, 2012, p. 119). People of other religions and languages like Christians and Jews, as well as Kurds and Circassians, were classified as Non-Turkish (Kadıoğlu, 2007). As a result of this classification, these non-Turkish “others” were forced to assimilate; for example, the use of Kurdish language or names was prohibited (Çayır, 2015). During the first six years of the newly founded country, there was no explanation of what made up the Turkish nation in civic textbooks (İnce, 2012). While the 1924 Constitution declared that “all citizens of the republic are considered equals regardless of their religion, color, or ethnicity” (Polat, 2011, p. 144), civic education textbooks did not reflect this. According to the 1924 Constitution, everyone in the country had the same rights and obligations (İnce, 2012). These rights, on the other hand, were fundamental rights like the right to an education, health care, and privacy. Although the Constitution did not offer precise words to mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 53 preserve these rights, it did highlight the duties and responsibilities (İnce, 2012). The goal of citizenship education was defined as “teaching citizenship duties” (Emin, 1930). During its early years, the Republic of Turkey began to narrow its idea of “nation” as it moved away from the Ottoman model socially, culturally, and politically. When we study the circumstances, however, we can see why the CHP administration shifted from the Ottoman definition of “tebaa,” which was more inclusive compared to the concept of citizenship. Given that nationalism was one of the strongest motivators in WWI, the CHP government’s motivation for Turkish nationalism is understandable. It is also reasonable to conclude that the nationalist environment of the moment drove Turkey in a similar path. After 1929, definitions of Turkish citizenship appeared in civic education textbooks (İnce, 2012). Vatandaş için Medeni Bilgiler (Civic Information for the Citizen) was the most important citizenship education textbook during this time period and can be considered the official citizenship book (İnce, 2012). Although it was published under the name of Afet İnan, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s adoptive daughter, this text was written by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey (İnce, 2012). In the early years of the Republic, this textbook, which was released in 1931, was a significant resource for developing and understanding Turkish citizenship (Gürses, 2010). According to İnce (2012), the “one language, one culture, one ideal” discourse is heavily emphasized in this book, and a nation is defined as a social and political community made up of citizens who share the same ideals, language, and culture. İnce (2012) goes on to say that, while the book’s definitions are promoted as “inclusive,” Ataturk’s views on what made up the Turkish nation appear to contradict this. The following elements make up Turkish nationhood, according to him: a) political unity; b) linguistic unity; c) territorial unity; d) racial unity; e) shared history; f) shared morality (İnan, 1931, in İnce, 2012, p. 119). The following headings appeared in civics textbooks during the single-party period: Democracy, Nation, the State, the Republic, Taxes, the Military and Military Service (Üstel, 2005, in Çayır & Gürkaynak, 2007). These textbooks emphasized solidarity and national unity based on Turkishness (Çayır & Gürkaynak, 2007). Following 1929, textbooks began to define Turkish citizenship. In relation to these definitions, despite the linguistic reference to a political idea of citizenship, it was acknowledged that behaviors during the nation-building process were exclusivist (Çayır & Gürkaynak, 2007). Indeed, education has been viewed as a tool by the government to transform the lives of its citizens to mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 54 create an organic Turkish society since the inception of the Republic (Parlak, 2005; Üstel, 2005, in Çayır, 2015). Entering Multi-Party Democracy (1946-1960) In 1946, a second successfully created political party, the Democratic Party (DP), was brought to the country. This year was significant in Turkish politics since it signified the start of the “multi- party democracy” era. Following a 27-year period of single-party government, the Democratic Party won the 1950 elections and ruled the country until 1960, when military intervention ended the party’s reign (İnce, 2012). During the first decade of the Democratic Party’s administration, significant changes took place in the country. The DP not only liberalized key citizenship rules but also changed how citizenship was taught in textbooks (İnce, 2012). This period saw a greater emphasis on citizenship rights and democracy in textbooks than the previous period; however, throughout this time period, the same textbooks described martial law in a way that signaled it was appropriate to curtail fundamental human rights in certain instances (İnce, 2012). The abandonment of the CHP’s Six Pillars was one of the most significant developments during the DP’s administration (Polat, 2011). This shift, particularly the abandonment of nationalism as a pillar, was a key indicator of how the single-party period’s worldview was shifting toward more inclusive civic education. According to Çayır and Gürkaynak (2007), the multi-party period’s broad liberalization and democratization movement was reflected across the educational system. Prior to the 1980 coup, the country saw a rapid phase of liberalization. The advancement of minority rights was another notable achievement during the Republic’s new era. Turkey only succeeded in creating multi-party democracy after the Second World War, following multiple failed efforts during the single-party period, and once there, Turkey began to pay more attention to minority rights (Polat, 2011). Despite the growing focus in textbooks on minority rights, citizenship rights, and democracy, as well as the abandonment of a nationalist perspective in citizenship education during this time, issues of inclusivity remained within the concept of nation. Between 1956 and 1960, textbooks described the nation as “a community of people who share the same fatherland, speak the same language, and share the same historical links, emotions, opinions, and ideals” (Aksan, 1952, in İnce, 2012, p. 122). The textbooks released during the Democratic Party period, according to Karakılıç and Müjdeci (2014), mainly perpetuated the beliefs and approaches stated during the single-party period. Similarly, İnce mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 55 (2012) claims that the definition of nation in this period looks to be fairly similar to the single- party period’s conception of “nation” and “citizen.” Between the Two Coups (1960-1980) During this period, the 1961 Constitution was amended. The amendment included promoting citizenship rights and inclusion. This Constitution ushered in a more liberal and inclusive view of citizenship, which was reflected in school curricula and civic textbooks (İnce, 2012). This trend came to a halt following the 1971 memorandum, in which the military forced the government to resign by writing a letter, and after 1971, civics texts returned to “emphasizing obligations over rights” (İnce, 2012, p. 124). Individual rights, for example, have been defined as something provided to citizens in exchange for completing citizenship duties (Erdem & Konuk, 1972, in İnce, 2012). The military coup of 1980 signaled the end of the efforts for an inclusive democracy and liberalization in the country. The phrase “everyone” appears in practically every item involving citizens’ rights and freedoms in the 1961 Constitution, which states that “everyone who is tied to the Turkish state by his or her citizenship ties is Turk” (Polat, 2011, p. 152). In comparison to the previous period, the state appeared to be more receptive to citizens and their rights during this time. The Ministry of Education’s citizenship education syllabus, based on the 1961 Constitution, discussed the state’s responsibilities in terms of respecting and protecting people’s rights (İnce, 2012). In one article, it was said that no one is granted privilege or discrimination (Constitutional Court, 1993, in Polat, 2011). Turkishness was understood as a term that encompassed people of various races (Constitutional Court, 1993, in Polat, 2011). Greeks, Jews, and Armenians were all regarded as Turks in this context (Pazarlı, 1964, in İnce, 2012). The goal of “one language, one culture” was less emphasized in this Constitution, and its wording appeared to be more inclusive. Furthermore, according to Tanör (1992, in Polat, 2011), the term nationalism was disassociated from notions such as racism and hostility in the 1961 Constitution (Polat, 2011). The 1961 Constitution promised a more democratic and free Turkey. It listed the rights and freedoms outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights (Tanör, 1992, in Polat, 2011). The 1961 constitution promoted critical thinking and participatory education in terms of education (İnce, 2012). The Teaching and Education Committee’s syllabus published in 1969, for example, strongly encouraged active citizenship (İnce, 2012). Nonetheless, the emphasis on homogeneity over diversity and ethnic divide over diversity has not waned: The textbooks mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 56 published during this period described the basis of Turkish nationalism as “Every Turk should carry the feeling of ‘I am a Turk, and I am proud to be a Turk’” (İnce, 2012, p. 123). The expanding governmental authority against individuals and society disrupted the fundamental rights and freedoms trend after the 1971 military memorandum and a constitutional amendment the same year (Polat, 2011). After the 1971 memorandum, the term “nationalism,” which had been dropped from the 1961 Constitution, was reintroduced into schooling. According to the National Education Basic Law, “The general aim of the Turkish national education is to develop a sense of citizenship which protects and develops the national morality of the Turkish nation, which embraces the moral, human, spiritual and cultural values of the Turkish nation based on Ataturk’s revolutions and Turkish nationalism” (p. 153). Social Studies, which includes History, Geography, and Citizenship Education courses, were adopted by the Ministry of National Education in 1970. According to Çayır and Gürkaynak (2007), “The curriculum was still very eclectic, with remains of a nationalistic structure and a newly acquired spirit of freedom and solidarity found together in the texts” (p. 52). Toward the end of this time, the government’s fear of internal and external threats grew. Diversity, according to “political elites” of the time, was producing internal tensions and eroding the country’s defenses against exterior threats. As a unifying component for the country, a stronger nationalistic viewpoint was recommended, and this was quickly reflected in the educational system. As a result, new course textbooks have been introduced: National History, National Geography, and Citizenship (Çayır & Gürkaynak, 2007). 1980 to Recent Times With a new constitution in 1982, two years after the previous military coup, the government appeared to be regressing in its image of inclusive democracy. The favorable developments of the 1960s and 1970s were being swept away by this downturn. In many ways, the new Constitution differed from the previous one, particularly in terms of citizenship rights. Citizenship rights in the 1982 Constitution were limited, their practice was rendered harder, and the rights lost their conformity with universal human rights norms (Kaynar & Ak, 2017). A nation, according to textbooks written after 1980, is the sum of history, culture, religion, and language, in which an aim to homogenize the country could be seen (İnce, 2012). Despite the Republic’s determination to join the globalizing world in the 1980s and 1990s, human rights looked to be the main focus of curriculum and textbooks (Çayır & Gürkaynak, 2007). mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 57 Citizenship and Human Rights was introduced as an obligatory study in the seventh and eighth grades in 1998, highlighting the importance of human rights (İnce, 2012). According to Gök (2003), the true motivation for this move was not to strengthen the rights of Turkish citizens. Instead, human rights were viewed as “simply a tool to boost Turkey’s reputation and legitimacy on the world scene” (in İnce, 2012, p. 125). Üstel (2004) claims that civic education became ethnocultural in the 1980s (in Kaya, 2016). The emphasis was not just on celebrating Turkish culture from a patriotic standpoint but also on acknowledging Turkey’s foes and its “excellent” culture as well as its territorial integrity. The Republic’s goal since its founding has been to raise the country to the “level of contemporary civilization” (muasır medeniyetler seviyesi), which Ataturk designated as the nation’s ultimate goal. Simultaneously, defining the enemy in textbooks was seen as a necessity so that the youth would be aware of those who wished to thwart the fulfillment of that goal. According to Çayır and Gürkaynak (2007), textbooks from this era depict Turkey as “always under threat from both internal and external enemies due to its geopolitical importance” (p. 53). The ideology underpinning the Turkish education system was nationalistic and militaristic, according to an analysis of the threats given in textbooks. The Citizenship and Human Rights Education textbook created and published by the Ministry of National Education in 1998 said that “[from this book] you will better understand how our enemies strive to achieve their aims with damaging and divisive techniques” (Bilgen et al., 2001, in Çayır & Gürkaynak, 2007, p. 53). Internal threats have been characterized as “separatist and reactionary” (Bilgen et al., 2001, in Çayır & Gürkaynak, 2007, p. 54). For example, in Turkey’s southeast, a struggle between Kurdish guerrillas and the Turkish government has raged for more than 40 years (Çayır, 2015). The Kurdish people involved in the conflict are frequently depicted as internal threats who wish to take control of the state (Çayır & Gürkaynak, 2007). External threats, on the other hand, have always been present in Turkish politics and education. In the schooling process, students are constantly informed of external risks and are required to stay vigilant. External opponents were emphasized in the social studies curriculum and textbooks during the 1980s and 1990s. Studies in National Security was a required course urging young citizens to be vigilant; this course was part of the high school curriculum from 1926 until it was withdrawn by the Justice and Development Party (JDP) government (Çayır & Gürkaynak, 2007). Armenia and Greece were depicted in the textbook as seizing lands from Turkey in order to form “Greater Armenia” and “Greater Greece” (Çayır & Gürkaynak, 2007). mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 58 During this time, Turkey was concerned about national security and wary of foreigners. However, as part of other changes, and to be able to enter the European Union, the state improved its economy and integrated itself into the global free market (Çayır & Gürkaynak, 2007). With the start of the new millennium, reforms became even more intense. After the JDP won the elections in 2002, sweeping reforms were pursued, including in education. One of the JDP government’s educational reforms was to eliminate the National Security (Milli Güvenlik) course, which was deemed undesirable due to its militaristic tone (Altınay, 2004, in Çayır, 2015). The Turkish Student Oath, which was recited by elementary and middle school pupils every morning before classes began, was also abolished. The controversial statement “how happy is the one who says I’m a Turk” (Çayır, 2015, p. 525) was incorporated in the oath. The word “Turk” was interpreted in this oath to relate to a specific ethnic identity: that of ethnically Turkish people. As a result, other ethnic groups in the country such as Kurds and Armenians were left out of the oath. Allowing education in Kurdish language was another key step taken by the JDP in order to address the needs and expectations of minorities. Kurds, who make up around 20 percent of Turkey’s population and have long been rejected by the previous governments, have been requesting schooling in their mother tongue for decades (Çayır, 2015). The JDP made history by introducing a Kurdish language course as an elective in the school curriculum (Çayır, 2015). These developments, according to Çayır (2015), were “the opening of a Pandora’s box in Turkey” (p. 526). Despite these reform efforts, the 1982 Constitution remains in force. Although there have been some minor updates, many people believe it is outdated. Both the 1961 and 1982 constitutions’ conceptions of citizenship have been challenged for reflecting a race-based and exclusive understanding of citizenship (Aybay, 2008, in Polat, 2011). Despite this criticism, the Constitutional Court decided that the Constitution’s concept of citizenship should be understood as inclusive and unifying, and that it does not entail any special treatment or discrimination for or against any ethnic group (Aybay, 2008, in Polat, 2011). Since its inception in 1982, the Constitution has been amended multiple times, but an acceptable and inclusive understanding of citizenship has yet to be achieved (Polat, 2011). Geographical & Geopolitical Factors Influencing Citizenship Education in Modern Turkey Turkey’s perception of civic education is shaped by its geographical and geopolitical location. Turkey has traditionally seen itself as one of the most strategically important lands in the world, with lands in both Europe and Asia surrounded by the Aegean Sea, Black Sea, and Mediterranean. mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 59 Turkey is regarded as a “bridge” between the West and the East. This idea contributes to current suspicions that Turkey’s neighbors Armenia and Greece are attempting to partition the country and seize land. Such fears have their origins in the Ottoman Empire, as most of these bordering countries, especially Greece, wished to be independent of the Ottomans before the Empire’s collapse. The Ministry of National Education’s (MONE) textbook Citizenship and Human Rights Education, published in 1998, highlights the existence of opponents surrounding the country. The following sample demonstrates how neighboring countries are presented to Turkish students as potential threats: “Turkey has a critical geopolitical situation in the region and the world. Because of this, many countries have several aims in our motherland. […] The places that harbor destructive terrorist organizations are neighboring countries, which we think are our allies” (Bilgen et al., 2001, in Çayır & Gürkaynak, 2007, p. 54). Textbooks portray these countries as prospective adversaries while underlining that Turkey has always sought peace with other nations, referencing Ataturk’s famous dictum, “Peace at home, peace in the world.” However, because challenges to Turkey’s territorial integrity exist, these texts state that Turkey must remain vigilant and ready to fight and protect itself. Turkey, despite not being a participant, was influenced by World War II due to its geopolitical location (Taşdöven, 2013). Throughout WWII, Turkey had to maintain a state of readiness to secure its borders. As a result, the government governed the economy in accordance with the actual risk of war, and the army was constantly prepared (Taşdöven, 2013). Armaoğlu (1994) depicts how Turkey felt during these years: Turkey’s situation in the Second World War was nothing but the efforts of the Allies and the Axis to get Turkey involved in the war, and the pressures they placed on Turkey because of its strategic position. Turkey’s policy towards these activities of the warring parties was to stay out of the war and to protect the country from the destruction of the war. (p. 407) Turkey’s belief in its geopolitical importance is one of the main reasons why the government is distrustful of its neighbors. Given that some of these countries yearned for independence from the Ottomans, it is understandable that Modern Turkey depicts them in this way in its educational system. Turkey remains apprehensive of a hypothetical alliance between these countries, believing that some of them, such as Greece, seek Turkey’s lands. mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 60 As Turkey is situated between the continents of Europe and Asia, acting as a link between Western and Eastern cultures, there is a constant interplay among Turkish, European, and Asian traditions. Both Western and Eastern influences guide Turkey’s approach to citizenship and citizenship education. The major curriculum reform of 2005 was the outcome of the country’s Western and secular trajectory, and it was heavily influenced by American and other Western models. However, after more than a decade, the West’s influence appears to be decreasing, and Turkey’s present course appears to be away from such influences. Western criticism of Turkey’s present domestic affairs could be one of the causes for the shift. Another factor influencing Turkey’s decision is the region’s political instability, particularly in Syria. These concerns, together with Western criticism of Turkey’s present political events, are potentially driving Turkey away from an inclusive citizenship notion. Discussion & Concluding Remarks Even though the notion of “global citizenship education” emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, Turkey did not openly discuss it until the 2000s. Curriculum reforms arose in many regions of the world in the 1990s because of globalization’s pervasive influence and new entities such as the European Union (Terra & Bromley, 2012, in Çayır, 2015). In 2005, Turkey’s JDP government implemented a significant curriculum revision. In the Turkish education system, the reform tried to replace the old behavioral approach to instruction with a constructivist one. Constructivism, as opposed to behaviorism, involves students in the learning process. In global citizenship education, the constructivist approach is highly appreciated. The reform also included a “Global Connections” topic in the social studies curriculum for students in grades 4 through 7 (TTKB, 2009b, 2009c, in Açıkalın, 2010). This was the first time that the word “global” was used in the Turkish social studies history. This curriculum aimed to integrate global perspectives in school and increase Turkish youth’s “global mindedness.” The necessity of this issue, according to MONE, derives from advances in science and technology that have improved the relationship between societies by blurring their boundaries and making them more accessible (TTKB, 2009). Students should be aware of inter-societal linkages in such a world (TTKB, 2009). The following is MONE’s description of this theme for each grade level: Students in the fourth and fifth grades will be able to recognize the general characteristics of countries from around the world and compare them to their own. While forming an opinion about the natural resources, economic status, and economic relationships of other countries as well as their own, students in the 6th and 7th grades will appreciate the value of ideas and art in international engagement. Students will also learn about the functioning of international mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 61 organizations and develop views about economic, political, security, health, and environmental challenges. (TTKB, 2009) Simply incorporating these concepts into the curriculum is insufficient. Açıkalın (2010) evaluated these units using global citizenship elements as criteria. He found that the most significant aspects of global citizenship are included in the new social studies curriculum and standards; however, they are not presented well enough. For example, skills that a global citizen should have were not covered. The new curriculum/standards, as well as the corresponding textbooks produced and published in response to the reform, have been in use since 2005, with their benefits and drawbacks. As part of its efforts to improve global mindedness in education, the JDP administration is still developing and revising the curriculum (Açıkalın, 2010). The JDP’s efforts to promote diversity, consider minorities’ rights, and advance inclusiveness from 2002 to the present cannot be overlooked. However, despite recent developments under the JDP government, Çayır (2015) claims that the depiction of problems such as national self and ethnic minorities in textbooks has not changed significantly from past periods. As discussed in this paper, citizenship education in contemporary Turkey has a long history of excluding elements that accord with what we now refer to as global citizenship. Turkey attempted to provide a more inclusive citizenship that was more linked with the concept of global citizenship at times, but these efforts were frequently thwarted by numerous occurrences. While the JDP government’s most recent attempts are encouraging, Turkey’s historical tendency toward citizenship (education) makes it difficult for today’s Turkey to reach a higher level of conformity with what we now refer to as global citizenship/education. mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 62 References Açıkalın, M. (2010). The influence of global education on the Turkish social studies curriculum. The Social Studies, 101(6), 254-259. DOI: 10.1080/00377991003774887 Armaoğlu, F. (1994). 20. Yüzyıl Siyasi Tarihi (20th century political history) 1914-1980, c. 1. Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. Çayır, K. (2015). Citizenship, nationality, and minorities in Turkey’s textbooks: From politics of non-recognition to “difference multiculturalism.” Comparative Education, 51(4), 519- 536. DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2015.1088210 Çayır, K., & Gürkaynak, I. (2007). The state of citizenship education in Turkey: Past and present. Journal of Social Science Education, 6(2), 50-58. http://www.jsse.org/index.php/jsse/article/view/1048/951 Emin, M. (1930). Yurt Bilgisi (Kanaat Kütüphanesi). Gürses, F. (2010). Kemalism’s model lesson book: Civilized knowledges for the citizen (Kemalizm’in Model Ders Kitabı: Vatandaş İçin Medeni Bilgiler). Akademik Bakış, 4(7). İnce, B. (2012). Citizenship education in Turkey: Inclusive or exclusive. Oxford Review of Education, 38(2), 115-131. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2011.651314 Kadıoğlu, A. (2007). Denationalization of citizenship? The Turkish experience. Citizenship Studies, 11(3), 283-299. Karakılıç, C., & Müjdeci, M. (2014). The identity and citizenship in the books on citizenship (1950-1960). The pursuit of history. International Periodical for History and Social Research, 11, 173-198. http://www.tarihinpesinde.com/dergimiz/nisan2014/M11_10.pdf Kaya, A. (2016). Ethno-religious narratives of citizenship in Turkey: Fabricating citizens through national education. Research and Policy on Turkey, 1(2), 119-131. DOI: 10.1080/23760818.2016.1201243 Kaynar, M., K., & Ak, G. (2017). An analysis regarding relation between 1982 constitution and human rights. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 41, 90-103. Polat, E. G. (2011). The concept of citizenship from the Ottoman Empire to current times. Ankara Barosu Dergisi (Ankara Law Society Magazine), 3. http://www.ankarabarosu.org.tr/siteler/ankarabarosu/tekmakale/2011-3/2011-3-4.pdf mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ http://www.jsse.org/index.php/jsse/article/view/1048/951 http://www.tarihinpesinde.com/dergimiz/nisan2014/M11_10.pdf http://www.ankarabarosu.org.tr/siteler/ankarabarosu/tekmakale/2011-3/2011-3-4.pdf Journal of International Social Studies, v. 11, n. 2, 2021, pp. 51-63 Corresponding author: vdemir@purdue.edu ©2012/2023 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 63 Taşdöven, Z. (2013). The understanding of education in the period of Democratic Party (1950- 1960). (Master’s thesis). http://adudspace.adu.edu.tr:8080/jspui/bitstream/11607/678/1/zehra%20TA%C5%9ED %C3%96VEN.pdf Üstel, F. (2004). Education in Turkey, castle of conservatism (Transcription of interview), Feridun Andaç. http://bianet.org/bianet/siyaset/61182-turkiyede-egitim- muhafazakarligin-kalesi Üstel, F. (2005). Makbul Vatandası̧n Pesinde. İstanbul: İletisim Yayınları. About the Author: Vahap Demir is a doctoral candidate at Purdue University, Department of Curriculum and Instruction. He is a first-generation college student and recipient of a highly prestigious scholarship from Turkish government (YLSY). He teaches social studies methods courses at Purdue University. Vahap’s research interests include global citizenship education, multicultural education, and international education. In his free time Vahap enjoys playing soccer, hiking, and spending time with his friends from all over the world. mailto:vdemir@purdue.edu http://www.iajiss.org/ http://adudspace.adu.edu.tr:8080/jspui/bitstream/11607/678/1/zehra%20TA%C5%9ED%C3%96VEN.pdf http://adudspace.adu.edu.tr:8080/jspui/bitstream/11607/678/1/zehra%20TA%C5%9ED%C3%96VEN.pdf http://bianet.org/bianet/siyaset/61182-turkiyede-egitim-muhafazakarligin-kalesi http://bianet.org/bianet/siyaset/61182-turkiyede-egitim-muhafazakarligin-kalesi