387

 FROM “IMAGINARY” TO “REAL”:
A SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE PEASANTRY IN TURKEY (1945-1960)

This study investigates the socio-economic ve political conditions of the
peasantry in Turkey during the 1945-1960 period through a social history
perspective. In the meantime, this study has been prepared as a result of an attempt of
rethinking the 1945-1960 period, at least through the peasants, who are chosen here
as the main subject.
With the transformation of the countryside during the 1945-1960 period the
theoretical and political perspectives that previously had defined the peasants also
changed. Due to that, during this study, the changing political and theoretical
perspectives have been investigated in relation to the changing socio-economic
conditions of the peasants. The changing political attitudes of the peasants have been
presented through some case studies such as the Arslanköy Case. During this study
the main characteristics of the rural migration movements have been investigated as
the most visible effect of the rural transformation. The transformation of the
peasantist perspective in the cultural sphere also has been investigated through the
analysis of the making of the Village Literature genre during this period.
In this study, the transformation of the peasantry from “imaginary” to “real”
was analyzed through the discussion of the transformation of all the spheres that
were related to the peasantry. In this way, not only the ideological developments, but
also the developments and the transformation that occurred in relation to the
peasantry per se became the focus of this study.
iv
Atatürk lkeleri ve nkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü’nde Doktora derecesi için
Sinan Yıldırmaz tarafından Ekim 2009’da teslim edilen tezin özeti
Baslık: “Tahayyül”den “Gerçek”lige: Türkiye’de Köylülügün Sosyal Tarihi
(1945-1960)
Bu çalısmada Türkiye’de 1945-1960 döneminde köylülügün sosyo-ekonomik
ve politik gelisimi bir sosyal tarih perspektifi içerisinden incelenmektedir. Aynı
zamanda bu çalısma 1945-1960 döneminin köylülük üzerinden yeniden düsünülmesi
çabasının bir sonucu olarak ortaya çıkmıstır.
Tarımsal yapıların 1945-1960 döneminde geçirdigi dönüsüm aynı zamanda
önceki dönemlerde köylülügü tanımlayan teorik ve politik bakıs açılarının da
dönüsmesine yol açmıstır. Bu yüzden bu çalısma boyunca degisen politik ve teorik
yaklasımlar köylülügün degisen sosyo-ekonomik durumuyla dogrudan baglantılı bir
biçimde ele alınmıstır. Köylülerin degisen politik tavır alıs biçimleri Arslanköy
Davası’nın incelendigi bölümde de görülebilecegi gibi çesitli örnek olaylar üzerinden
gösterilmeye çalısılmıstır. Bu dönemde yogun bir biçimde ortaya çıkan kırdan kente
göç hareketlerinin temel sebepleri tarımsal yapıların dönüsümünün en görünür hale
geldigi bir alan olarak tartısılmıstır. Bununla birlikte kültürel alanda köycü bakıs
açısının dönüsümü Köy Edebiyatı akımının olusum sürecinin analizi üzerinden
ortaya konulmaya çalısılmıstır.
Köylülügün “tahayyül” olandan “gerçek” olana dogru gerçeklesen dönüsümü
bu çalısma içerisinde köylülük ile iliskili hemen hemen bütün alanlarda yasanan
dönüsümün tartısılması yoluyla analiz edilmistir. Böylelikle, yalnızca ideolojik
olarak köylülük söyleminin nasıl degistigi degil, bununla birlikte dogrudan
köylülerle ilgili gelismeler ve köylülügün dönüsümü bu çalısmanın ana konusunu
olusturmustur.
v

“From ‘Romanticism’ to ‘Realism’: The Redefinition of Peasantry in Turkey after
the Second World War Period.” Paper presented at the “II. Cambridge
Symposium on Middle Eastern Studies: Knowledge and Language in Middle
Eastern Socities,” 16th-18th October 2009, Faculty of Asian & Middle Eastern
Studies, University of Cambridge, UK.
vi
“Demokrat Parti ve Dönemi: Sol tarihyazımında 'kayıp' zamanın izinde.” Praksis, no.
18 (2009): 23-42.
“Vatan Cephesi: Demokrat Parti'nin Politik Mesruiyet Krizi ve Toplumsal
Muhalefeti Kontrol Altına Alma Çabası.” in Türkiye'de Siyasal Muhalefet, ed.
by Aysegül Komsuoglu, 173-207. stanbul: Bengi Kitap Yayın, 2008.
“The Making of ‘Village Literature’ in Turkey.” Paper presented at the “23rd Annual
Middle East History and Theory Conference,” May 9 & 10, 2008 in Ida Noyes
Hall at the University of Chicago, USA.
“14 Mayıs Demokrasi Bayramı (!): DP'nin ktidara Gelisinin Birnci Yıldönümü
Kutlamaları.” Toplumsal Tarih, no. 161 (May 2007): 50-56.
"’Köy Edebiyatı’nın Olusumu." Paper presented at the “10. Ulusal Sosyal Bilimler
Kongresi,” Middle East Technical University, 28–30 November 2007, Ankara,
Turkey.
“Türk Muhafazakârlıgında Dogu ve Batı Mitoslarının Çatısma Alanı: Fatih-
Harbiye.” Pasaj, no. 3 (2006): 37-54.
“Tek Parti Dönemi Sonrası (1945–1960) Seçimlerde Köylüler.” Paper presented at
the “9. Ulusal Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi,” Middle East Technical University, 7–
9 December 2005, Ankara, Turkey.
“1950 Seçimleri ve Propaganda.” Yakın Dönem Türkiye Arastırmaları 3, no. 6
(2004): 131-157.
“I. Dünya Savası'nda Avrupa'da Savas Karsıtı Hareket.” Toplumsal Tarih, no. 118
(October 2003): 44-49.
“The Mass Mobilization in the Elections of the Democrat Party Period.” Master’s
Thesis, Bogaziçi University, 2002.
“stanbul'da Milli Mücadele ve Gizli Örgütlerin Faaliyetleri.” Yakın Dönem Türkiye
Arastırmaları 1, no. 1 (2002): 357-388.
“Ali Ürkmer'in Sultanahmet Meydanı'nda Asılması ve Gazetelerin Tutumu (1939) -
Halka Açık Olarak Gerçeklestirilen Bir dam.” Toplumsal Tarih, no. 91 (July
2001): 18-22.
“Çin'in Kalkınma Stratejisi ve Global Ekonomiye Entegrasyonu.” in Çin'in
Gölgesinde Uzakdogu Asya, ed. by Deniz Ülke Arıbogan, 257-282. stanbul:
Baglam Yayınları, 2001.
“Peyami Safa ve Türk Muhafazakârlıgı Üzerine Bir Dönemlendirme Denemesi.”
Paper presented at the “1. Lisansüstü Ögrencileri Sosyal Bilimler Konferansı,”
Bogaziçi University, 6–8 April 2001, stanbul, Turkey.
vii
CONTENTS
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………….1
II. PEASANTS IN THEORY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL
SOCIOLOGY IN TURKEY………………………………………………………...19
Modernization Theory and the Peasantry……………………………...…....28
The Development of “Rural Sociology” in Turkey…………………..……..40
III. PEASANTS MOVING TOWARDS CITIES:
THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE RURAL STRUCTURE, RURAL
MIGRATION AND THE GECEKONDU…………………………………………..66
The Change in Economic Policies in the Post-War Period…………...…..…68
Capitalism, Modernization and Urbanization……………………………….78
The Land Reform Law, the Marshall Plan,
the Smallholder Peasantry and Migration……….………….……………….83
The Reasons for the Rural Migration, or Is It Possible to Create
a Stereotype in the Analysis of the Rural Migration?…………..……….......91
The Peasants in the Cities and the Invention of the “Gecekondu”….….......128
IV. PEASANTRY AS AN ACTIVE COMPONENT OF POLITICS……………..151
The Arslanköy Case and the Development of the Rule of Law……………174
The Peasants and Politics during the DP Government…………….………196
The Village Coffeehouse as a Political Space……………………………...213
The Peasants and Anti-Communism……………………………………….231
V. THE MAKING OF THE “VILLAGE LITERATURE”……………………......254
Defining the Village Literature…………………………………………….257
History in the Village Literature……………………………………….......262
The Making of the Village Literature Canon………………………………290
From the “Reality” of the Literature to the “Reality” of the Country….......322
VI. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………...324
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………….335
viii
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table Page
1. The Transformation of the Rural Structure 1948-1970 99
2. The Size of the Area Cultivated by Draft Animals and Tractors 1944-1960 102
3. Overall Population / City and Village Population 1927-1960 117
4. Average Field Size and Proportions According to Operational Types 118
5. The Temporal Change in Transportation (in hours) 121
Figure
1. Caricature from Kara Dayı 240
2. Caricature from Köroglu 240
3. Caricature from Karagöz 245
4. A caricature that criticizes the inspection of the governor of Nigde
in Mahmut Makal’s village 298
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The post-Second World War period is mostly defined through a social and
economic transformation. During the post-war period, the social and economic
transformation of Turkey happened in direct interaction with the restructuring
process of the world economic and social order. The material foundations of this
transformation can be found mostly in the developments of the previous period. The
majority of the social science studies that analyze this period focus on this
interaction.1
A broad social science literature exists on the analysis of the macro political
and economic developments of the period from various perspectives. However, little
has been done on how the period in question was experienced by the social classes
and groups of the period or on how the transformation of the country affected these
groups. This study mainly focuses on the analysis of how the transformation was
experienced by the peasants, who made up the vast majority of the population during
the 1945-1960 period.
The 1945-1960 period is commonly described as a “transition period.”
Although this term is meaningful in describing the main developments of the period,
it is also meaning that it shows “betweenness” of the period. This “transition”
1 The following studies can be given as example: Feroz Ahmad, Demokrasi Sürecinde Türkiye 1945-
1980, trans. Ahmet Fethi, 2. ed. (
stanbul: Hil Yayınları, 1996); Nihal Kara
ncioglu, "Türkiye'de Çok
Partili Sisteme Geçis ve Demokrasi Sorunları," in Tarih ve Demokrasi: Tarık Zafer Tunaya'ya
Armagan, ed. Üniversite Ögretim Üyeleri Dernegi (
stanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1992); Asım
Karaömerlioglu, "Turkey's 'Return' to Multi-Party Politics: A Social Interpretation," East European
Quarterly 40, no. 1 (2006); Kemal H. Karpat, Turkey's Politics: The Transition to a Multi-Party
System, trans. Turkey's Politics (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1959); Çaglar Keyder,
"Türkiye Demokrasisinin Ekonomi Politigi," in Geçis Sürecinde Türkiye, ed. Irvin Cemil Schick and
Ertugrul Ahmet Tonak (
stanbul Belge Yayınları, 1990); Çaglar Keyder, Türkiye'de Devlet ve Sınıflar,
trans. Sabri Tekay, 5. ed. (
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 1999).
2
concept has a dual meaning. The most common use of this concept is as the
“transition to multi-party system.”
The definition of transition from the single-party regime to the multi-party
competitive system designates the major political development of this period. It is
also meaningful that this definition highlights the importance of the period, during
which a new political system was created with the existence of plural political
structures that were different from those of the previous period’s structure in terms of
aims and organization mentality. During the single-party regime, similar kinds of
political movements were called “attempts at multi-party politics.”
Defining this period with the concept of “transition” also shows that a certain
development in political mentality occurred. The “transition” concept also refers to a
process that is not wholly completed. Due to that, it mostly highlights not the real
characteristics of the period in question, but the characteristics of the “transition”
itself. The discussions on the meaning and the process of the “transition” make up
the majority of the literature that is produced on this period. The discussion of
whether the transition to the multi-party system occurred as a result of the effects of
the inner factors or outer factors refers not only to a differentiation among the
academic perceptions, but also to a political differentiation.2
The second meaning of the transition characteristics of this period is
somewhat implicit; however, it presents clearly the “betweenness” of the period
more than the other. Basically, this period occurred in between two “great” periods,
which make up the main research areas of the Turkish social scientists. For this
reason, this period is mostly described as a transition period between these two
“important” periods. In this meaning of the transition concept, this period is
2 Nihal Kara’s study on the factors that affected the decision to the transition to the multi-party system
defines various approaches on this discussion. See Nihal Kara, "Türkiye'de Çok Partili Hayata Geçis
Kararının Nedenleri," Yapıt, no. 8 (December-January 1984-1985).
3
evaluated only with its teleological transitory role between the two periods, which are
the single-party period, what consisted of the state-founding mentality, and the
administrations, and the 1960s which was more dynamic both for economic and
social developments. In most of the social science studies on Turkey, if it is not the
main subject of the study, this period is treated only as a “bridge” to the following
period.
Many writers believe that the existing information on the period is more than
enough to understand it properly. This is the main reason for this approach to the
period in question. As will be seen in the following chapters, especially the section in
which the relation of the peasants to politics is examined, the most referenced
sources on this period make the continuation of the “perception rupture” that mainly
obstructs the introduction of new information on the period. The effect of the
political perception that was dominant during the publication of these sources mostly
created this perception rupture. Consequently, this meaning of transition in defining
the period in question, in a way, prevents the making of new and adequate numbers
of studies on this period. Except for some historical turning points, such as the
Democrat Party’s coming to power or the coup of 27 May 1960, few comprehensive
studies have been conducted on this period in general.
This period also has been judged as a whole by some particular groups,
because, for the first time in Turkish history, this period ended with a coup and in the
following period a relatively more “free” social administration was established. The
pretexts of the 27 May 1960 coup as the most important factor that created the
“perception rupture” regarding the 1945-1960 period almost generally were accepted
in defining or evaluating the DP period by the social science studies published during
the 1960s and 1970s. In order to evaluate the period with a new perspective in depth,
4
an overall historical narrative of the period, in which this effect of the coup and the
other factors that have affected the understanding the period are eliminated, is still
needed.
In addition, another obstacle that prevents the proper evaluation of the period
in question is the center-right political approach, which considers itself the
continuation of the DP’s political tradition. This perspective mostly defines the
period through the iconographic discourse of its political movement. Any kind of
study that focuses on the 1945-1960 period has to overcome these two obstacles.
This study has been prepared as a result of an attempt of rethinking the 1945-
1960 period, at least through the peasants, who are chosen here as the main subject.
In order to understand the real characteristics of the transformation during this
period, its social history needs to be understood. Writing the social history of the
peasants, who were the most directly affected by the transformation of the social
structures during this period, in fact, is an attempt at rethinking the 1945-1960 period
from a new perspective.
The social history of the peasantry during the 1945-1960 period requires an
analysis of more than one area related to the peasantry as the transformation of
society during that period affected many areas at the same time. The most important
aspect of the social history studies is that they take a “total history” approach to the
problems.3 “Total history” is defined by Peter Burke as “not an account of the past
including every detail, but one which emphasizes the connection between different
fields of human endeavor.”4 Although not every subject that is related to the
peasantry of the period in question will be treated, the effects of various fields on the
peasantry will be questioned in this study. These fields mostly have a direct relation
3 Zafer Toprak, "Sosyal Tarihin Alanı ve Türkiye Gerçegi," Tarih ve Toplum, no. 54-55 (Summer-
Autumn 1991), p. 77.
4 Peter Burke, History and Social Theory (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1993), p. viii.
5
with each other and all of them will be analyzed in order to answer the primary
question of this study: How the political, economic and social developments in the
post-war years transformed the peasantry in the 1945-1960 period.
It is hard to make an absolute definition of the peasantry especially in the
Turkish case. It is impossible to construct a stable and historically rooted peasant
image in this geography because the peasants differed both on inter-regional and
regional base.5 Due to that, in this study, instead of making a definition of a
peasantry which has a certain historical and economic characteristic, the definition of
the peasants in the texts and the fields which are going to be analyzed will be
accepted in general. In most of these texts, the peasants are defined as a group of
rural residents who earn their living with agricultural production. The differentiation
of the peasants under this description, such as aga, farmer, sharecropper, will be set
forth accordingly in the context of the subjects that will be treated in this study.
Discussion of all types of peasant groups present in various regions of Turkey the
period under discussion is impossible due to the limitation in sources and tools. The
regional differences among the peasants will be mentioned as much as possible while
making a general evaluation of the period in question.
The differences between all peasantry types are not depicted clearly in the
sources written during the 1945-1960 period. The peasantry is mostly identified as a
single definitive category, due to the effect of the peasantist ideology of the singleparty
period that hesitated to stress the differences among the classes and sought a
unified definition. As a result, in most of these sources instead of using the term
“peasantry” they mostly prefer to use the term “villager.” The term “villager” will
5 John Waterbury, "Peasants Defy Categorization (as Well as Landlords and the State)," in Peasants &
Politics in the Modern Middle East, ed. Ferhad Kazemi and John Waterbury (Miami: Florida
International University Press, 1991).
6
not be used during this study. Instead, “peasantry,” which covers all of the peasants
and also gives the chance to mention the differences between them will be used.
The sources that are used during this dissertation are limited mostly to the
works that were published during the 1945-1960 period. Works on the village and
the peasantry which were published both during the single-party period and during
the 1960s were excluded consciously because these works require an evaluation from
a different perspective than the works that were published during the period in
question. This limitation in the use of the sources is preferred in order to understand
the general perception of the peasantry during this period. By limiting the sources,
the zeitgeist of the period in question can be isolated from that of the other periods
and be presented more easily and accurately. Especially in the village literature and
rural sociology works this limitation was very helpful for understanding the general
perception of the peasantry in these fields. In addition to that, the great number of
works in both of these fields necessitated this limitation in terms of feasibility.
A brief mention of how the peasants were perceived during the previous
periods is warranted here, although in every chapter it will again be highlighted
according to its relation to the subject of the chapter. It is also, in a way, necessary to
show how the peasants were seen during the previous period in order to present how
the peasants transformed during the 1945-1960 period. It is difficult to find
“concrete” information on the peasants during the single-party period. The most
important reason for that is the lack of any kind of work produced through direct
contact with actual peasants. Although the peasants were an important aspect of the
ideological construct of the single-party period, works that show what the real
peasants are like are limited. If the short reports of the village trips and the village
stories that were prepared by the peasantism branches of the People’s Houses and
7
after that by the Village Institutes are excluded, it is impossible to find studies that
include the economic, political and social analysis of the villages and the peasants
during the single-party period.6
The main reason for this lack of research on the social, economic and political
conditions of the peasantry during the single party period is that the intellectuals
treated them not as they truly were reality, but perceived them on an ideological
level. Although the peasants had an important place in the ideological discourse
during the single-party period, they were mostly defined with glorified sui generis
characteristics. The populism of the single-party ideology described the peasants as
the “back-bone of the nation.” Instead of calling attention to the differentiations
among the classes, the peasants were viewed as a unified group and as the main
component of the essentialist definition of the “nation.” As
lhan Tekeli says, “to
defend the nonexistence of the conflict of interests between the economic classes as a
result of a Durkheimian solidarism approach coincides with ameliorating the
differentiations between the village and the city by glorifying the peasantist approach
and the peasants.”7
6 The works of some sociologists, such as Mediha Berkes, Niyazi Berkes and Behice Boran, which
were published nearly at the end of the single-party period, can actually be accepted works with the
perception of the following period. See Mediha Berkes, "Elvan Köyü Üzerine Sosyolojik Bir
Arastırma," Ankara Üniversitesi DTCF Dergisi 2, no. 1 (1943); Niyazi Berkes, Bazı Ankara Köyleri
Üzerinde Bir Arastırma (Ankara: DTCF Yayınları, 1942); Behice Boran, Toplumsal Yapı
Arastırmaları: ki Köy Çesidinin Mukayeseli Tetkiki (Ankara: DTCF Yayınları, 1945). These studies
have to be considered separately from the single-party village studies both for their ideological
approach to the problem and for their methodological differences. These differences will be discussed
in the following chapter in detail. The primary village works that were published during the singleparty
period with the effect of the peasantist approach can be listed as follows: Sadri Aran, Evedik
Köyü: Bir Köy Monografisi (Ankara: Yüksek Ziraat Enstitüsü, 1938); Salâhattin Demirkan,
Küçükçekmece Köyü Monografisi (
stanbul: 1941); Selâhattin Demirkan, Celaliye Köyü Monografisi
(
stanbul: 1941); Nedim Göknil, "Garbî Anadolu Köy Monografileri," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 2 (1943);

smail Hüsrev Tökin, Türkiye Köy ktisadiyatı (
stanbul: Kadro Mecmuası, 1934). In addition to those
there were several short stories and field notes that were published in the journals of the People’s
Houses and Village Institutes.
7
lhan Tekeli, "Bir Modernlesme Projesi Olarak Türkiye'de Kent Planlaması," in Türkiye'de
Modernlesme Ve Ulusal Kimlik, ed. Sibel Bozdogan and Resat Kasaba (
stanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt
Yayınları, 1999), p. 147. “Durkheim’cı bir dayanısmacılık anlayısıyla ekonomik sınıflar arasında
çıkar çatısmasının olmadıgını savunmak, kent ve köy arasındaki farklılıkları da köycülük akımını ve
köylüyü yücelterek asmaya çalısmak sayılabilir.”
8
The most visible practice of the populist discourse of the single-party period,
which was constructed through the non-existence of the class differentiations in
Turkish society, was the peasantist ideology of the period. Asım Karaömerlioglu
describes the four main aspects of the peasantist ideology as follows: “the prejudice
towards urbanization and industrialization; the glorification of the peasants and the
village; its relation with Westernization; and at last, defining education as the key for
the transformation of the villages.”8 Peasantism was developed as an ideological
obstacle to prevent the “corruptive” forces that could be effective during the process
of the establishment of the new nation and the new nation-state. The main goal was
to prevent the transformation of the so-called classless social structure into a society
in which differentiation among the classes existed. Due to that, as can be seen in
Karaömerlioglu’s definition above, efforts were made to delay the new social order,
which could occur as a result of the transformation of the countryside with the
development of capitalism by education or by some ideological constructions.
Peasantism, which was developed in relation to populism, mainly based its
approach on the fear of possible outcomes that could occur due to some social
upheavals. As for the development of capitalism would cause the disintegration of
the countryside and the creation of rural migration movements, peasantism sought to
maintain its ideological directives from within the framework of a development plan
based on the principle “to keep the peasants in their villages.” Due to that, as Zafer
Toprak says, “the self-sufficient smallholder peasantry [was chosen] as the basic
8 Asım Karaömerlioglu, Orada Bir Köy Var Uzakta-Erken Cumhuriyet Döneminde Köycü Söylem
(
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2006), p. 66. “sehirlesme ve sanayilesmeye karsı önyargısı; köyü ve
köylüyü yüceltmesi; Batılılasma ile iliskisi ve son olarak, egitimi köylerin dönüsümü için kilit güç
olarak algılaması.”
9
principle of the peasantism.”9 The self-sufficient paradigm, based on family
production and economically not differentiated peasants, was the main element that
the single-party regime looked after in its economic and political policies. Especially
after the Great Depression of 1929, the single-party governments, which struggled to
overcome the crisis with the help of limited resources and capital accumulation, tried
to control the peasants, who were the main elements of the economic structure, with
the help of this peasantist discourse.10
The development of the cities and urbanization were not encouraged during
the single-party period for not creating an increase in the differentiation among the
classes. The Village Institute experience, which needs to be evaluated in relation to
this undesired urbanization, was another practice of the peasantist ideology.11 By
keeping the peasants in their villages with the help of the education, the single-party
administrators aimed to keep them in their “natural” places. As a result, it was
planned that the Village Institutes would create a buffer mechanism that would
prevent the peasants from moving to the cities.
As for the adaptation of these policies, the peasantist ideology was developed
through a glorified essentialist definition of peasantry. The peasants were defined by
the importance of their labor in the production and as the main component of the
army. The place of the peasants in the definition of the “nation” was created with
these two essential aspects. Examples of such definition of the peasants will be
presented during this dissertation.12
9 Zafer Toprak, "Popülizm ve Türkiye'deki Boyutları," in Tarih ve Demokrasi Tarık Zafer Tunaya'ya
Armagan (
stanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1992), p. 59. “kendi kendine yeterli küçük üreticilik köycülügün
temel ilkesi”
10 Zafer Toprak, "Türkiye Tarımı ve Yapısal Gelismeler 1900-1950," in Türkiye'de Tarımsal Yapılar,
ed. Sevket Pamuk and Zafer Toprak (Ankara: Yurt Yayınları, 1988), p. 30.
11 Mete Tunçay et al., "Cumhuriyet
stanbul'u," in stanbul'un Dört Çagı-stanbul Panelleri (
stanbul:
Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1996), p. 73.
12 Such examples can be found especially in Chapter Four and Chapter Five.
10
In addition to the effect of the peasantist ideology, the abstract and
ideological definition of the peasants during the single-party period was another
factor that obstructed gathering the knowledge on the condition of the peasants.
Works published during the single-party period mostly deal with the question of
“how the peasants should be” instead of looking for the answer to “what is the
condition of the peasants.” Due to that, efforts are made to construct the peasants
during the single-party period as an imagined entity. Tanıl Bora and Necmi Erdogan
assert that the conservatism and the peasantism of the single-party period employed
similar imaginary definition of the peasants as follows: “Aside from discussing
which one of them is closer to the ‘historical reality,’ for both of them, it can be said
that the nation and the peasants are equally imaginary communities.”13
In this way, throughout the single-party period an imaginary definition of the
peasantry created by various tools in the economic, political and cultural realms was
used according to the ideological requirements of the system. During the 1945-1960
period, both the requirements of the system and the economic and social structures
would be redetermined. Within this framework the peasantry, which made up the
vast majority of the population, would be redefined accordingly.
In order to give a proper answer to the main question of this study, stated
above, the analysis of the main areas in which the transformation of the peasantry
during the 1945-1960 period have been investigated. Firstly, how the peasants were
described and defined in theoretical perspectives during the post-war period will be
analyzed in Chapter Two. In that chapter, how the new economic and social order
which arose after the Second World War redefined the peasantry and as a result
13 Emphasis is mine. Tanıl Bora and Necmi Erdogan, "'Biz Anadolu'nun Bagrı Yanık Çocukları'
Muhafazakâr Popülizm," in Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi Düsünce, Vol. 5, Muhafazakârlık, ed. Ahmet
Çigdem (
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2003), p. 637. “Hangisinin ‘tarihsel gerçeklige’ daha yakın
oldugu tartısması bir yana, her ikisi için de, halk ve köylünün esit ölçüde muhayyel cemaatler
oldugunu söyleyebiliriz.”
11
replaced the definition of the peasants with one from an instrumentalist perspective
will be analyzed. Especially with the Chinese and the Cuban revolutions, both of
which occurred during the period in question, the conditions of the peasantry in the
regions where the rural population made up the majority became important. During
the restructuring process of the world after the Second World War, on a global scale
the peasants were seen both as a threat to the existing order and as an element that
could be used in protecting the existing order, especially in Third World countries.
All of these developments maintained the necessity to redefine the peasantry. In
order to make this redefinition, the “real” knowledge of the peasants was needed. For
this reason, experimental approaches became dominant in the theoretical
perspectives on the peasantry.
With the effect of the socio-economic development in the post-war period,
the “peasant question” would be redefined along with the development in theoretical
perspective. Within this framework, in this chapter, the depeasantization process
during the post-war period, which was the basis for these theoretical changes, and the
place of Turkey in this process, will be presented.
Mainly, there are three basic approaches to the peasantry, the Marxist,
populist and modernizationist perspectives. Especially in the non-Soviet countries,
the modernizationist perspective became dominant during the post-war years, which
developed through the populist approach of the previous period.
The rising of the modernizationist approach and the application of this
approach with an instrumentalist method can best be investigated through the “rural
sociology” studies of the period in question. Within this framework, the problem of
how the peasants were perceived in theory during the post-war period in Turkey will
be analyzed with reference to the general characteristics of the rural sociology
12
studies in Turkey. As an academic genre, through the examples of the rural sociology
studies that were conducted in and on Turkey during this period, how the peasants
were defined and what kind of information on the peasants was gathered by the
sociological studies during this period will be shown.
The theoretical approaches that were developed and the works that were
conducted accordingly during this period directly affected the transformation of the
peasants. The main problematic in these works was to gain as much knowledge on
the condition of the peasants as possible and to maintain the applicability of this
information by political and economic projects. The methodologies and the policies
that were developed for gathering the knowledge of the peasants during this period
also resulted in the increase in the real knowledge on the conditions of the peasants,
which was an approach totally different from that of the previous period. When the
political motives of these projects are left aside, as a result of these studies, the
peasants became a tangible and real entity in the theoretical sphere. The peasantry,
who had been defined as imaginary in the previous period, became a “real” entity
through these studies in theoretical perspective.
Following that chapter, the transformation of the rural structure in the 1945-
1960 period is investigated through an analysis of the rural migration movements,
which was an important development the peasantist approach sought to obstruct. The
preferences in the economic policies differed from the previous policies during the
post-war period. This change in the economic policies occurred mostly due to the
adaptation process of Turkey to the restructuring practices of the world politics and
economy, under the leadership of the new hegemonic world power the United States,
during what later would be called the Cold War period. During this process, Turkey
replaced the self-sufficient and inward-oriented statist economic policies with more
13
liberal policies that were outward-oriented and based on the international division of
labor and more in tune with the requirements of the commercial world market. As a
result, Turkey transformed its development model from an industry-based to
agriculture-based model.
The fact of rural to urban migrant peasants, which was the most feared fact
for the single-party peasantist ideology, occurred during this period as a result of the
transformation of the rural structures with the changing economic preferences. The
increase in the international terms of trade to the benefit of agriculture during the
period in question allowed the peasants gain wealth from agricultural production,
which had never happened before. However, with this increase in the prices of the
agricultural production the class differentiations among the peasants, which the state
ideology sought to obstruct in the previous periods, also increased. The
transformation of the rural structure, which occurred due to some interrelated factors
which will be told in the Chapter Three in detail, brought about a series of
developments that changed the social structure of the country as a whole. The rural
migration also brought the culture of the countryside to the cities. Urban culture was
redefined with the transformation of the rural structure during this period.
The changing economic policies led to the development of the transportation
substructure, which was needed to connect the villages to the market. The railroads
investments, which had been considered in relation to industrial production in the
previous period, were replaced with highway networks as a result of the change from
industrial to agriculture-based development. Along with connecting the villages to
the market, the railroads connected the villages to the cities. In this way, the
development in the transportation systems eased the development of the rural
migration movements during this period.
14
In Chapter Three, the development of a new urban settlement type that
occurred due to the rural migration, namely the gecekondu (squatter) settlements,
will be analyzed. The gecekondu settlements represented not only a new type of
urban settlement created by the migrant peasants, but also a new city culture.
With the arrival of the peasants to the cities, the peasants became a more
tangible and real group of people especially to the city residents. The peasants, who
had been ideologically constructed in the previous periods, for the first time became
visible for many city-dwellers. As a result, with the rural migration not only the
peasants became visible, but also the effects of the rural transformation were
recognized in the cities accordingly. In this way, especially during the 1960s, these
effects of the rural transformation brought about the development of new and broad
economic and sociological academic disciplines, which considered these problems.
The transformation of the rural structures gave birth to the rural migration
movements, which transformed the imaginary existence of the peasants into
something more tangible and real. Within this framework, the changing economic
preferences at the beginning of the period in question affected the lives of the
peasants directly and these effects increased their visibility in general.
Another sphere in which the peasant increased again their visibility was
politics. With the elections of 14 May 1950, the government was changed by
elections for the first time in Turkish history. The most important share in this
change needs to be given to the peasants, who supported the DP opposition with their
votes. In Chapter Four, in which the relations of the peasants to politics are treated,
the changes in the political perception and consciousness of the peasants after the
transition to the multi-party politics are shown. For making a comparison and to
15
observe the change, the political attitudes of the peasants during the DP’s
oppositional years and after it gained power will be analyzed separately.
The peasantry intervened from time to time into the political process as an
active component of politics throughout the period in question. The most important
aspect of the peasants’ relation to politics was that they began to define politics as a
“right” for themselves as a result of their active participation in the political process.
The peasants struggled for the defence and the protection of this right with various
tools during the period. The law became the most important one among them. The
superiority of law and the rule of law as the primary concepts that helped the
peasants to intervene into the political process for their own sakes, had an important
place in the making of the political consciousness of the peasants during this period.
Within this framework, the Arslanköy Case will be investigated as an example of
how the peasants used the law for political purposes.
Politics changed not only the peasants, but also the villages. The frequently
repeated fact following the 27 May 1960 coup, that even the coffeehouses had been
separated in the villages due to the affect of politics in the village will be analyzed in
this chapter through the spatial organization of the political opposition in the
countryside. Within this framework, the development of the village coffeehouses as
alternative free spaces which helped the peasants’ participation to politics will be set
forth.
The peasantist ideology underwent change during this period, especially in
the high politics, when the peasants who became the main, active component of
politics. In this way, the participation of the peasants in the political process also had
an ideological effect on the discursive level. The decline in the effect of peasantism
in this new period necessitated the creation of new ideological tools to control the
16
peasants. Within this framework, efforts were made to take the peasants under the
control of the state with the dominant ideological manipulation tool of the Cold War
period, which was the anti-communist discourse. The effect of the anti-communist
practices will be shown through the news sources of the peasants that they mostly
read during this period.
The relation of peasants to politics did not remain only on the discursive
level. The peasants began to use any kind of tool that would help them to demand
their rights from the governments. In this way, they discovered new ways to affect
the political process directly. The transition to the multi-party competitive system
directly changed the development of the political consciousness of the peasants.
They learned how to demand their political rights and how to struggle to protect
these rights. In this sense, the peasants gained a meaning different from that of the
previous period as being active component of politics during this period. Instead of
constructing an ideological discourse through the peasants, the peasants themselves
took part in politics. As a consequence, the peasants as a group increased their
visibility as a “real” entity both on the discursive level and as an active component of
politics during the period in question.
In the last chapter, the peasants’ representation in the cultural sphere will be
analyzed through the developments in the literature of the period. The making of the
“village literature” genre was the most important cultural development. Especially
with the publication of Mahmut Makal’s Bizim Köy (Our Village) the knowledge
about the peasantry until that time began to be questioned.
Although Makal cannot be accepted as the sole founder of the village
literature genre, he is its best-known representative. The peasantist discourse was represented
in his works, which were a kind of popular-sociology studies written in
17
literary forms, through the adaptation of the discourse to the requirements of the new
period. Village literature works, and mostly Bizim Köy of Mahmut Makal, were
accepted as a call to deal with the realities and the neglect of the villages by the
intellectuals and the political opposition in the country.
As a result of the development of village literature, which is defined in this
study as the “Makal Effect”, the peasants became the most treated and read subject in
the literature field. Along with the developments in other fields, the peasants became
a noticeable fact in literature works, too.
Village literature, at the same time, became an alternative space for the social
opposition against the anti-communist obstructions of the Cold War period,
according to which any kind of social criticism was banned. In this relatively free
space, social subjects such as poverty, underdevelopment and exploitation could be
treated through the components of the rural structure. In this way, the peasants were
saved from the imaginary constructed language of the peasantist ideology and began
to be the “real” actors of the oppositional discourse.
The village literature genre developed during the period in question and
continued it dominancy in the literature field until the 1970s in Turkey. Besides its
importance as a literary happening, the works also present knowledge of the
experiences and the living conditions of the peasants due to the “realism” employed
in the literature works. As a result, the village literature texts are presented in this
study according to the knowledge that can be gathered from them. The village
literature texts, by paying attention to the validity of the knowledge that can be
gathered from these texts, hold many clues from the daily living conditions to the
political attitudes of the peasants. These clues also give us the knowledge to evaluate
the peasants as a tangible and living group of people. Within this framework, the
18
village literature texts are utilized in this study as a source of knowledge on the
peasants of the period in question.
During the 1945-1960 period the structural transformation throughout the
country directly affected the living conditions of the peasants. This transformation
had a mutual characteristic in itself. When the political, economic and cultural
spheres that transformed the peasants was affected by that, and the transformation of
the peasants’ conditions affected all of these spheres. In order to comprehend the
main characteristics of this transformation, the interaction between all of these
components of the transformation will be analyzed in relation to the peasants of the
period in the following chapters.
19
CHAPTER II
PEASANTS IN THEORY AND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY IN TURKEY
“Savoir pour prevoir et prevoir pour pouvoir”
[knowledge for prediction, prediction for power]
A. Comte
Eric Hobsbawm says the following on the condition of the peasantry in the
world and Turkey after the Second World War:
For 80 per cent of the humanity the Middle Ages ended suddenly in the
1950s; or perhaps still, they were felt to end in the 1960s. … The most
dramatic and far-reaching social change of the second half of this
century, and the one which cuts off for ever from the world of the past,
is the death of the peasantry. … Only one peasant stronghold remained
in or around the neighbourhood of Europe and the Middle-East –Turkey,
where the peasantry declined, but, in the mid-1980s, still remained an
absolute majority.14
One of the most important developments of the post-war period was the
“depeasantization” process, which is called “the death of the peasantry” by
Hobsbawm above. The peasantry was an important component of the reconstruction
process of the world’s economic and political order during the post-War period. As
seen again in Hobsbawm’s words, the importance of Turkey during this period must
be emphasized. Although Turkey followed the depeasantization process later than its
European counterparts, it began to be affected from this development during this
period. The depeasantization process occurred differently in Turkey both due to the
changing preferences in socio-economic policies and the transformation of the rural
structure after the Second World War.
14 Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes-the Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991 (London: Abacus, 1995),
pp. 288, 289, 291.
20
Depeasantization can be defined, in short, as the process of a gradual decrease
in the rural population as opposed to an increase in the urban population. Farshad A.
Araghi says that the peasantization process occurs as a result of a dual relation.
According to him, the process of depeasantization includes, on the one hand,
“deruralization,” which means “the depopulation and decline of the rural areas” and,
on the other hand, “overurbanization,” which means “massive concentration of
peoples and activities in growing urban centers.”15 This development process,
together with the economic development models that were created after the Second
World War, brought about rural transformation, especially in Third World countries,
where capitalism was less developed. Again, Araghi defines the main factors that
affected the depeasantization process during the 1945-1973 period as follows: “1945
to ca. 1973, the period of the construction of the world market and the establishment
and institutionalization of the new global political and economic order under the
hegemony of the American state.”16
How the peasants were changed in economic and political terms during this
period will be analyzed in the following chapters. In this chapter, how the peasants
were defined in theory will be shown in relation to the existence of the overall
transformation of the world system during the post-war period. Within this
framework, the different kinds of peasantry definitions in relation to the capitalist
development and the depeasantization process will be presented first. After that, the
development of a peasant-related theoretical field in Turkey, namely the rural
sociology field, which was affected profoundly by the dominant theoretical
developments in the world of the post-war period, will be analyzed.
15 Farshad A. Araghi, "Global Depeasantization: 1945-1990," Sociological Quarterly 36, no. 2
(Spring, 1995), p. 338.
16 Ibid., p. 344.
21
The rural sociology field became one of the most important theoretical areas
in the world in problematizing the peasantry during this period. With the
development of the world market and the international economic division of labor
after the war, the peasants became one of the most important components of this new
world order. The necessity to improve the relatively underdeveloped structures at
least up to a level that would prevent the creation of problems, that might obstruct
the progress of the system, brought the necessity to gain the knowledge of these
structures. The knowledge of these structures would be used in the creation of
policies that would help the integration of these structures into the new world system
in an unproblematic way.
It is difficult to create either political or economic projects for the
components of a society about which and real knowledge has not been gathered. For
this reason, the theorization process of the peasantry during this period was directly
related to the requirement of achieving a “real” knowledge of the peasants. This
relation, as will be told in detail below, developed the production of knowledge
through experimental sociology. This methodological approach in the sociology field
was used widely and became dominant in most of the sociological studies during the
period in question, as an applied social science discipline. In this way, while the
peasants of the period were undergoing economic and politic transformation, the
knowledge of the peasant groups was redefined in these studies. This situation, as
will be asserted in every chapter of this study, made out the peasants as a “real”
entity on a theoretical basis. The idealized and glorified ideological imaginary of the
peasants that had been dominant in the previous period transformed them into the
“real” components of society as a result of the theoretical concerns that were
dominant during this period.
22
The various types of peasantry definitions bear political meaning, no matter
with which perspective it is defined, because the attempt to gather a group of people
with broad and differentiated characteristics under a unified definition is a political
effort in itself. Tom Brass says that these kinds of definition attempts create a
politically instrumental “agrarian myth.” According to Brass, “the agrarian myth is
an essentialist ideology which in most contexts is defended with reference to a
mutually reinforcing set of arguments to do with the innate aspects of ‘peasant-ness’,
national identity and culture.”17 Even though Brass develops this concept for
defining the approach of the populist and post-modernist views on the peasantry, it is
possible to assert that every kind of unified definition of the peasantry has a
mythological side in this sense.
This mythicizing of the peasants indicates a kind of pragmatist/instrumentalist
approach which constructs actually non-existent characteristics as the origins of the
structures in order to legitimatize the definition with a historical origin. This
mythicizing process has three images or discourses. First, this perspective can be
observed in “the peasants-as-the-backbone-of-the-nation” discourse. In this discourse
the peasants are defined both as the labor force that help to achieve the selfsufficiency
of the nation and as the military human source that will protect the
country against all evils. In this way, the peasants are defined both as the founders of
the nation and the protectors of the country.18
Second, the peasants are defined as the main component of a political
structure in which the peasant household is the basis as a self-sufficient economic
unit. The existing political and economic forms are not questioned in this structure
17 Tom Brass, Peasants, Populism, and Postmodernism : The Return of the Agrarian Myth (London;
Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 2000), p. 11.
18 Examples of this kind definition of the peasantry can be seen in Chapter Four, especially in the
section in which the relation of the peasants to the anti-communist practices is discussed.
23
because this structure is mainly organized on the basis of the rural family, in which
the individualist perspective is dominant. Due to that, this structure has a role of
protecting the existing social hierarchy and political stabilization. If this structural
organization is held in a sustainable position, it also will guard against the spread of
class-based political thoughts, such as socialist thoughts.19
Third, the agricultural structures are considered in this perspective as the
origins of the “traditional” and “natural” value system, which bears the cultural
function of eliminating the “evil” effects of industrialization.20 These three
discourses, in fact, developed in order to find a solution to a problem that occurred
with the development of capitalism, “the peasant question.” All of these discourses
try to prevent the creation and the development of some facts. With the development
of capitalism and the disappearance of the peasantry, consequently some problems
may occur, which can lead to the class struggle and end with the disappearance of the
existing structures. In order to eliminate this development, basically, the older
structures need to be redefined according to their new roles in the changing structures
and to be transformed into politically functional foundations in the new order. The
theoretical developments during this period followed this path and the peasants were
redefined in theory according to the requirements of the new order.
The importance of the types of defining the peasants is actually related to the
process of peasants’ gaining political importance. As Eric R. Wolf says, peasants
“are important historically, because industrial society is built upon the ruins of
peasant society.”21 As Wolf clearly states above, the definition of the peasants or the
definition of the peasant question is mostly related to the transformation of society
19 In Chapter Three, in which the transformation of the rural structure and the rural migration
movements are told, typical examples of this kind of mythicizing discourse can be seen, especially in
the section in which the continuation of the smallholder peasantry in Turkey is analyzed.
20 Brass, Peasants, Populism, p. 11.
21 Eric R. Wolf, Peasants (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966), p. vii.
24
itself more than to the actual peasants. The most analyzed or problematized aspect is
not the living conditions of the peasants, but their transformation, and how to
maintain the main characteristics of the society that would occur following this.
During the current age and especially during the period that is questioned in this
study, the peasants became important due to the effects of industrialization on rural
structures.
There are three main approaches on theorizing the peasants and the peasant
question in general. These are the Marxist “dissolution of the peasantry” thesis, A. V.
Chayanov’s populist “the peasant mode of production” thesis and the definition of
the peasants according to modernization theory and development economics.
Modernization theory, because of its greatest effect on the definition of the peasantry
during the period in question, will be discussed separately from the other theses.
In Marxist theory, the peasantry is mostly evaluated in relation to the
capitalist development process. According to the Marxist “dissolution of the
peasantry” thesis, the labor force that is needed for the urban industrial production
will be provided from the dispossessed peasants with the development of capitalism
in the countryside. When the capitalist relations of production develop, the older
agricultural forms of production will be eliminated and new capitalist forms of
agricultural production will emerge. Korkut Boratav describes this thesis in general
as follows:
As a starting point this thesis emphasizes the diffusionist dynamic of
capitalism and in relation to that its force of eliminating all kinds of
older modes of production. The peasantry makes up the first free labor
depots of capitalism through dispossession during the primary
accumulation of capital, and in this way the pre-conditions of the
capitalist industrialization occur. The matured type of this process is the
English-type capitalist agriculture.22
22 Korkut Boratav, Tarımsal Yapılar ve Kapitalizm, 3 ed. (Ankara:
mge Kitabevi, 2004), p. 113. “Bu
tez hareket noktası olarak, kapitalizmin yayılma dinamigini ve buna baglı olarak tüm eski üretim
iliskilerini tasfiye edici gücünü vurgular. Köylülük, ilkel sermaye birikimi süreci içinde
25
The Marxist “dissolution of the peasantry” thesis was developed after Marx
through the discussions of Lenin and Kautsky on the forms of the continual existence
of the peasants even in capitalist society. Lenin, as opposed to the singular definition
of peasantry in classical Marxism, emphasized the differentiation among the peasants
according to their relation to the mode of production. Henry Bernstein says that
“Lenin provided a model of three basic peasant classes – rich, middle and poor
peasants – which anticipated their (eventual) transformation into classes of agrarian
capital (rich peasants) and proletarian labour (poor peasants), with a minority of
middle peasants joining the ranks of the former and the majority joining the ranks of
the latter.”23 According to Lenin, the differentiation among the peasants also
coincides with a political meaning. The poor peasantry, which was defined as “rural
proletariat,” was accepted by Lenin as among the forces that could realize a socialist
revolution together with the working class, especially for the countries in which the
working classes were not well developed, such as Russia.
Kautsky, on the other hand, while accepting the Marxist thesis in great
proportions, mostly highlighted the continuation of the peasantry forms under the
capitalist mode of production. As Deborah Fahy Bryceson writes, “Kautsky stressed
that the dissolution of peasant production is a slow process whereby peasant petty
commodity producers co-exist with agrarian and urban industrial capitalism,
gradually shrinking over time under the force of urban migration.”24 During the
discussion with Lenin, Kautsky asserted that especially the smallholder peasantry
mülksüzleserek, kapitalizmin ilk özgür emek depolarını olusturur ve kapitalist sanayilesmenin önkosulları
böylece meydana gelmis olur. Bu sürecin en olgunlasmıs biçimi ngiliz-tipi bir kapitalist
tarımdır.”
23 Henry Bernstein, "V. I. Lenin and A. V. Chayanov: Looking Back, Looking Forward," The Journal
of Peasant Studies 36, no. 1 (2009), p. 58.
24 Deborah Fahy Bryceson, "Peasant Theories and Smallholder Policies: Past and Present," in
Disappearing Peasantries? Rural Labour in Africa, Asia and Latin America, ed. Deborah Bryceson,
Cristobal Kay, and Jos Mooij (London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 2000), p. 11.
26
could be continual in the capitalist mode of production and this did not create a
totally awkward situation for capitalist development.
This development, which Kautsky asserted in his arguments against Lenin,
can be observed in many Latin American countries and it is also valid for the
depeasantization process in Turkey. In Chapter Three, in which the transformation of
the rural structure and the rural migration movements will be discussed, despite the
development of capitalist relations in the countryside, the increase in the number of
smallholder peasant production in Turkey will be analyzed in detail. In the Turkish
example, as opposed to the classical Marxist approach’s expectations, the peasantry
was not totally eliminated; instead, a new rural structure was created in which many
intermediary forms existed simultaneously. However, this development did not
create a contradiction with the capitalist way of development. Shapker Thapa
describes such developments in agriculture as follows:
Because capitalism needs, a free and landless worker who must sell his
labor does not provide the additional alternative of capitalist
development proceeding without an increase in depeasantization. The
advance of capitalist relations of production does not necessarily imply a
reduction in the number of smallholdings or proletarianization of the
peasant household. The process of proletarianization is not as rigid as the
Marxists suggest. It is relatively slow in most underdeveloped countries
compared to industrialized nations.25
Within this framework, Kautsky’s thesis seems to be more valid for
explaining the rural developments especially in the late capitalist societies, such as
Turkey.
Another thesis that explains the development of the peasantry in the capitalist
mode of production, which was developed as an alternative to the Marxist thesis and
became popular again especially during the 1960s, is A. V. Chayanov’s “the peasant
mode of production” thesis. The Russian populist approach, which was influenced by
25 Shanker Thapa, "Conceptual Framework to Study Peasant Society and Economy," Voice of History
17, no. (20)1 (2005), p. 48.
27
Nicolai Chernyshevskii and Aleksandr Herzen, agreed to the Marx’s thesis in a way.
Although it was not “progressive” as defined in Marx’s thought, the destructive
effects of capitalist development on rural structures were accepted by the populists,
too. However, consequently they supported policies that sought to prevent the
development of capitalism in Russia in order to get rid of the destructive effects of
capitalist development.26
This perspective of the populists is best represented in A. V. Chayanov’s
theory. Chayanov’s perspective differs from the others in that it defines a kind of
mode of production and behavior which are peculiar to the peasantry. According to
Chayanov, the peasant mode of production works differently from the capitalist
mentality of production and for this reason before the capitalist profit-making
motive, the peasants produce to meet the requirements of their families first. As a
result, even in the countries in which the capitalist relations of productions have not
developed, this mode of production survives.27
The perception of Chayanov and the populists in general was based on the
prevention of the structural destructions that could occur due to the transformation of
the rural structures after capitalist development. If it cannot be maintained that they
tried to manage these destructive effects in order to protect the existing socio-cultural
structures from getting more damages. Tom Brass, makes the following comment on
this neo-populist definition of the peasantry:
…neo-populism in general and Chayanovian theory in particular
reconstitutes the peasantry as an undifferentiated category that resists
socio-economic change, a politically conservative position which does
not involve a transition to socialism, entails no expropriation/
redistribution of existing property, and hence presents no threat to the
continued rule of capital.28
26 Araghi, "Global," p. 342.
27 Ibid., p. 343; Thapa, "Conceptual," p. 44.
28 Brass, Peasants, Populism, p. 19.
28
This comment also coincides with the economic and political perceptions of
the peasantist ideology in Turkey. The idealized definition of the peasantry was
created in accordance with this theorization. Also, the thoughts of peasantism in the
efforts to create a “classless society” can be related to such a definition of the
peasantry.
This theorization of Chayanov came forward again during the 1960s as an
alternative to Marxist peasant studies, which were dominant at that time. Especially
the anti-Marxist social scientists during the 1960s sought to develop the classification
and theorization of Chayanov in their analysis on village and peasants.29
During the post-war period, modernization theory had a greater influence on
the perception and definition of the peasantry than these two approaches. For this
reason modernization theory and both its definition of the peasantry and its effects on
Turkey require a detailed analysis in a separate section.
Modernization Theory and the Peasantry
Douglas D. Crary, who is the author of the section on the peasantry in Social
Forces in the Middle East, defined the Near Eastern peasants as follows:
The villager is the substance of the Near East. He is the embodiment of
maps showing the distribution of population or cultivated land. He
supports the worker and the Merchant in the town. He pays rent and
taxes, supporting his landlord and the government. He is blindly led by
the politician and the army officer. Yet he is the man still to be better fed
and housed, still to be educated and cured of his diseases. He is the
deciding factor in the struggle between communism and the West. He is
the personification of humanity in all its aspects, the raw material of
race, language, religion, economy, sociology, politics –in short, he is
Near Eastern civilization itself.30
29 For a detailed analysis of this development, see ibid., pp. 143-188.
30 Douglas D. Crary, "The Villager," in Social Forces in the Middle East, ed. Sydney Nettleton Fisher
(Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1955), p. 43.
29
This definition of Crary mostly coincides with that of Brass’ “agrarian myth.”
According to this definition the peasants are in need of “modernization” due to their
economic and social “underdevelopment,” they have the capacity to stand against the
threat of “communism,” which will make them prefer the West in this fight, and last,
they bear the characteristics of “the backbone-of-the-nation” with their “essential”
and “natural” characteristics which represent “humanity” as a whole. This highly
political definition of the peasantry is basically related to the roles that were provided
for the peasants of “Third World countries,” which were defined as
“underdeveloped” during the period in question. The making of this definition
occurred due to both the peasants’ becoming important after the Second World War
and the development of the theoretical and political research on the peasantry during
that period.
Modernization theory is a method or the systematized form of a social
perception the philosophical origins of which can be found in enlightenment thought,
displaying the most systematic form of the idea of progress. This theory also includes
a proposal for the countries which will be applied programmatically. In a way,
modernization theory can be defined as a theoretically composed political program.
As Wolfgang Knöbl writes,
As a non-Marxist, macro-sociological and often interdisciplinary theory
of social change, modernization theory tried to conceptualize either
historically or typologically the development of societies, focusing in the
beginning mostly on the relationship between culture and economic
progress, but increasingly also on that between culture and political
development and between economic growth and democracy.31
As can be understood from this definition, modernization theory is based
mainly on the classification of societies. While making this classification, this theory
31 Wolfgang Knöbl, "Theories That Won't Pass Away: The Never-Ending Story of Modernization
Theory," in Handbook of Historical Sociology, ed. Gerard Delanty and Engin F. Isin (London ;
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE, 2003), p. 96.
30
uses the methods and the concepts of evolutionist developmentalism and structuralfunctionalism.
32 According to these, modernization theory “asserts that the societies
can only develop as they become objected to a universal process that is lived through
tradition to modernity. … It bases on the belief that for the reach of the societies to
the modern economic development phase it is required to pass through a cultural and
social transformation process.”33
All of these definitions indicate that modernization theory was constructed as
a complete “grand theory” based on comparative method in the classification of
societies on a macro scale that sought to give meaning to all kinds of social changes
in the societies that were thought of as operating according to certain rules. Köker
writes that the perception of totality in this theory originated from its concern in
defining “the changing processes of all of the societies in the world, with a
perception that matches to the ‘universal legality’ approach in natural sciences.”34
This theoretical attempt, which was developed gradually during the post-
World War II era, became the main method of analysis during the 1950s and became
dominant during the 1960s in the social science disciplines, works through binary
oppositional definitions. These dichotomies, similarly, were created through the
adjustment of the definitions of the “good” and the “evil” of Enlightenment thought.
The binary oppositions of modernization theory, roughly, were based on definition
sets such as culture-nature, West-East, realism-idealism and at the end as a political
preference between democracy and communism. Actually, in this way, as Harry
32 Dean C. Tipps, "Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A Critical
Perspective," Comparative Studies in Society and History 15, no. 2 (Mar., 1973), p. 201.
33 Fahrettin Altun, Modernlesme Kuramı: Elestirel Bir Giris (
stanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2005), p. 13.
“toplumların gelenekten modernlige dogru yasanan evrensel bir sürece muhatap oldukları takdirde
gelisebileceklerini söyler. … [T]oplumların modern ekonomik gelisme asamasına ulasmaları için
kültürel ve toplumsal bir degisim sürecine ihtiyaç duydukları inancına dayanır.”
34 Levent Köker, Modernlesme, Kemalizm ve Demokrasi (
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 1990), p. 19.
“dünya üzerindeki tüm toplumların degisim süreçleri[ni], doga bilimlerindekine uygun bir ‘evrensel
yasallık’ anlayısına uygun olarak”
31
Harootunian says, “the old polarization between civilization and barbarism, the self
and the other is presented by recoding them differently.”35
The main problem was to define and control the transition from the
Gemeinschaft to the Gesellschaft, as Ferdinand Tönnies defined. Gemeinschaft
(community) indicates irrational, agricultural production-based, pre-modern social
organizations in which the relations between the people are determined emotionally.
Gesellschaft (society), on the other hand, is a city-centered, dynamic, modern social
organization maintained by the rational and objective human behaviors.36 In this
way, the organizational types of societies are also classified through binary
oppositions.
This social analysis of Tönnies became the most favorable type of analysis in
the social sciences during the post-World War II period. The separation of social
structures as “traditional” and “modern” also is related directly to the political project
that was thought be applied consequently. As for Tönnies, “the triumph of
Gesellschaft over Gemeinschaft must sooner or later destroy modern civilization in
the same way as the civilization of Rome was destroyed in the early centuries of the
Christian era.”37 These thoughts, especially the need for the protection of the
structures that are peculiar to Gemeinschaft, also inspired the anti-enlightenment
approaches of the late nineteenth century. Especially during the Nazi Germany
period, many people made the call for returning to Gemeinschaft.38 Even though
Tönnies backed down from his anti-enlightenment thoughts during his last years, his
35 Harry Harootunian, mparatorlugun Yeni Kılıgı: Kaybedilen ve Tekrar Ele Geçirilen Paradigma,
trans. Erkal Ünal (
stanbul: Bogaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2006), p. 30. “medeniyet ile barbarlık,
benlik ile öteki arasındaki o eski kutuplulugu farklı sekilde yeniden kodlayarak önümüze koymustur.”
36 Ahmet Özkiraz, Modernlesme Teorileri ve Postmodern Durum (Konya: Çizgi Kitabevi, 2003), p.
45.
37 Svend Ranulf, "Scholarly Forerunners of Fascism," Ethics 50, no. 1 (Oct., 1939), p. 16.
38 Ibid., p. 17.
32
classification of the social structures became one of the main sources on which antimodernist
conservatism based its thought.
This classification of Tönnies was replaced by the conceptualization,
according to which the industrialized and the underdeveloped countries were defined
on differing levels following the Second World War period. This hierarchical
definition of societies, which was created by modernization theory, also coincided
with the main goals of the field of rural sociology in the post-World War II period. In
this way, the rural structures in the countries which were defined as showing
Gemeinschaft characteristics were analyzed through rural sociology studies in order
to acquire the basic knowledge for the social projects that were needed to be
prepared after these studies. These projects mostly were prepared for the control of
social groups during the capitalist transformation of society.
Modernization theory was not just a theory. It was more like a political
project through which the development processes of the non-Western, “pre-modern”
societies were maintained politically and economically. There were two contesting
development models during the post-World War II period. One of them was the
Western-type capitalist development model, and the other was the Soviet-type
socialist-statist development model. The political goal behind modernization theory
was to prevent the inclusion of the underdeveloped countries in the Soviet-type
development model. As Harootunian says, during the post-war period these two
states “got into an enormous competition for gaining the new nation-states to their
modernity and development models.”39 This competition was not only a struggle
between the proposed development theories, but also and mainly an ideological
struggle, which shaped mostly the content of both of these models. In this way,
39 Harootunian, mparatorlugun, p. 3.
33
modernization theory, together with the development plans as its practical side,
included policies which would prevent political factors that could obstruct the
practice of the development plans, such as anti-communist policies.40
The post-World War II developments created the background for the
dominance of modernization theory after the war. Modernization theory was
perceived as the only “recipe” for the development of the underdeveloped countries.
One of the most important developments of the post-war period was the
independence movements in countries which previously had been colonies of the
Western countries. Most of these countries became independent after the war;
however, many of them remained underdeveloped. Their economies mostly were
based on agricultural production and due to that their development levels remained
very low.
There was also an increasing hatred in most of these countries towards the
Western world, which stemmed from their colonial past. Consequently, when these
new independent nation-states set about choosing one of the development models,
their hatred of the Western world made some of them approach the Soviet model.
Accordingly the previously founded hegemonic relations of the Western colonizer
states in those regions faced with this “Soviet threat.” During this intense
decolonization process nationalist tendencies arose in these countries. In the end, the
development plan that was going to be adopted in those regions had to both cover of
all of these sensibilities of these countries and to recreate the control of the regions
by the previously dominant Western countries. Especially after the Chinese
40 For anti-communism and its relation to the peasants during this period, see Chapter Four.
34
Revolution in 1949, which split from the Western world after the socialist revolution,
the importance of this post-war development became more serious than ever.41
All of these new nation-states attracted great interest in academic and political
studies during the Cold War period as a result of the increasing “communism threat.”
Due to that, these regions became the main areas in which modernization theorists
applied their theoretical perspective. With this increasing interest, modernization
theory became the most important tool for gathering “real” knowledge of these
countries in order to create and apply new economical and political development
plans in these regions.42
In order to apply these development plans two important aspects had to be
practiced at the same time. While these plans were being applied, the problems that
could occur during this development and modernization process needed to be solved
without causing any other problems. The most important problems that could occur
and was expected after a modernization project was the dissolution of the rural
structures and consequently an increase in the rural migration movements. This
change also could lead to an increase in the class differentiation in society. Actually,
this consequence or problem, as Harootunian states, was both an expected and
desired result of the modernization process. The rural migration movements, which
were kept under control, lead to the dissolution of the rural structures, which were
seen as the most problematic regions in the “underdeveloped” countries. These
migration movements also prevented, according to the modernization theorists, “the
41 The countries that moved away from the hegemony of the Western world and defined themselves
with a non-western development model after the Second World War can be listed as follows: Albania,
Angola, Algeria, Bangladesh, Benin, Burma, Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, Congo, Czechoslovakia,
Ethiopia, Democratic German Republic, Hungary, Northern Korea, Laos, Libya, Madagascar,
Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somali, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Southern Yemen and
Yugoslavia. Altun, Modernlesme, p. 26.
42 Colin Leys, The Rise & Fall of Development Theory (Nairobi; Bloomington: EAEP; Indiana
University Press, 1996), p. 200.
35
rural revolutions that were inspired by Maoism.”43 In this way, together with a
controlled development project, the most problematic areas which could not be taken
under control due to the lack of knowledge in these areas would be eliminated
gradually. However, in order to achieve that, first of all, the knowledge of these
needed to be gathered and the capacity of the state to intervene in such areas by using
this newly gathered knowledge needed to be developed.
For all of these reasons, the main research subject of modernization theory
during the post-World War II period was the social structures of these new
independent nation-states. The main goal was to transform the social structures of
these states, whose economies mainly had been based on agricultural production, into
strong structures through development projects created as a result of the knowledge
that was gathered from the sociology or economic research. Within this framework,
in order to create stronger structures that could resist the pressures of the social
groups during the transformation process, “growth” was selected as the main goal of
economic development. In addition to that, according to this development plan, the
“state” would be the agent of this modernization process.44 The economic growth
that would be created after the application of the development plan would be
distributed to society through state administration. In this way, this plan was mainly
an adaptation of the “welfare state” model of the Western world to the
underdeveloped societies. This was the main political assertion, which was shaped by
the economic growth and welfare, of the modernization theory during this period.45
43 Harootunian, mparatorlugun, p. 39. “Maoculuktan ilham alan bir kır devrimini”
44 Leys, The Rise & Fall, p. 7.
45 Frans J. Schuurman, "Paradigms Lost, Paradigms Regained? Development Studies in the Twenty-
First Century," Third World Quarterly 21, no. 1 (2000), p. 8.
36
The “mobilizing tool” for the application of the modernizationist
development projects in these new independent nation-states was “nationalism.”46
Nationalism was used in two different ways as a legitimizing tool. First, it was used
in defining for what or for whom the development plan would be put into practice.
Any kind of political opposition, which could occur in those states against the
development project as a result of the hatred that the people felt toward the Western
world due to their colonial past, was stabilized by using the nationalist discourse.
According to this discourse, the modernization plan was primarily required in order
to the “reach the level of modern civilizations,” for increasing the development and
the wealth of the people as a whole. A. Marion and J. Levy define nationalism as a
tool for the control of the modernization process. They say that through nationalism,
“the masses can be mobilized for some particular goal and also the same concept can
be used in maintaining a sentimental connection with the modernization process.”47
The second way of using the nationalist conceptualization was through its
role against the communist tendencies in society. Nationalism was used as an
antidote to communism and the nationalist concepts were used to control and
keeping the people away from developing communist tendencies. Due to that the
dominant development discourse, in which the nation-states and the nationalism were
glorified, would both protect the “national pride” of these new nation-states and
create new control mechanisms that would prevent these states from breaking away
from the hegemonic relations of the system during their modernization process.
The academic reflections of modernization theory were very effective.
Although it began to lose its power in the late 1960s with the criticism coming from
46 Philip McMichael, Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective, 2nd ed., Sociology for a
New Century (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press, 2000), p. xxii.
47 Özkiraz, Modernlesme Teorileri, p. 73. “kitleler belli amaçlara yönlendirilebilecegi gibi,
modernlesme yönünde de duygusal baglantıları saglamak için de aynı kavram kullanılabilir”
37
the Marxists, it continued to dominate the academic world until the late 1970s. Most
of the research in the social sciences was undertaken through using the perspective of
modernization theory. Although most of the researchers that conducted their studies
in the US foundations, which were defined as the center of this approach, were aware
of the political consequences of these studies, the majority of them did not feel like
they were leading a political mission. Most of them were carrying the torch of the
developmentalism and modernization and this was why they had begun to study on
their subjects. As Colin Leys says, few of them gave titles to their studies such as “A
Non-Communist Manifesto” like W. W. Rostow did.48
The interest in these kinds of studies attracted the attention of many
researchers in the beginning, especially in the US. Most of the young scholars were
interested in this field because there had been a strong tradition in the American
social sciences of studying macro-social subjects even before the Second World
War.49 Being involved with the comparative macro-theoretical issues opened the
inward-oriented American academy to the outer world and in this way
interdisciplinary works developed and spread throughout the world after the war.
The main goal in these studies was to collect “instrumental knowledge,”
which is one of the three different ways of gaining knowledge as Habermas writes.
“Instrumental knowledge” is defined in general as “[a kind of knowledge] which
could presumably help in predicting and controlling the process of social change
along pre-determined trajectories.” 50 The societies on which these studies were
conducted were mostly untouched fields for researchers, and proper knowledge on
48 Leys, The Rise & Fall, p. 6.
49 Knöbl, "Theories That Won't," p. 98.
50 Zaheer Baber, "Modernization Theory and the Cold War," Journal of Contemporary Asia 31, no. 1
(2001), p. 74. The other categories are “historical-hermeneutic knowledge” and “critical-emancipatory
knowledge.” See Jurgen Habermas, "Knowledge and Human Interests: A General Perspective," in
Continental Philosophy of Science, ed. Gary Gutting (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), p. 74.
38
the social structures of these societies was nonexistent. Although there was some
primary information on the administrative structures of these countries, there were no
detailed economic or sociological studies or even no statistical or observatory
knowledge on the social groups that maintained these societies. Consequently, with
studies that were based on the basic assumptions of modernization theory, the
practice of gathering the knowledge of every social group in these countries began
with urgency.
These developments created research groups, which were sent by the US
government or the academies to conduct field works. These groups were supported
by some elite academic groups from the researched country, who were volunteered to
work with these groups for the same goals. The research mostly concentrated on the
analysis of the cultural, economic, sociological and political attitudes of the peasants
in the countries in which rural structures were dominant. The main question in these
studies was to find the factors that could obstruct the development of modernization
in these countries. After the determination of the condition of these structures, these
studies set forth the measurements that needed to be taken in order to eliminate these
obstructing factors. In general, these studies focus on the social positioning of the
rural elites and the construction processes of the hegemonic relations in the rural
structures. The researchers mostly believed that modern values could be transferred
to these traditional structures only through the modernizing elites.51 Due to that,
these studies mostly questioned the motivating factors and how these factors could
be taken under control more than the general attitudes of the peasants or their
political approach and thoughts. As Colin Leys says,
This situation also led to a ‘symptomatic silence’ about the social
character of development, a silence cloaked, perhaps, by the doctrine of
51 Leys, The Rise & Fall, p. 10.
39
‘value-freedom’. It was implicit that the development under discussion
was not socialist, but its capitalist character was not acknowledged
either; it was just ‘development’, and was not seen as prone to generate
class formation and conflict, or as inherently uneven or crisis-ridden.52
Within this framework, the main goal was to gather proper knowledge of the
social structures of the underdeveloped societies. This can be described as a process
of retrieving instrumental knowledge on the subject in question. Not all of these
studies were supported by the US government directly. However, governmentsupported
foundations, such as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation or the
Carnegie Foundation, were used in this process. These foundations guided the
researchers they supported “to pay attention to the subjects that are sensitive for
American benefits.”53 During the 1950s and 1960s the US researchers who were
conducting field surveys and research on the Third World countries were regularly
debriefed by the Department of State, which always sought their advice on the
regions in which they conducted their studies.54 These efforts paved the way for the
creation of a new social science discipline called international relations.
The knowledge that was gathered during this period had an important place in
studying the rural structure of Turkey and in comprehending the socio-economic
condition of the peasants. This knowledge was instrumental, as told above, and
efforts were made to mobilize it in the making of many social policies that involved
the peasants. Rural sociology discipline also developed during this period in Turkey
and during the 1950s and the 1960s this discipline maintained the dominant research
methods and approaches on the peasants and rural structures in general. The
increasing number of studies in this social science discipline created a massive
literature on the “development problem” of Turkey. More important than that, the
52 Ibid., p. 11.
53 Altun, Modernlesme, p. 31. “Amerikan çıkarları uyarınca, hassas konulara ilgi göstermeleri”
54 Leys, The Rise & Fall, p. 11.
40
“reality” of the rural structures was defined through these studies in the academic
realm of Turkey during this period. The components of the rural structure, with the
effect of these studies and with the theorization of modernization theory, passed
through a redefinition process with the knowledge gathered from these studies. In
this way the process of gathering knowledge about rural structures, which had been a
defined imaginary during the previous period, acquired the tools that enabled the
researchers to define the peasants on the basis of “reality.”
The Development of “Rural Sociology” in Turkey
Rural sociology developed relatively recently as a sub-discipline of general
sociology. As Gene F. Summers and Frederich H. Buttle write,
Rural sociology is the study of social organization and social processes
that are characteristic of geographical localities where population size is
relatively small and density is low. Thus, rural sociology can be defined
as the sociology of rural society. Since rural societies do not exist in
isolation, rural sociology also addresses the relation of rural society to
the larger society. Therefore, it deals also with spatial organization and
the processes that produce spatial allocations of population and human
activities.55
Although sociology, in general, aims to analyze urban-based problems and
social structures, the development of rural sociology was related to the
transformation in the countryside. Rural sociology did not emerge in the homeland of
the sociology, Europe, but in the United States of America for finding solution to the
55 Gene F. Summers and Frederich H. Buttle, "Rural Sociology," in Encyclopedia of Sociology, ed.
Edgar F. Borgatta and Rhonda J. V. Montgomery (New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000), p.
2425.
41
problems that occurred in the countryside at the end of the nineteenth century and the
beginning of the twentieth century.56
During the post-World War II period, the relations between the state, capital
and rural structures were mainly maintained through the researchers in the field of
rural sociology in the US. In the making of the investments and the social reform
projects in the countryside the rural studies departments of the universities in the US
took direct responsibility. The institutionalization process of these university
departments began at the beginning of the century and their roles in the policy
making developed according to the changing needs of the US government. Related to
the dominant hegemony of the US in the post-World War II period, rural sociology
studies directed their attention to the underdeveloped rural structures in the world.
Consequently, these studies focused on the making of rural reform projects, which
was the main aspect in the institutionalization process of these departments in the
US, especially in Third World countries. In Europe these studies would develop
especially after the Second World War for reorganizing the relations between the
cities and the countryside, which had been corrupted due to the war.57
According to a survey on the studies that were conducted in the rural
sociology field, 43 of 144 articles published between 1952-1959 were on the origins
of the social change in the underdeveloped countries, 29 of them were on the
adaptation level of the peasants to the new agricultural practices and 28 of them were
on small agricultural groups. Sixteen of the rest were on social classes and social
mobility, fifteen were on the rural migration and thirteen addressed methodological
56 For the historical development of the rural sociology in the US, see Linda Lobao, "Rural
Sociology," in 21st Century Sociology: A Reference Handbook, ed. Clifton D. Bryant and Dennis L.
Peck (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2007); Summers and Buttle, "Rural."
57 Asım Süreyya
loglu, "Ziraî Sosyolojiye Bir Giris," in 1962-1963 Ders Yılı Sosyoloji Konferansları
(
stanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası, 1964), pp. 31-32.
42
issues.58 This survey shows that rural sociology studies were concentrated mostly on
the rural transformation of the underdeveloped societies during this period. This
increase was mainly the result of the funds given for these studies. The greatest
amount of funds for rural sociology studies were given to studies that were
conducted in Third World countries.
These academic practices, which can also be defined as the reflection of
modernization theory and developmentalist ideology, along with gathering
sociological knowledge on the “unknown territories,” were evaluated as the basis of
the social reform projects that would be applied in those countries. This missionary
approach to sociological studies is formulated by Paul A. Miller and Arthur F. Raper
as follows:
…the real contributions that rural sociologists have to make in foreign
assignments are of two types: First is that of collecting, compiling, and
analyzing field data from representative localities. This is something of a
virgin field, particularly in the Far East, Middle East, and Africa.
…Locality studies have been a distinctive contribution of rural sociology
abroad. Of especial meaning have been recent studies carried out in
cooperation with native scholars. The second basic contribution which
can be made by the rural sociologists to action programs is that of
providing a working knowledge of rural organization, particularly with
emphasis on village structures and functions.59
The most important names that became effective in the spread of the rural
sociology studies throughout the world were Carle C. Zimmerman and Pitirim
Sorokin.60 Zimmerman, who also lectured in Turkey, directly affected the
development of rural sociology studies in Turkey. Zimmerman was invited to Turkey
by Ziyaeddin Fahri Fındıkoglu and gave a series of lessons at the Economy Faculty
58 Orhan Türkdogan, Türkiye'de Köy Sosyolojisinin Temel Sorunları (Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi
Basımevi, 1970), p. 7.
59 Paul A. Miller and Arthur F. Raper, "Rural Sociologists and Foreign Assignments," Rural Sociology
18, no. 3 (1953), p. 266.
60 For the prominent book on rural sociology field that was written by these two scholars, see Carle C.
Zimmerman and Pitirim Sorokin, Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology (New York: H. Holt, 1929).
43
of the Istanbul University during the 1963-1964 academic year.61 His works had been
followed and known by the Turkish sociologist before his visit. Zimmerman was also
effective in Turkey in his efforts to combine the Le Play sociological school and
American rural sociology discipline.62
There were two main intellectual backgrounds of the rural sociology
discipline. First, the practitioners of rural sociology defined rural structures as the
entities which would be eliminated inevitably with the development of capitalism
and technology. They asserted that was not possible to defend these “archaic”
structures against the destructive effects of capitalism and that these structures
themselves were not strong enough to resist capitalism. The typical representatives of
this though in sociology field were Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim.63
Second intellectual background goes back Ancient Greece and was shaped
through the creation of an “agrarian myth” through the glorification of the peasantry.
According to this thought, the rise of urban settlements with the development of
capitalism is also the manifestation of the fall of the civilization. The traditional
culture is being destroyed by this capitalist development. In order to prevent this
destructive force, the traditional forms of rural relations, which were defined as the
centers of pastoral virtue, need to be recreated. The main representatives of this
thought in the sociology field were Ferdinand Tönnies, as said above, and
Zimmerman and Sorokin, as his followers.64
61 Burhan Baloglu, "Carle Clark Zimmerman (1897-1983)," in Türkiye'de Sosyoloji (simler-Eserler)
I, ed. M. Çagatay Özdemir (Ankara: Phoneix Yayınevi, 2008), pp. 555-579.
62 The relation of the Le Play School to Zimmerman’s sociological views was clearly stated in the
conference that was prepared in Turkey for the hundredth anniversary of the Le Play sociology school.
Hilmi Ziya Ülken, "Dünyada Science Sociale," in Le Play Sosyolojisinin 100. Yılı-Dünyada ve
Türkiyede Tesirleri, ed. Türk Sosyoloji Cemiyeti (
stanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi ve Basımevi, 1958), p.
19.
63 The Marxist “dissolution of the peasantry” thesis is told in Chapter One in detail.
64 Summers and Buttle, "Rural," p. 2426.
44
Zimmerman’s studies, or in general rural sociology studies in the US, were
based mainly on the application of Le Play’s sociological method through the social
classifications of Tönnies. Le Play’s monographic technique, which was based on the
household/family as the unit of analysis, was developed for creating an informative
substructure for social reform projects. This goal of Le Play’s methodology also
coincided with the goals of modernization theory. As a result, it can be asserted that
the rural sociology approach, which developed in the US and spread throughout the
world during the 1950s, was created with the reinterpretation of the nineteenth
century social reform motivated sociological thoughts through the perspective of
modernization theory.
The most important aim of the Le Play sociology school was to achieve the
“social peace” in society. In order to achieve that “social reality” needed to be
observed and the results were put into practice with social projects. Tahsin Demiray,
who was a prominent follower of the Le Play School in Turkey, said that, “according
to Le Play, the politics was an ART which tries to satisfy the basic requirements of
the people. It needs to work for ‘peace at home and world’.”65 Social peace was the
main motive in Le Play’s and his followers’ sociological studies. This was mostly
due to their fear of the destructive effects of capitalist development.
Within this framework, the Le Play sociology can be defined as one of the
representatives of the conservative counter-revolutionist tradition that was uneasy
with the developments that had occurred after the French Revolution and which
wanted “not to overdo the revolution.” Le Play was described by the Action
Française, which was the most important movement of French conservatism, as “one
65 Tahsin Demiray, "Modern Cemiyet
lmi'nin Kurucusu Le Play'in Hayatı," in Le Play Sosyolojisinin
100. Yılı-Dünyada ve Türkiyede Tesirleri, ed. Türk Sosyoloji Cemiyeti (
stanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi ve
Basımevi, 1958), p. 6. “Le Play’e göre siyaset, halkların esas ihtiyaçlarını tatmin etmek için çalısan
bir SANAT’tı. “Yurtta ve cihanda sulh” için çalısmalı idi.”
45
of the leaders of the nineteenth century counter-revolutionary movement.”66 Aykut
Kansu explains the meaning of the social classifications of Le Play sociology as
follows:
In the background of this fake classification, which seems to be like a
sociological analysis, with which Le Play and his followers became
actually uneasy, was the rise of the idle working class, which were in the
service of the industrialists, had only a simple relation of contract in
between and out of the reach of the traditional controlling mechanisms,
against the peasant class, which was once in the service of the
aristocracy and the church and subservient to both. Le Play and the other
catholic thinkers found the solution to the this situation, which they
called the “social problem,” in the protection of the workers with
fulfilling their needs, including their religious education, by the
industrialists similar to the old time aristocrats who “protected” their
own peasants.67
These practices, which were developed to overcome the “social problem” as
Kansu says, were the main elements that maintained most of the intellectuals’
thoughts during the nineteenth century. Sociology as a social science discipline was
developed as a way to solve this problem during that time. Le Play had an important
place in this process. He brought out the preparation of social projects to save this
social problem from being only a political attitude and asserted that only with the
gathering of real and direct knowledge of society or the problematical group could
social projects be effective and successful. The Le Play School, which can be defined
as a social engineering attempt, differentiated itself from the other sociological
methods or perspectives through the assertion that they had a more direct relation
66 Sanford Elwitt, "Social Science, Social Reform and Sociology," Past and Present, no. 121 (Nov.,
1988), p. 212.
67 Aykut Kansu, "Prens Sabahaddin'in Düsünsel Kaynakları ve Asırı-Muhafazakâr Düsüncenin
thali,"
in Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi Düsünce, Vol. 1, Cumhuriyet'e Devreden Düsünce Mirası Tanzimat ve
Mesrutiyet'in Birikimi, ed. Mehmet Ö. Alkan (
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2001), p. 160. “Sosyolojik
bir çözümlemeymis gibi gözüken bu sahte sınıflandırmanın arkasında, Le Play ve takipçilerinin
aslında rahatsız oldukları sey, eskiden aristokrasinin emrinde ona –ve kiliseye- itaat eden bir köylü
sınıfı yerine artık geleneksel kontrol mekanizmaları dısında, fabrikatörlere hizmet eden ve onlarla
aralarında yalnızca basit bir kontrat iliskisi olan basıbos isçi sınıfının türemesiydi. Le Play ve Katolik
düsünürler, ‘sosyal sorun’ olarak adlandırdıkları bu duruma çareyi fabrikatörlerin tıpkı köylüsüne
‘sahip çıkan’ aristokratlar gibi isçilerine sahip çıkmalarında ve oların dinî egitimleri dahil tüm
ihtiyaçlarını karsılamalarında bulmaktaydı.”
46
with social “reality.” The main difference of the Le Play School was the use of
monographic research techniques for gathering real knowledge of society, which
would maintain the basis for the social projects that would solve the social problem.
This difference made this technique preferable for the rural sociology field and
during its development this technique was reinvented by rural sociology as a
practical tool in the observation of the problematic societies in the world.
The nineteenth century sociology schools played important roles in the
development of political movements in Turkey. As Bernard Lewis writes, “one of the
common characteristics of all of these schools was that they treated the sociology as
a kind of philosophy and even as a religion and they had the tendency to perceive
them as apocalyptical sources over moral, social, political and even religious
problems.”68 Similar to that, Nurettin Sazi Kösemihal, who was a follower of the Le
Play School in Turkey, said that the sociologists developed their thoughts during the
hard times of their society almost as “prophetic leaders,” during the making of the
sociology discipline.69
Niyazi Berkes, in his early studies, defined the general characteristics of the
development of sociology in Turkey as follows:
To summarize the characteristics of Turkish sociology: (1) It has been
under the influence of political movements for a long time. This
68 Bernard Lewis, Modern Türkiye'nin Dogusu, trans. Metin Kıratlı, 7. ed. (Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu Basımevi, 1998), pp. 230-231. “bütün bu ekollerin bir ortak özelligi, sosyolojiyi bir tür
felsefe ve hattâ din olarak ele almak, ve ahlâki, toplumsal, siyasal ve hattâ dinî sorunlar üzerinde
sanki vahiy kudretinde bir kaynak olarak görmek egilimleridir.”
69 Kösemihal expressed his thoughts as follows: “As a matter of fact, when we look at the history of
the humanity, time to time every society confronts with great depressions and troubles and every time
some figures, such as prophet, judge, philosopher, statesman, appear for partially preventing these
troubles. However, for the appearance of a sociologist type, who tries to find the cures of these
troubles in science and due to that analyzes the social events with the scientific perspective, it became
a necessity to wait for the nineteenth century.” “Nitekim insanlık tarihine bir göz atarsak
toplulukların devir devir büyük buhranlara, sıkıntılara ugradıklarını, her devirde de bu buhranları
sıkıntıları kısmen olsun önleyecek peygamber, hakîm, filozof, devlet adamı gibi çesitli tiplerin
belirdiklerini görürüz. Ama bu türlü buhranların devasını ilimde arayan, bu maksatla da cemiyet
hâdiselerini ilim görüsüyle tahlil eden bir sosyolog tipinin belirmesi için XIX uncu yüzyılı beklemek
lâzımdı.” Nureddin Sazi Kösemihal, "Memleketimizde Tecrübi Sosyolojinin Dogusu ve Gelismesi,"
Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 6 (1950), p. 117-118.
47
situation resulted in a very short life for each school, caused them to
change very rapidly with the changes of politics, and did not permit
them to produce fruitful researches. (2) The French school of sociology
became more influential in shaping the scientific outlook of Turkish
sociologists. (3) Its chief concern after the World War became endless
methodological discussions; and for that reason it did not contribute
anything to scientific research worthy of mention, while more interesting
research studies have been made rather in other social sciences, such as
anthropology, history, economics, and folklore, with which we are not
here concerned. (4) The lack of financial support is one of the factors
which prevent the development of a research program, the carrying-out
of a plan the translations of foreign literature, the publication of journals,
and the continuation of sociological associations.70
This general evaluation of Berkes, actually, was made also by followers of
the Le Play School and Prince Sabahaddin in Turkey, who were criticizing that there
was no such development in the sociology field due to the dominance of the
Durkheim School on the Turkish sociological thought. This similarity also can show
that Berkes, too, who was studying sociology in the US during that period, was
affected by the Le Play School, which became dominant in the US sociology studies.
Prince Sabahaddin71 became a member and the direct supporter of the Le Play
School through Demolins, whom he met in Paris. The main aim of Prince
Sabahaddin in getting involved with the Le Play School was not his search for some
sociological “scientific approach” to analyze social structures, but his search for a
70 Niyazi Berkes, "Sociology in Turkey," The American Journal of Sociology 42, no. 2 (Sep., 1936), p.
246.
71 The life of Prince Sabahaddin will not be told in detail here. More emphasis is going to be given to
the sociological approach of Prince Sabahaddin and his effects on the development of the rural
sociology in Turkey. For some prominent sources that focus on the life of Prince Sabahaddin, see
Aslıhan Ögün Boyacıoglu and Levent Boyacıoglu, "Prens/Sultanzâde Mehmed Sabahaddin Bey
(1879-1948)," in Türkiye'de Sosyoloji (simler-Eserler) I, ed. M. Çagatay Özdemir (Ankara: Phoneix
Yayınevi, 2008); Kaan Durukan, "Prens Sabahaddin ve
lm-i
çtima-Türk Liberalizminin Kökenleri,"
in Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi Düsünce, Vol. 1, Cumhuriyet'e Devreden Düsünce Mirası Tanzimat ve
Mesrutiyet'in Birikimi, ed. Mehmet Ö. Alkan (
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2001); Nezahet Nurettin
Ege, Prens Sabahaddin-Hayatı ve lmî Müdafaaları (
stanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası, 1977); Ali Erkul,
"Prens Sabahattin," in Türk Toplumbilimcileri I, ed. Emre Kongar (
stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1982);
Z. Fahri Fındıkoglu, Le Play Mektebi ve Prens Sabahaddin (
stanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası, 1962);
Kansu, "Prens Sabahaddin."; Cenk Reyhan, "Prens Sabahaddin," in Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi
Düsünce, Vol. 1, Cumhuriyet'e Devreden Düsünce Mirası Tanzimat ve Mesrutiyet'in Birikimi, ed.
Mehmet Ö. Alkan (
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2001); Cavit Orhan Tütengil, Prens Sabahattin
(
stanbul:
stanbul Matbaası, 1954); M. Cavid Tütengil, "Prens Sabahaddin," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 4-
5 (1949). For collected works of Prince Sabahaddin, see Ege, Prens Sabahaddin; Prens Sabahaddin,
Gönüllü Sürgünden Zorunlu Sürgüne-Bütün Eserleri, ed. Mehmet Ö. Alkan (
stanbul: Yapı Kredi
Yayınları, 2007).
48
proper approach to the modernization project in his mind. Sabahaddin was both
affected by Demolins’ thoughts on development and his way of putting these
thoughts into practice. Sabahaddin believed that instead of an overall revolutionary
practice, some regulating reformist practices were required in order to modernize
society as a whole. This approach would be supported in various academic and
intellectual circles. For example, Tahsin Demiray said the following on Sabahaddin’s
reformist perspective: “Sabahaddin Bey tried to make the ones, who had been
wandering around Europe with thoughts of REVOLUTION up until that time to
think about the ‘Constitution’ and tried to introduce the idea of ‘uniting for doing’
instead of ‘uniting for destruction’ to them.”72
The importance and the meaning of Sabahaddin during his period will not be
discussed here due to limitations of space; instead, how he was perceived during the
period in question bears discussion, mainly due to the importance of his thoughts on
the development of rural sociology in Turkey. Within this framework, it will be
meaningful to quote from one of his leading followers, Nezahet Nurettin Ege, on the
political/sociological perception of Prince Sabahaddin:
It was the great patriot and at the same time the great sociologist Prince
Sabahaddin Bey, who for the first time defended that the preparation of
the reform program, in other words a curing system, would be possible
only after the diagnosis of the illness of the structure through the
analysis of that social structure with scientific techniques and who
diagnosed on this way with reference to the “La Science Sociale,” which
had a long past history, and determined its remedies with a great
scientific power.73
72 Tahsin Demiray, "Science Sociale'in Türkiye'ye Gelisi ve Bizdeki Tesirleri," in Le Play
Sosyolojisinin 100. Yılı-Dünyada ve Türkiyede Tesirleri, ed. Türk Sosyoloji Cemiyeti (
stanbul:
Türkiye Yayınevi ve Basımevi, 1958), p. 22. “O zamana kadar, Avrupa’da bir HTLÂL fikri ile
dolasıp duranları Sabahattin Bey (Anayasa) üzerinde düsündürmege çalısarak onlarda (yıkmak için
birlesmek) yerine (yapmak için birlesmek) fikrini uyandırmak istemisti.”
73 Ege, Prens Sabahaddin, p. 33. “Herhangi içtimaî bir bünyeyi ilmî usullerle tedkik ederek o
bünyenin hastalıgını teshis ettikten sonra ona göre bir tedavi sistemi yani islâhat programı
hazırlamak imkânı oldugu ilk defa müdafaa eden, uzun bir mâziye mâlik bir ilme (La Science
Sociale)’e istinaden bu teshisi koyan ve tedavi çarelerini de büyük bir ilmî kudretle tesbit eden büyük
vatanperver, aynı zamanda büyük bir sosyolog Prens Sabahaddin Bey’dir.”
49
The most important aspect that is seen in Ege’s words is the thought of social
reform through the “scientific” analysis of the social reality of society. The relation
of Sabahaddin to the Le Play School was based mainly on this thought. The
“experimental sociology” field, which was developed by Paul Descamps who was
the follower of the Le Play School either, includes the practice of this “scientific”
approach. The works of Descamps were translated into Turkish first by Nurettin Sazi
Kösemihal.74 His approaches corresponded to the most developed version of Le
Play’s monographic technique during the making of rural sociology in Turkey.
According to this approach, the way to reach the knowledge of the “reality” of
society passes through the use of the tools of experimental sociology.
In Turkey the Le Play School became institutionalized during the post-World
War II period. In the post-war period, Sabahaddin’s thoughts became the most
important sociological understanding in Turkey. Both national and international
developments were effective in the making of the dominance of this approach.
Especially after the transition to the multi-party system and with the rise of the DP
opposition, not only were the practices of the RPP criticized but also the dominant
sociological approach of the single-party regime, which was the Durkheim-Gökalp
School. As opposed to the statist approach of the RPP, the “liberal” and
“individualistic” approach of Prince Sabahaddin was highlighted widely among the
DP circles.75
On the international scale, the developmentalist modernization theory, which
was put into practice for the development of underdeveloped countries, also
corresponded with the approach of the Le Play-Sabahaddin School. Even during the
74 See Paul Descamps, Deneysel Sosyoloji, trans. Nurettin Sazi Kösemihal, 2. ed. (
stanbul: Remzi
Kitabevi, 1965).
75 H. Bayram Kaçmazoglu, "Türkiye'de Sosyoloji Çalısmaları 1950-1960 Dönemi," Sosyoloji Dergisi
3. series 1993-1995, no. 4 (1997), p. 139.
50
period in question the relation of Prince Sabahaddin’s thoughts to modernization
theory was known and praised. For example, Cavit Orhan Tütengil said that the book
of Max W. Thornburg, which was translated to Turkish as Türkiye Nasıl Yükselir?
(How Will Turkey Rise?), and which includes the development projects for Turkey,
had a great resemblance to the book of Prince Sabahaddin, Türkiye Nasıl
Kurtarılabilir? (How Can Turkey Be Saved?).76
The rise of developmentalism and the rural studies field during the post-war
period increased the importance of the thoughts of Prince Sabahaddin and his
followers. The village monographs and village surveys were important during this
period in the making of the projects, which were prepared to solve the “peasant
question.” The “real” knowledge of the rural structures, which would be used in
these projects, was gathered through the method developed by the Le Play School.
Hilmi Ziya Ülken, in an open letter published in Sosyoloji Dergisi (Journal of
Sociology) in 1954, expressed the need for village monographies for the preparation
of social reform, as follows:
If the social monograph of a country is done, then it will be possible to
make social diagnosis of that country. In this way, the path of every kind
of medical, pedagogical and moral reform that will be practiced in that
country becomes illuminated. … The first important result that will be
gathered from the village monographs will be to reveal the interaction
and interrelation between various social facts or various social
foundations. In this way, the facts which were previously studied only
through their general and statistical characteristics and which we used to
study separately, such as the accumulation of the population from the
village to the cities, the abandoning lands by some peasants and their
tendency to become civil servant, their tendency towards the industrial
and commercial business life, the increasing and the decreasing ratios in
crime according to their types, the preferences of profession, will be
possible to be studied according to the results of the monographic
research and with regard to their interdependency.77
76 Tütengil, Prens, p. 4.
77 Hilmi Ziya Ülken, "Milli Egitim Bakanlıgı Yüksek Makamına," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 9 (1954), pp.
61, 64-65. “Eger bir memleketin içtimaî monografisi yapılmıs ise, o memleket hakkında içtimaî bir
teshis koymak mümkün olur. Bu suretle o memlekette yapılacak sıhhi, pedagojik veya ahlâki her hangi
bir reformun yolu aydınlanmıs demektir. … Köy monografisine ait arastırmaların verecegi ilk mühim
51
In this open letter, Ülken stated that there was an increasing tendency of rural
migration in Turkey and before it reached a dangerous level it needed to be taken
under control. He added that in order to achieve that, the state had to support research
projects, and according to this research, new social reforms needed to be prepared.
Ülken tried to take the theoretical and material support that he had given to rural
sociology studies from the very beginning to a higher level by trying to gain the
support of the state administrations.
In the following parts of this open letter, Ülken drew the main framework of
the organizations that needed to be founded for the practice of these projects. He also
wrote the suggested regulations of this organization in this letter. Ülken had to wait
for the foundation of such an organization until the 27 Mays 1960 coup. With the
foundation of the Devlet Planlama Teskilatı (State Planning Organization) and the
Köyisleri Bakanlıgı (The Ministry of Village Affairs) after the coup these studies
were conducted with the support of the state. Rural sociology studies were not
supported completely by the state administration during the 1945-1960 period.
However, these studies maintained the creation of the accumulation of the
knowledge of the theoretical and practical perspective on the rural structures, which
would be transferred to the following period.
Rural sociology studies had been conducted since the very first years of the
Turkish Republic. Especially, as being the reflection of the populist ideology of the
single-party regime, not the relations in the rural structures but the rural culture had
netice muhtelif içtimaî olgular veya türlü içtimaî müesseseler arasındaki karsılıklı tesir ve
münasebetleri meydana çıkarmaktır. Bu suretle nüfusun köylerden sehirlere dogru birikmesi, bazı
köylülerin tarlasını bırakması ve memurlasmaya temayülü, ticarî ve sınaî is hayatına dogru temayül,
suçların nevilerine göre artma ve eksilme nisbetleri, meslek seçimi isleri gibi yalnız umumî ve statistik
vasıflarile ve birbirinden müstakil olarak incelemiye alısmıs oldugumuz olguları monografik
arastırmaların neticelerine göre ve birbirine karsılıklı baglılıkları bakımından incelemiye hasıl
olacaktır.”
52
been observed by the peasantism branches of the People’s Houses in some
monographs. The main aim of the village studies in the pre-1945 period was to show
how the villages and the peasants had been ignored and neglected during the
Ottoman period and how they had developed since the Republican administration.
The peasants, who had an important place in the ideological construct of the
“nation,” were defined with reference to Ottoman times during the single-party
period and the primary aspects of the peasants were glorified in these definitions.78
Many village studies of this kind can be found in the publications of the People’s
Houses and later in the Village Institutes’ journals.
Before the domination of the Le Play-Sabahaddin approach to sociological
studies during the period in question, Selahaddin Demirkan was one of the
sociologists that adopted this sociological tradition, and he produced some
monographs during the single-party period. He was the head of the Eminönü
People’s House Peasantism Branch and conducted both theoretical and practical
studies on the peasants and the villages. His dominant influence in village studies
continued during the 1950s. He also published the Köye Dogru (Towards the
Village) journal, in which he insistently developed the approach of the Le Play-
Sabahaddin sociological tradition.79
The main events that affected the development of rural sociology studies in
Turkey began actually during the Second World War. It can be asserted that since the
mid-1940s two different approaches on sociology had been in great competition. The
first side of this competition was made up of the followers of the Le Play-Sabahaddin
School and they were mostly gathered around the Sosyoloji Dergisi (Sociology
Journal), which was directed by Hilmi Ziya Ülken. In the first issue of the journal,
78 Recep Ertürk, Türk Sosyolojisinde ve Cumhuriyet Döneminde Köy Tartısmaları (Ankara:
stanbul
Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1997), p. 6, 53.
79 Demiray, "Science Sociale," p. 33.
53
Hilmi Ziya Ülken published a nomenclature for the use of sociology researchers and
defined the main parameters in sociological research in this form.80 Through this
article, Ülken, in a way, gave the starting signal for rural sociology studies with a
perspective that had not been dominant during the single-party period. This
nomenclature was used in many studies in the following period and the rural
sociology studies were mainly framed with the perspective given in this article. In
the second issue of Sosyoloji Dergisi, the village studies that were conducted
according to this nomenclature began to be published. After these first initiatives the
village studies that were conducted according to this nomenclature increased in
number during the 1950s and, as a result, rural sociology studies gained pace and
became dominant in the sociology discipline with the participation of new sociology
students with time.81
The most typical characteristics of these studies were that they resembled to
social anthropological studies more than sociology studies. This was due to their
intention to present only the “reality” of the villages and the peasants of the regions
on which the studies were focused. Generally, there was no “conclusion” section in
most of these studies. The main intention of these studies was effective in this form
80 Hilmi Ziya Ülken, "
çtimaî Arastırmalar," Sosyoloji Dergisi 1, no. 1 (1942).
81 The first monographic study on the Turkish villages that published in the Sociology Journal was
Nedim Göknil’s study. Göknil, "Garbî Anadolu." The following studies can be listed as follows:
Hilmi Ziya Ülken, Nurettin Sazi Kösemihal, and Cahit Tanyol, "Karatas Köyü Monografisi,"
Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 6 (1950); Salâhattin Demirkan, "Baglum Köyünde Köylü
sletmesi Anketi,"
Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 7 (1952); Cahit Tanyol, "Baraklarda Örf ve Âdet Arastırmaları," Sosyoloji
Dergisi, no. 7 (1952); Cahit Tanyol, "Baraklarda Örf ve Âdet Arastırmaları," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 8
(1953); Cahit Tanyol, "Baraklarda Örf ve Âdet Arastırmaları," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 9 (1954); Cavit
Orhan Tütengil, "
hsaniye Köyü
ncelemesi," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 9 (1954); Turhan Yörükân and
Turgut Cebe, "Çatak Köyü Arastırması," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 10-11 (1956); Rahmi Tasçıoglu,
"Manisa
li Mütevelli Köyü Monografisi," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 10-11 (1956); Cavit Orhan Tütengil,
"Keçiller Köyü
ncelemesi," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 10-11 (1956); Yusuf Kurhan, "Eskitaslı Köyü
Monografisi," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 10-11 (1956); Yusuf Kurhan, "Yenibedir Köyü Monografisi,"
Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 10-11 (1956); Hilmi Ziya Ülken and Ayda N. Tanyeli, "Gönen Bölge
Monografisi," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 10-11 (1956); Mehmet Yurduseven, "Antalya
hsaniye Köyü

ncelemesi," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 15 (1960); Cahit Tanyol, "Peske Binamlısı Köyü," Sosyoloji
Dergisi, no. 16 (1961); Cahit Tanyol, "Elifoglu Köyü," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 17-18 (1962-1963).
Although the last two articles were published during the 1960s, they were actually conducted in the
early 1950s and also the follower of the same approach to sociological studies.
54
of writing. They were not conducted to reach a conclusion, but to gather information
on the subject in question. According to this method, the concluding remarks and
generalizations on the research subject could only be done after reaching an adequate
accumulation of knowledge on the research subject.
The second side of the competition between the sociological approaches was
made up of mostly the scholars from Ankara University, who mostly had studied
sociology abroad and conducted some rural research with the monographic technique
when they returned to the country. A study of Niyazi Berkes, titled Ankara Köyleri
Üzerinde Bir Arastırma (A Study on the Villages of Ankara), bears the typical
characteristics of American rural sociology studies.82 As another example of this
approach, Behice Boran analyzes the rural structures through their economic and
material conditions with the comparison of two different types of village settlements
in her book Toplumsal Yapı Arastırmaları (Research on Social Structure).83 The
main difference of these studies from the other approach was their emphasis on
economic factors. In these studies, the rural structures and the problems of the
peasants are analyzed through the economic development and the economic
foundation of the relations in the countryside.
Another scholar, who can be accepted in this group even though his approach
differs in some points, was
brahim Yasa. Yasa obtained his rural sociology
education at Missouri University in 1934 and became one of the most important
figures in rural studies with his study on Hasanoglan Village, which he conducted
during 1944-1945.84 Berkes and Boran were expelled from the university in 1948 on
82 Niyazi Berkes, Bazı Ankara Köyleri Üzerinde Bir Arastırma (Ankara: DTCF Yayınları, 1942).
83 Behice Boran, Toplumsal Yapı Arastırmaları: ki Köy Çesidinin Mukayeseli Tetkiki (Ankara: DTCF
Yayınları, 1945).
84 Suna Basak, "
brahim Yasa (1911-1993)," in Türkiye'de Sosyoloji (simler-Eserler) I, ed. M.
Çagatay Özdemir (Ankara: Phoneix Yayınevi, 2008), p. 918;
brahim Yasa, Hasanoglan Köyü'nün
çtimaî-ktisadî Yapısı (Ankara: TODA
E Yayınları, 1955).
55
the accusation of being communists, and afterwards they did not make any other
rural sociology studies. Their efforts continued in academic and political spheres
different from these first attempts in the rural sociology field.
Hilmi Ziya Ülken, in an article published in Sosyoloji Dünyası (Sociology
World), placed
brahim Yasa between these two approaches and defined three
different approaches in the rural sociology field in Turkey.85 Although the
perspective in the studies of Yasa was closer to that of Berkes and Boran approach,
with expulsion of Berkes and Boran from the university, Yasa moved closer to the
first group. Along with using his previous sociological method, his thoughts became
closer to that of the Le Play-Sabahaddin School with time. Yasa tried to develop
Ülken’s nomenclature for rural studies monographs through some changes, which he
emphasized in both of his studies on the Villages of Hasanoglan and Sindel.86 This
study became very influential especially in the following period and it became one of
the main methodological texts of the rural studies field in Turkey.
The importance of this study appears in the changes that Yasa made to
Ülken’s nomenclature. Yasa gave more space to the changes in the social structure of
the villages in his revision. As it will be told below, the static research techniques
which had been dominant at the beginning of this period were changed with a
perspective that emphasized the transformation of the rural structures more than
before. The most important representative of this method and perspective was Yasa
himself. Yasa, with this contribution to the rural sociology field, on the one hand
sustained the dominance of the Le Play-Sabahaddin perspective, and on the other,
brought closer rural sociology studies in Turkey to the general perspective of
American rural sociology studies.
85 Hilmi Ziya Ülken, "Türkiye'de Köy Sosyolojisi," Sosyoloji Dünyası 1, no. 1 (1951), p. 25.
86
brahim Yasa, "Köylerin Sosyolojik Bakımdan
ncelenmesinde Bazı Esaslar," Ankara Üniversitesi
Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 14, no. 1 (Mart 1959).
56
This development also brought about the emergence of a methodological
discussion on the second group rural sociology approach. The emphasis on the
economic factors that the Boran-Berkes approach made was criticized and
condemned by the followers of the first group. The followers of the Le Play-
Sabahaddin School asserted that it was required both to decrease the affect of value
judgments on rural sociology studies and to conduct the overall “observation” of
social structures. According to this perspective, the analysis and the explication of
the subjected social structures should be done after the observation was completed
and within the framework of the social reform projects. The followers of this
approach founded an organization called the Türk Sosyoloji Cemiyet (Turkish
Sociological Association), and published a journal called Sosyoloji Dünyası. In the
first issue of this journal, the first article, titled “Maksad” (Intention), listed the basic
principles that would be sought in the research that would be published in the journal
as follows:
Whether the Turkish Sociological Association or this journal as its
official organ takes into consideration especially these three principles in
their scientific practices: 1) Not to mix science with politics; which
means, desiring not to interfere in science with politics, and in reverse,
not to interfere in politics with science; 2) being protected from every
kind of prejudgments in their studies; the prejudgments that come from
religion, tradition and ideologies need to be considered. (It is our duty to
obey these points to acquire the objectivity, neutrality and independency
of science); 3) While conducting research both in theoretical and
practical fields, paying as much attention to being practical and related
to social reality.87
The perception of “not to interfere in science with politics” needs to be
understood as a direct criticism of the Marxist perception of sociology. Especially
87 "Maksad," Sosyoloji Dünyası 1, no. 1 (1951). “Gerek Türk Sosyoloji Cemiyeti, gerekse onun organı
olan bu dergi ilmî faaliyetlerinde bilhassa üç noktayı göz önünde bulundurmaktadırlar: 1) limle
siyaseti karıstırmamak; yani ilmin siyasete karısmaması nisbetinde siyasetin de ilme karısmamasını
temenni etmek; 2) Tetkiklerinde her türlü prejüjelerden korunmak; bu arada dinî, ananevî prejüjelerle
ideolojilerden ileri gelen prejüjeleri saymalıyız. (lmin objektifligini, bitaraflıgını ve istiklâlini temin
için dergimiz bu noktalara riayeti vazife bilir); 3) Arastırmalarını gerek nazarî, gerek tecrübî sahada
yapmakla beraber mümkün oldugu kadar içtimaî gerçekle alâkalı ve amelî olmıya dikkat etmek.”
57
after the accusation of the Boran-Berkes approach with communism, the other group
increased their criticism against the so-called “based on a single account”
approaches, which directly referred to approaches that gave priority to economic or
material factors. Due to that, the followers of the first group emphasized the
appropriation of a “complete” perception as a method in the preparation of their
village monographs.
Two main approaches made up the basis for these criticisms. The first one of
them was presented in Mümtaz Turhan’s book, Kültür Degismeleri (The Changes of
Culture).88 In this book, Turhan showed that the cultural changes can occur
independently from material conditions. This perception was immediately accepted
by the followers of the Le Play-Sabahaddin approach. They asserted that the cultural
changes in the countryside did not occur according to the relations between base and
superstructure as Boran and Berkes asserted and, according to them, Turhan proved
this approach wrong with a more “scientific” perspective.89 In addition to that,
Turhan blended the old single-party period sociological perspective with the new
dominant one of the 1945-1960 period. Turhan, who became an important figure in
academic thought during the period, with the adaptation of the culture and
civilization approach of Ziya Gökalp to the intellectual perspective of the 1950s,
maintained the nationalism perspective of the Le Play-Sabahaddin School in
Turkey.90
The second intellectual who was cited in criticisms of the Boran-Berkes
approach was Georges Gurvitch. The first translations of his books into Turkish were
done by a prominent representative of the Le Play-Sabahaddin School, Nurettin Sazi
88 Mümtaz Turhan, Kültür Degismeleri: Sosyal Psikoloji Bakımından Bir Tetkik (
stanbul:
stanbul
Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1951).
89 Ülken, "Türkiye'de Köy Sosyolojisi," p. 25.
90 Kaçmazoglu, "Türkiye'de Sosyoloji," p. 132.
58
Kösemihal, in the Sosyoloji Dergisi.91 Gurvitch also visited Turkey and gave a series
of conferences. Gurvitch actively participated in the Soviet Revolution and later had
troubles with the Soviet administration and immigrated first to Czechoslovakia and
then to France.92 He challenged the Durkheimian sociology and, in order to develop a
complete perception of sociological thought, he developed a peculiar sociological
philosophy. According to this approach, which Gurvitch called “in depth sociology,”
social reality is composed of various bases and superstructures and all of these
structures affect each other reciprocally.93
Kösemihal, who studied with Gurvitch at Sorbonne University during 1950-
1951,94 comprehended this multi-dimensional social perception approach with its
most basic meaning and used that perspective in his theoretical opposition to the
approaches which were defined as defending “single-causality.” However, as Vahap
Sag says, Kösemihal made the most important mistake by confusing the concepts of
“method” and “technique,” and using each of them interchangeably and
ambiguously.95 Actually this situation was related to defining the monographic
technique, as being the greatest sociological method of the Le Play-Sabahaddin
School. In fact, this perception, which accepted the monographic technique as the
only method that would help them to find real knowledge, defined the core of its
method with a research technique.
Along with the rural sociologists who became dominant during this period in
Turkey, there were several rural sociology studies conducted in Turkey by foreign
scholars. Especially, the social anthropological studies of Paul Stirling, who
91 Georges Gurvitch, "Sosyolojinin Bugünkü Temayülü (I)," Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 4-5 (1949).
92 William Paul Simmons, "Gurvitch, Georges," in Encyclopedia of Modern French Thought, ed.
Christopher John Murray (New York: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2004), p. 282.
93 Dogan Ergun, 100 Soruda Sosyoloji El Kitabı (
stanbul: Gerçek Yayınevi, 1990), p. 93.
94 Hayati Besirli, "Nurettin Sazi Kösemihal (1909-1972)," in Türkiye'de Sosyoloji (simler-Eserler) I,
ed. M. Çagatay Özdemir (Ankara: Phoneix Yayınevi, 2008), p. 755.
95 Vahap Sag, "Nurettin Sazi Kösemihal," in Türk Toplumbilimcileri I, ed. Emre Kongar (
stanbul:
Remzi Kitabevi, 1982), pp. 307-308.
59
conducted his research on the villages and the peasants of Turkey from the early
1950s,96 attracted the attention of foreign academics to Turkey. Along with the
research conducted by the development institutes, which were supported by the US
centers, many researchers came to Turkey and made extensive contributions to the
development of the field of rural sociology. For example, George and Barbara
Helling’s statistical analysis of the rural structures made an important contribution to
the Turkish academic perspective.97 The sociological studies of Daniel Lerner,98 who
was also an important representative of modernization theory, and Richard D.
Robinson’s various studies on Turkey were accepted as the most important rural
sociology studies in the world at that time.99
In addition to all of these studies, rural sociology began to appear in the
course schedules of the universities and the institutionalization of this social science
field began accordingly. Orhan Türkdogan, who worked as a research assistant in
rural sociology in the newly founded Erzurum University during the period in
question, wrote a letter to Ziyaeddin Fahri Fındıkoglu on the development of rural
sociology in Turkey. Fındıkoglu quoted from that letter and described the
institutionalization process of the field of rural sociology in Turkish universities as
follows:
…the teaching schedule of the University, which was founded three
years ago in Erzurum and has only two faculties for now, bears an
innovation that originates from American Le Play’ism: Village
sociology and village monographism have an important place in the
education of agricultural economy. The following matters are told in a
96 See Paul Stirling, Turkish Village (London: Weindenfeld and Nicolson, 1965).
97 Barbara Helling and George Helling, Rural Turkey - a New Socio-Statistical Appraisal (
stanbul:

stanbul Üniversitesi
ktisat Fakültesi, 1958).
98 Daniel Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East (Glencoe, Ill.: Free
Press, 1958).
99 For the list of various studies on Turkey during this period, see Cevat Geray, "Toplum Kalkınması
ve Köy Arastırmaları," Ankara Üniversitesi Egitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi 5, no. 1 (1972), pp. 8-
15; Haim Gerber, The Social Origins of the Modern Middle East (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner
Publishers, 1987), pp. 104-111; John F. Kolars, "Community Studies in Rural Turkey," Annals of the
Associations of American Geographers 52, no. 4 (1962).
60
report that was written for our work: “…Village sociology exists in the
program of the Faculty of Agriculture of the University and I think that
it is taught in our University for the first time in Turkey, as our
University took the University of Nebraska as a model for itself.”100
As can be seen in this quotation, the development of the discipline of rural
sociology in Turkey was directly related to the developments in the US and the
world. The dominance of modernization theory and its relation to the Le Play School
also affected the development of the field in Turkey. There was already a tendency to
adopt the perspective of Le Play before and during that time in Turkey. Along with
the dominance of modernization theory in the Western world these two approaches
were combined in the sociological research, which was mostly conducted on
underdeveloped societies. Consequently, the previously existing tendency of the Le
Play School eased the development of rural sociology, and the acceptance of
modernization theory was not difficult in Turkey. As can be seen again in the
quotation given above, the sociologists in Turkey defined modernization theory and
the developments in the sociology discipline in the world as “American Le
Play’ism.” Due to that, it is proper to say that the development and the dominance of
modernization theory in the world were understood as the development and the
dominance of the Le Play School by the Turkish scholars. As has been shown from
the beginning of this chapter, these two approaches and theorizations were not that
much different from each other.
The common characteristic that can be observed in most of the rural
sociology studies is the goal to gather as much information as possible on the reality
100 Fındıkoglu, Le Play, p. 93. “…üç yıl önce Erzurum’da kurulan ve simdilik iki Fakülteli olan
Üniversitenin ögretim programı, Amerikan Le Play’ciliginden mülhem bir yenilik tasıyor: Köy
sosyolojisinin ve köy monograficiliginin ziraî ekonomi tedrisatı içinde ehemmiyetli bir yer isgal
etmesi. Eserimiz için kaleme alınmıs bir raporda su husus belirtiliyor: ‘…Köy sosyolojisi,
Üniversitenin Ziraat Fakültesi programında mevcuttur ve Türkiyede öyle zannediyorum ki ilk defa
olarak Üniversitemizde okutulmaktadır. Çünkü, bizim Üniversite, Nebraska Üniversitesini model
olarak almıstır.’”
61
of the villages and the peasants by using survey techniques. When the rural sociology
studies are analyzed it can be seen that these studies were mostly conducted for
learning how people lived in the villages and how they culturally behaved. In these
studies, in addition to the sections in which the material conditions of the peasants
and the villages were told, the cultural habits that were peculiar to those regions were
told in great detail. The peasants’ marital attitudes, the existence of blood vendettas,
and historical and geographical characteristics were common issues that are
discussed in these studies. In general, the everyday habits of the residents of the
villages were discussed with a straightforward phrasing. The phrasing of Cavit Orhan
Tütengil in his “hsaniye Köyü ncelemesi” (The Survey of
hsaniye Village) can be
given as a typical example of this style:
A moderate villager passes one day in winter as such: He goes to the
forest in the morning to gather the wood that he needs. He grinds flour,
goes to the city to buy the needs of his home. Or he goes hunting, he
joins those who gather in the village room and talks to them. … At noon
he comes home, eats his lunch, rests for a while. After that he goes to the
field and continues his work. He collects the stones from the field for
some time, shapes the water channels, piles up the bushes in one place
for burning them. He returns home as the sun sets.101
Another common characteristic can be seen in the unit of analysis that was
chosen in almost all of these studies, the peasant family or household. The most
important aspect of Le Play sociology, which is to conduct monographic studies
through household types, was practiced in these studies. According to Le Play’s
sociological approach families are the smallest observable group in society, which is
why the family was chosen as the unit of analysis in most of the village monographs.
The rural families are observed through their income and expenditure budgets. As
101 Tütengil, "
hsaniye," p. 54. “Orta halli bir köylü kısın bir gününü söyle geçirir: Sabahleyin evinin
ihtiyacı olan odunu getirmek üzere ormana gider. Un ögütür, sehre giderek evinin ihtiyaçlarını satın
alır. Yahut ava gider, köy odasının yerinde birikenlere katılarak sohbet eder. … Ögle vakti eve gelir,
yemegini yer, biraz dinlenir. Sonra tekrar tarlaya giderek isine devam eder. Bir aralık tarlanın
taslarını toplar, su yolarını düzeltir çalıları yakmak üzere bir yere yıgar. Gün batarken evine döner.”
62
Aslıhan Ögün Boyacıoglu said, “according to Le Play the budgets acquire the
gathering of the definite knowledge of the structure and the functions of the family
and at the same time present a reliable base in the creation of the family types and in
comparing the differing family types.”102 Le Play tried to understand the general
attitudes and working conditions of the working class families through the analysis
of their incomes and expenditures. In this way, he thought that he could also obtain
the knowledge of the “basic moral codes of the society,”103 which provide the basic
knowledge for the preparation of his social reform project.
Not only did he accept the family organization as the basic unit of the society,
but he also gave an important role to the family in his proposed social model.
According to him “social peace” could only be achieved through understanding
“social reality,” and his reality was based on the protection of the existing social
hierarchy without causing any impact.104 The traditional family organizations were
considered by Le Play as the main social tools that held the existing social hierarchy
together. For this reason, the social reform projects were needed to be prepared
according to the moral codes and the “realities” of the existing family structures.
The Turkish village monographs followed the same path during this period.
In these studies various family types were chosen from the village according to their
incomes and they were evaluated through their budgets, which were prepared by
calculating their incomes and expenditures. These income-expenditure budgets were
typical in the rural sociology studies conducted during this period. Although there are
102 Boyacıoglu and Boyacıoglu, "Prens/Sultanzâde," p. 301. “Le Play’ye göre, bütçe, ailenin yapısı ve
fonksiyonlarına iliskin kesin bilgi elde edilmesini saglamaktadır ve aynı zamanda aile tipleri
olusturmada ve farklı aile tiplerin karsılastırmada güvenilir bir altyapı olusturmaktadır.”
103 James Coleman, "Sosyolojik Çözümleme ve Sosyal Politika," in Sosyolojik Çözümlemenin Tarihi,
ed. Tom Bottomore and Robert Nisbet (Ankara: Ayraç Yayınevi, 1997), p. 673.
104 Elwitt, "Social Science," p. 212.
63
some differences among their levels of analysis, these budget lists were prepared
with great attention according to the Le Play’s sociological approach.
Towards the end of the period, both with the effect of American rural
sociology and with the directions of the developmentalist perspective in general, the
tendency to make comparisons with the studies that had been conducted earlier
began. In his way they tried to see the changing factors in the same research area.
While the level of analysis in most of the studies during the early 1950s was static,
the definition of the changing factors in the social structures became the most
important emphasis in many sociological studies towards the end of the period.
Especially with the increase in the discussions of the “rural development problem” in
the late 1950s, the comparisons between the rural structures increased and in this
way efforts were made to observe the change or development process in the rural
structures.
Two important studies are meaningful in showing how the change/
development processes became an important aspect in rural sociology studies during
this period. The first one is a study of
brahim Yasa that was conducted on
Hasanoglan village twenty-five years after his first survey. He compares the
changing conditions in the same village with this new study and shows a dynamic
and changing social structure.105 Similarly, Cahit Tanyol during the publication of his
study on Elifoglu village, which he conducted in 1951, visited the village in 1964 for
the second time and compared the changing conditions of the village.106 In the
previous studies these kinds of attempts had not been seen in the rural sociology
studies. Most of the research had been conducted as if the villages and the peasants
were static, observable objects. Towards the end of the period the rural sociology
105
brahim Yasa, Yirmibes Yıl Sonra Hasanoglan Köyü-Karsılastırmalı Bir Toplumbilimsel Arastırma
(Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları, 1969).
106 Tanyol, "Elifoglu."
64
studies in Turkey began to analyze the rural structures as more dynamic factors in
society and in many of these studies the emphasis was given not only to the
“existing” conditions but to the “changing” factors in the villages.
In this way the proponents of the Le Play-Sabahaddin approach departed from
their previous perspective and moved closer to the Berkes-Boran approach in their
level of analysis. Without abandoning their previous intentions and methodological
apprehensions, they developed their sociological studies not only to reach “real”
knowledge of the peasantry, but also to present the “change” and make conclusions
from their studies. The greatest transformation among the followers of the Le Play-
Sabahaddin School occurred in Cahit Tanyol and Cavit Orhan Tütengil. These two
drew closer to a more socialist perspective during the 1960s and 1970s. Especially
Cahit Tanyol left the rural sociology field with the pretext of “looking at Turkey’s
problems from a comprehensive perspective.”107
“The real knowledge of the peasantry,” which was presented in the rural
sociology studies during this period, revealed their underdeveloped living conditions.
As will be shown in the following chapters in the economic, political and cultural
spheres, the peasants became visible and “real” also with the theoretical
developments of the period. The social science researchers came across “real”
peasants during their sociological studies and efforts were made to overcome the
underdeveloped conditions of the peasants in more “scientific” ways. The rural
development problem would be discussed in the following periods through the
realities that were gathered by the rural sociology studies in this period.
The Le Play-Sabahaddin sociological perspective and American rural
sociology discipline converged into a similar developmentalist perspective during
107 Cahit Gelekçi, "Cahit Tanyol (1914- )," in Türkiye'de Sosyoloji (simler-Eserler) I, ed. M. Çagatay
Özdemir (Ankara: Phoneix Yayınevi, 2008), p. 995. “Türkiye’nin meselelerine bir bütün olarak
bakmak istedigi için”
65
this period. As a result of these developments, in the academic and theoretical sphere
the peasantry in Turkey was redefined through academic interaction and struggles. In
the end, the peasantry was defined not only on an ideological/theoretical level, but
mostly as a “real” entity as a result of the sociological studies that were conducted
during this period. As will be shown in the next chapter, with the transformation of
the rural structure the peasants became an undeniable “reality,” and they were
recognized by everyone with the rural migration movements, too. The peasants
became real factors from the theoretical perspective as well. During this period, the
peasants were transformed into another form, which could not be taken under control
only with the ideological mechanisms by isolating them from the market relations.
With the transformation of the rural structure the peasants began to be shaped
by the capitalist market relations. New, great and broader projects were needed in
order to take this new form of peasantry under control. To apply such broad social
projects, the existing “real” knowledge of the peasantry was needed, which had not
been previously required or existed. The task of gathering this knowledge of the
peasantry was undertaken by the representatives of the Le Play-Sabahaddin
sociological approach, who were silenced and waited under the domination of the
Durkheimian approach in Turkey. By revealing the reality of the peasants through
sociological studies, the social reform projects were reshaped. As a result of the
theoretical developments and their practical consequences in the sociology discipline
during this period, the peasantry became a “real” entity recognized and considered
more than ever.
66
CHAPTER III
PEASANTS MOVING TOWARDS CITIES: THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE
RURAL STRUCTURE, RURAL MIGRATION AND THE GECEKONDU
My uncle always would warn me. He would
say: Beware not to live in the cities, do not
settle. Because the tribe and clan of the ones
that settle in the city cannot be distinguished.
Greatness and dignity are only in nomadism
and turkmenism.
Selçukname108
Migration, regardless of its main reason, is one of the indicators of a great
social transformation. While trying to analyze the economic structures of societies, to
maintain the reasons and consequences of migration would also mean showing the
main components of the economic structures. For this reason, in this chapter, in
which the transformation of rural structures in Turkey in the 1945-1960 period will
be analyzed, migration will be the starting point, followed by the social effects of the
transformation in the economic sphere.
Mehmet C. Ecevit said the following on the dual structure of internal
migration conceptualizations: “The analysis of the rural relations is a must in
understanding the internal migration; but at the same time the conceptualization of
the internal migration effects on the analysis of the rural relations. Due to that, a
certain migration theory, approach or interpretation becomes useful in the analysis of
rural relations in reverse.”109 This situation is valid for the most part in the analysis
108 Quoted by Cavit Orhan Tütengil, "Köyden Sehre Göçün Sebepleri ve Neticeleri," in 1961-1962
Ders Yılı Sosyoloji Konferansları (
stanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası, 1962), p. 96. “Dayım daima bana
nasihat ederdi. Derdi ki: Sakın olmaya ki sehirlerde oturasınız, yerlesesiniz. Zira Sehirde oturanların
“eli” ve boyu malûm olmaz. Büyüklük ve asalet ancak göçebelikte ve türkmenliktedir.”
109 Mehmet C. Ecevit, "
ç Göçün Unutulan Kaynakları: Tarımsal Farklılasma ve Dönüsüm
Dinamikleri," in II. Ulusal Sosyoloji Kongresi: Toplum ve Göç (20-22 Kasım 1996, Mersin) (Ankara:
Devlet
statistik Enstitüsü, 1997), p. 494. “ç göçün anlasılmasında kırsal iliskilerin analizi bir
zorunluluktur; ama, aynı zamanda, iç göçün kavramlastırılma biçimi de, kırsal iliskilerin analizini
67
of the rural migration, which occurred intensely especially in the 1950-1960 period
in Turkey. Actually, the transformation of rural structures and internal migration are
intertwined problems, so it is not possible to discuss one without the other when you
begin to analyze. However, more important than that, the main problem that is stated
also by Ecevit above, the conceptualization or problematization of the problem can
also define the other side or can affect profoundly the results of the analysis. This
problem in conceptualizing migration or rural relations mostly is missing or forgotten
in the analysis of rural structures. In this chapter, this transitive character of the
subject in question will be kept in mind, and by mentioning some settled problems in
the definition of the relation of rural transformation and migration, the
epistemological roots of this problematic will be analyzed.
As in the other chapters of this study, the main purpose will be to determine
the characteristics of the peasants, which were accepted and defined in terms of a
“realist” perspective that was different from the previous period’s definitions. The
“new” peasantry, which was constituted as a result of the transformation of the rural
structures, acquired a different reality from the peasantry of the previous period,
which had been defined on an abstract, imaginary level. In addition to the new
ideological definitions of the peasantry, the new rural economic relations, which
were created as a result of economic transformation, created a “tangible” peasantry.
As a result of the transformation of the rural structures the peasants moved towards
the cities, becoming more “visible” in every way. This new perception of the
definition of peasants was created as a result of the rural transformation. This may be
accepted as the most important development in terms of the peasantry during this
etkiler. Bu nedenle, belirli bir göç kuramı, anlayısı veya yorumu tersine dönüp kırsal iliskilerin analizi
için de kullanılır hale gelir.”
68
period. As the most observable fact of the economic transformation during this
period, rural migration is the subject of analysis in this chapter.
Before examining rural migration and the new urbanization process, a
discussion of the economic developments of the period, which were the main reasons
of the transformation of the rural structures, is necessary. The transformation of the
rural structures occurred not only due to the economic policies that were inherited
from the previous period, but also as a result of the newly preferred changing
economic policies during the post-war period.
The Change in Economic Policies in the Post-War Period
The period in question began with discussions on the economic condition of
the peasantry. The Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma Kanunu (LRL, Land Reform Law), the
discussions on which had been postponed in the previous period, began to be
discussed in the Assembly just after the war.110 The discussions on this law were
brought to an end with the foundation of the opposition parties and the passage to the
multi-party system. The effects of this law on the rural migration will be discussed in
detail below. However, it can be asserted that, with this law, a new era began with a
problem that occurred in maintaining the restructuring process of the rural structures
and the peasants’ lives.
During this period rural life changed dramatically. The main reason for this
change can be found in the economic policies that were preferred in the post-war
period. After the war the European economy was in need of reconstruction so as not
to affect negatively on world economy. As the war ended, there were two different
110 For a general review of this Law and the other Land Reform tries of the 1960s and 1970s, see
Resat Aktan, "Analysis and Assessment of Land Reform Activities in Turkey," Ankara Üniversitesi
Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 26, no. 3 (1971).
69
economic policy preferences between the victorious countries of the war: On the one
side, there was the Soviet Union and socialist planned development and on the other,
the capitalist development, which was organized according to the international
division of labor in economic activities. Turkey chose to join the capitalist
development camp, and this alliance with the capitalist Western Bloc necessitated
some fundamental changes in the economic structure.
Turkey entered into direct economic and political relations with the Western
Bloc and the US, as the rising hegemonic power in the world, around the economic
reconstruction process of Europe during the post-war period. In this period, as Tolga
Tören writes, “the main dynamic that would maintain the developments was the
internationalization of the productive capital.”111 During the pre-war years and
especially after the world economic crisis of 1929, the world economy had become
introverted. However, after the war, the direction of the world economic
developments followed a new path and realized itself through the international
circulation of capital. In order to secure this new economic direction the creation of
new economically applicable tools became necessary. In this way, in order to
maintain the international currency with a stable exchange value, the Bretton Woods
System was accepted in 1944.
According to the Bretton Woods system, the US dollar was accepted as an
international exchange tool. In order to control and secure the operation of this
system, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was established as a financial tool.
Another foundation was the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(IBRD), which would control the international investments according to this new
economic system. As the third leg of the Bretton Woods System, the General
111 Tolga Tören, Yeniden Yapılanan Dünya Ekonomisinde Marshall Planı ve Türkiye Uygulaması
(
stanbul: Sosyal Arastırmalar Vakfı, 2007), p. 31. “yasanan gelismeleri belirleyen temel dinamik
üretici sermayenin uluslararasılasmasıdır.”
70
Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), which would organize and control the
international trade, was accepted.112
Another important aspect of this system was the maintenance of the
international division of labor in economic activities. In order to make this system
work, an international division of labor was established in between the developed
countries, the economies of which were based on industrial production and could sell
industrial commodity to all of the world, and underdeveloped countries, whose
economy were based on agricultural production and could sell agricultural
commodities and raw materials to the developed countries for the continuation of
their industrial production. According to this international division of labor, Turkey
was given the role of supplying food and raw materials to European countries during
their reconstruction process.
It is often said that if the DP had not come to power in the 1950 elections, it
would not have changed the economic political preferences during the 1950–1960
period in general. The traces of this assertion can be found in the RPP’s economic
practices in the post-war period. The RPP mostly tried to accommodate the country’s
economic policies according to this newly structured world economic system. The
first signs of this economic adjustment practices were seen in the rejection of the
industrial plan which had been prepared by the etatist hardliners within the RPP. The
preparation of this plan had begun in 1944, while the war continued. The
commission had submitted the report to the government on 7 May 1945, and after the
final reports, the plan, which was called vedili Sanayi Planı (Urgent Industrial Plan),
had been completed on 8 March 1946.113 However, this plan was not put into
practice. Based on industrial development and prepared through the notions of
112 Ibid., pp. 31-32.
113 L. Hilal Akgül, "The Transition from Industrial Plans to Development Planning in Turkey after the
Second World War," International Journal of Turcologia II, no. 4 (Autumn 2007), p. 76.
71
import-substitutionist “self-sufficiency,”114 the general characteristics of this plan did
not fit into the new economic system created in the post-war period. As a part of the
Western Bloc, Turkey had to accommodate itself to this new situation. For this
reason, instead of adopting a plan shaped by the pre-war economic mentality, a new
plan was prepared, which reshaped the economic approach of the state afterwards.
The new plan was called the 1947 Türkiye ktisadi Kalkınma Planı (1947
Economic Development Plan of Turkey), commonly known as the Vaner Planı
(Vaner Plan), after the head of the preparing commission Kemal Süleyman
Vaner. This plan was prepared by the bureaucrats in the RPP who supported the
priority of private capital over the etatist mentality. The main logic of this plan
was totally different from that of the previous one, as evidenced in the financing
mentality of the investments that were proposed in both plans. In the first plan
the investments were to be financed with the domestic sources, but according to
the other plan, forty-nine percent of domestic investments needed to be provided by
foreign-based aid and credits.115 While accelerating the integration of Turkey into
the newly structured world market, this plan sought to pave the way for the
cooperation of the Turkish industrial and commercial bourgeoisie with
international capitalism.
The second adjustment practices in the economic system were held in order
for Turkey to become a member of the IMF. On 7 September 1946, the RPP
government announced the devaluation of the lira. This intervention into the
currency of the country was done to improve the import-export regime, which was
allowed to be more liberal than it had been before. The changing post-war
economic conditions required this adjustment. This devaluation was undertaken in
114 Ibid., p. 77.
115 Yakup Kepenek and Nurhan Yentürk, Türkiye Ekonomisi, 15. ed. (
stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi,
2004), pp. 91-92.
72
order to increase the foreign exchange flow into the country. In fact, there was no
need to do this, as in 1946, the foreign currency reserves equaled a hundred
million dollars. Turkey's treasury had 250 million dollars in foreign exchange
reserves at the end of the war.116 Two main reasons were behind this devaluation
decision. First, the currency reserves were to obtain money from the US through the
Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan. The second was Turkey's desire to use a right
which would be limited after it had become a member of the IMF.117 Soon after
that time, Turkey became a member of the IMF on 19 February 1947. Together
with the acceptance of Turkey in the Marshall Plan on July 1948, Turkey became
officially a member of the new economic order of the post-war period.
The new development program in which Turkey also took part during the
reconstruction of the new world order was officially called the European Recovery
Plan, but widely known as the Marshall Plan. This plan was first announced by US
Secretary of State George Marshall on 5 June 1947 during a speech at the opening
ceremony of Harvard University. The plan mainly was based on the necessity for a
new and widespread development program for the reconstruction of Europe, which
had been mostly ruined during the war. The Marshall Plan also was prepared in
order to weaken the alternative paths of economic and social development, such as
the socialist-statist development plans of the Soviet Union. Due to that, from the
very beginning, the economic content of the Marshall Plan was also framed with a
solid anti-communist discourse.118 The Marshall Plan and its practices will not be
analyzed here in all of its aspects, but while defining the rural migration below, the
effects of the Marshall Plan on the change of the rural structure will be
116 Korkut Boratav, "
ktisat Tarihi (1908-1980)," in Türkiye Tarihi, Vol. 4, Çagdas Türkiye 1908-1980
(
stanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1995), p. 315.
117 Kepenek and Yentürk, Türkiye Ekonomisi, p. 118.
118 Tören, Yeniden Yapılanan, p. 48.
73
underlined.119 However, it can be asserted that with the Marshall Plan, Turkey’s
economic preferences were reshaped and Turkey preferred a much more
agriculture-based economic development strategy. According to the Plan, the role
of Turkey during the reconstruction process of Europe was that of granary of
Europe. Russell Dorr, the head of the Marshall Plan Turkey Mission, defined the
role of Turkey as follows:
The wheat production, which increased after the Turkey’s economic
plan, would help feeding the armies of the free world and the workers of
the defence industry factories. The empowerment of the free world can
only be obtained by the export of the requirements such as food
products, coal and tools to her friends as a result of the increase in the
agricultural production in Turkey.120
As can be seen clearly in this statement, the role of Turkey was to feed the
European workers in their production for the “triumph of the capitalist world.” In
order to feed them, Turkey changed its economic mentality from industry to
agriculture based production.
In relation to these economic adjustment policies some of the prominent
members of the above-mentioned newly founded international financial
associations prepared some reports that gave advice to the Turkish administration
on economic policies. Two of them was very influential and need to be mentioned
in here. The first was prepared by a committee headed by Max Weston Thornburg
in 1949. Thornburg was the head of the California Standard Oil Company
Engineers Committee and also an advisor on oil for the US government. He later
became the personal economic advisor to Menderes in 1959.121 The Thornburg
119 For a detailed analysis of the Marshall Plan and its effect on Turkish economy, see Ibid.
120 Ecehan Balta, "1945 Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma Kanunu: Reform Mu Karsı Reform Mu?," Praksis,
no. 5 (Winter 2002), p. 283. “Türkiye’nin iktisadi plan sonucunda çogalan bugday mahsulü, hür
dünyanın ordularını ve savunma fabrikalarında çalısan isçilerini beslemeye yardım edecektir. Hür
dünyanın güçlenmesi, Türkiye’de tarımsal üretimin artmasıyla dostlarına hayatı ihtiyaçları olan gıda
maddeleri, kömür ve malzeme ihracatıyla elde edilebilir.”
121 Ahmad, Demokrasi Sürecinde, p. 125.
74
Report was published as Turkey: An Economic Appraisal,122 and mainly stressed
the abolition of the etatist regime. This was the most significant characteristic of
this report. The recommendations mentioned in the report, in fact, put forward the
stipulations for the continuation of American aid.123 With reference to the coming
elections, Thornburg said, “no matter how the voting may result, seems probable
that the period of one-party dictatorship has come to an end. The tide is running
against the extremists of Etatism”.124
The second report might be accepted as being complementary to the
Thornburg Report. This report was prepared by a mission charged by the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development with the personal
consent of President Celal Bayar.125 This report, in short, repeated the
recommendations of the previous one. However, this report was not written as
giving advice to the coming desired government, but to the new government of
which the authors approved.
The American reporters’ development strategies for the new government
attached more importance to agricultural production and advised the complete
abandonment of the statist industrial development. As in line with the Marshall Plan,
according to these plans Turkey had to be the agricultural storehouse of Europe and
produce especially more grains with the help of foreign investment and more liberal
credit policies. A rapid mechanization of agricultural production was needed and in
order to obtain the farm-market connection new highways had to be constructed
122 Max Weston Thornburg, Turkey: An Economic Appraisal (New York: The Twentieth Century
Fund, 1949).
123 Ibid., p. 255.
124 Ibid., p. 198.
125 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), The Economy of Turkey: An
Analysis and Recommendations for a Development Program, Report of a Mission Sponsored by the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Collaboration with the Government of the
Turkish Republic (Washington, D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Publication, 1951).
75
while giving up the railroad policies of the statist Republican regime. The economic
mentality during the previous period had been based on the development of the
railroads in order to support industrial production. This perspective would be
changed with the establishment of highways in order to maintain the connection of
agriculture production with the market.126 The monetary support of all these
achievements would be given by the newly founded creditor organizations, which
were under the direct control of the new leader of the capitalist world economy, the
United States.127
The main motive of the US plans was the application of the modernizationist
paradigm, which was described in detail in the previous chapter. According to this
paradigm, first not all but some of the sectors in underdeveloped countries would be
modernized, after which development would spread to the other sectors gradually.
This sector was mostly the agricultural sector. It was believed that the existing social
structures would resist this modernization process and that development would only
be achieved by breaking the existing structure and replacing it with market-related
Western-type rural structures. Modernization theory was strengthen with the
hegemonic dominance of development economics in the post-war period. As a subdiscipline
of economy, development economics tried to define the economic
underdevelopment of the “non-Western” countries. This academic discipline mostly
dealt with the main reasons for the lack of production in these countries, and how
“productivity” could be increased.128 This understanding was a sub-division of
modernization theory in the field of economics. In order to achieve this goal,
126 Balta, "1945 Çiftçiyi," p. 283.
127 For a detailed analysis of the Turkish relations with the US on the credit agreements, see Feridun
Cemil Özcan, "U.S. Aid and Turkish Macroeconomic Policy: A Narration of the Aid Bargain Process
in the 1946-1958 Period," Turkish Yearbook, no. 34 (2003).
128 Fuat Ercan, Gelisme Yazını Açısından Modernizm, Kapitalizm ve Azgelismislik (
stanbul: Sarmal
Yayınevi, 1996), p. 91.
76
development economics reinstalled the modernizationist paradigm of “intervention”
in economics. With the effect of the Keynesian interventionist economic policies of
the inter-war period, development economics redefined economic intervention and
used it in the development plans and strategies of the post-war period. The economic
intervention paradigm mostly was applied by means of foreign credit aid programs in
underdeveloped countries.129
Thus, in the post-war period, the new world order was shaped through the
notions of development, intervention and productivity. Especially the practices to
increase productivity would be the main motivators in the economic plans. All kinds
of foreign credit and aid were organized according to this notion. Resat Aktan, one of
the most important economic experts of the period, said, “the most short cut way to
industrial development passes from agricultural development and consequently from
the increase in productivity.”130
Productivity became a magical word during this period and in all of the plans
mentioned above, economic proposals were created to achieve an increase in
productivity. In order to increase productivity in agriculture an intense mechanization
was recommended. The mechanization of agricultural production was undertaken
with the help of the intervention of international economic associations, which meant
foreign credit.
As will be discussed at length below, the mechanization of agricultural
production changed the rural structure of Turkey. It not only affected the rural
structure but also the living conditions of the peasants. Due to that, the adjustment
practices of Turkey to the new economic policies of the post-war period totally
129 Tören, Yeniden Yapılanan, pp. 41-42.
130 Resat Aktan, "Türkiye Ziraatinde Prodüktivite," Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi
Dergisi 13, no. 2 (1958), p. 48. “Sanayilesmeye giden en kestirme yol zirai kalkınma ve dolayısıyla
prodüktivite artısından geçer”
77
changed the overall structure of economic mentality, and also as a result, the
economic model. With the mechanization of the agricultural production and with the
creation of a new highway transport system, the previous period’s railway-industry
based development model was changed into one based on highway-agriculture
development. When the DP was in power, it continued the post-war RPP approach to
economics. The change in government also facilitated the execution of the plans. The
DP government would be most suitable than the RPP government for the new era, as
was stated by Thornburg in his report.
The effects of the mechanization of agricultural production created enormous
changes in the rural structure. However, the process of this change had complex
relations with the other developments in the country. Due to that, it would be wrong
to define the mechanization as the only reason for the change in the rural structure.
As was discussed above, in order to understand the scope of this change, rural
migration is the main focus in this study.
From the very first days in which the migration problem became the subject
of academic and popular research, the main question was to understand the reasons
for migration movements, which had become intensely noticeable. It was thought
that if the reason for the migration movements was understood, the actions which
were going to be taken to prevent them could be planned. However, from the 1950s,
when the first research on this subject began, the rural migration gradually increased
and continues even today. The reason for this increase has not been, of course, the
improper identification of the problem’s real cause, but lies in the problematization
of the migration activities. As
lhan Tekeli and Yigit Gülöksüz state, the theoretical
perception in conceptualizing the relation of the dissolution of the rural structure to
migration have been shaped by the activities that are undertaken to prevent the
78
migration movements until recently.131 For this reason, the relations between
capitalist development, modernization and urbanization have to maintain the axis of
understanding rural dissolution and rural migration.
Capitalism, Modernization and Urbanization
The formation of the first cities can be dated to 3500-2500 B.C. However, the
formation of cities in today’s context occurred with the development of capitalism. In
order to escape from the dominance of the aristocracy in the countryside, bourgeoisie
created the free market and production facilities in cities. This increased the
importance of the cities as centers of economic activity. Simultaneously with the
creation of the first industrial cities in England during the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, the rural structure disintegrated and the dispossessed peasants began to
migrate to the cities, which made the modern cities the center of production and
consumption, and thereby centers of capitalism. Within this framework the extent of
urbanization is closely related to the extent of the dissolution of rural structures.
The development of the cities and capitalism is a part of the modernization
process.
lhan Tekeli categorizes the modernization process in four interrelated
dimensions. The first and main economic dimension is the development of
capitalism. The second is the creation of social organization and the knowledge of
life style, that is to say, the creation of positivist norms. The third dimension, which
occurred with the transformation from traditionalism to individualism, is the creation
131
lhan Tekeli and Yigit Gülöksüz, "Kentlesme, Kentlilesme ve Türkiye Deneyimi," in Cumhuriyet
Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Vol.5 (
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 1983), pp. 1234-1238.
79
of “citizenship.” The last dimension, as the administrative scope in which all of the
other dimensions unite, is the creation of the nation-state.132
Although there were some differences in these interrelated dimensions of the
modernization process in late capitalist societies, basically the creation of modern
societies followed a similar process. Within this framework, during the Ottoman-
Turkish modernization process some distinctive forms were created and both in the
creation of administrations that are peculiar to capitalism and in urbanization
process, Ottoman-Turkish society passed through a more rapid transition process. In
order to get rid of the social tensions, which were anticipated due to this rapid
transition, an ideological positioning against urbanization emerged during the first
years of the Republican period. As a result, the populist/peasantist approach, which
included the anti-urban glorification of the village, became a dominant ideology in
controlling this social tension.133
Although the cities during the Ottoman period were places in which capitalist
development spread, the articulation of the countryside to the capitalist relations of
production occurred in the later periods. During the first years of the Republic, while
the older city settlements were redesigned according to a modernization mentality,
the modernization of the countryside, which could bring capitalist relations to the
villages, was not aspired. Due to that capitalist relations did not spread to the
countryside and this resulted in a limited connection between the countryside with
the cities. The development level of the relations of production did not necessitate
the overall capitalization of the countryside during the first years of the Republic.
132 Tekeli, "Bir Modernlesme Projesi," p. 137.
133 The definition of the populist/peasants approach can be found in Chapter One, and also see
Karaömerlioglu, Orada Bir Köy Var Uzakta; Zafer Toprak, "Halkçılık
deolojisinin Olusumu," in
Atatürk Döneminin Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Sorunları (
stanbul:
stanbul Yüksek
ktisat ve Ticaret
Mektebi Mezunları Dernegi, 1977).
80
This situation also coincided with the nation-state approach of the Republican
administration. Tekeli writes that:
[The nation-state structure of the Turkish Republic] was not based on
national consciousness, which is created while maintaining the market
unity of a country that became industrialized in market mechanism. It
was a nation-state which emerged during the dissolution of an empire
and whose national consciousness would substantially be recreated.
Although the nation-state was founded politically, it would be recreated
on the social consciousness level.134
For this reason, theoretically, before capitalist relations spread out from the
cities that are able to adopt the desired nation-state understanding, this new
consciousness has to be settled in the countryside. That is when the united market
mentality needed for capitalist development can be established throughout the
country and the countryside can be accepted as a part of this united capitalist entity.
This process is determined with the new nation-state’s requirements.
The Republican regime tried to stop the destructive forces of capitalism that
affected the rural structures. The Kemalist regime first exerted the dominance and
control over the cities according to the new nation state’s requirements. The new
state tried to obstruct the dissolution of the rural structures in order to protect the
cities from the rural migration movements. As Tarık Sengül writes, “the Kemalist
nation-state project experienced the discomfort of entering the modernization project
from the periphery”.135 In order to overcome this discomfort, the Kemalist
modernization project created positivist citizenship norms, and according to these
new norms, the Kemalist administration tried to give a new consciousness to the
components of the rural structure that there was no need to move to the cities.
134 Tekeli, "Bir Modernlesme Projesi," p. 145. “[Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin ulus-devlet yapısı] piyasa
mekanizması içinde sanayilesen bir ülkenin pazar bütünlügünü saglarken olusturdugu ulus bilincine
dayanmaz. Bir imparatorlugun parçalanması sırasında ortaya çıkmıs, ulus bilinci büyük ölçüde
yeniden insa edilecek bir ulus-devlettir. Ulus-devlet siyasal olarak kurulmus olmasına ragmen,
toplumsal bilinç düzeyinde yeniden olusturulacaktır.”
135 H. Tarık Sengül, Kentsel Çeliski ve Siyaset: Kapitalist Kentlesme Süreçleri Üzerine Yazılar
(
stanbul: Dünya Yerel Yönetim ve Demokrasi Akademisi, 2001), p. 75. “Kemalist ulus-devlet projesi
modernite projesine çevreden girmenin sıkıntısını yasamıstır.”
81
However, this consciousness-giving process was interrupted, mostly as a
result of the compulsion for change in the international system. Turkey sought a
place for itself in the international economic restructuring activities of the post-war
period, as told above. Korkut Boratav describes this new economic preference of
Turkey as “a different articulation attempt with the world economy.” According to
him, this transition process is “the unification tendency with the world economy that
was based on the specialization on raw materials.”136 According to the new economic
development model, an increase in agricultural production and specialization in
agricultural products in the world market were anticipated. In order to achieve that,
policies calculated to increase agricultural production were put into practice and to
establish the substructure facilities needed to transport the production to the
international markets.
In terms of urbanization, this necessitated abandoning the previous economic
policies. In addition to that, the countryside had to be restructured in order to create
the market-based production. The obstructions in the way to creating such an
economic order had to be abolished, especially in the countryside. Thus, it became
necessary to rapidly commercialize the rural structure and adjust to the newly created
world order. This was mostly done with the transformation of the dominant but fairly
unproductive petite production in agriculture, which was rooted in the Turkish
economy.
With the commercialization of the rural structures, the old “to keep the
peasants in their village” mentality needed to be changed. The unified market
mentality along the borders of the nation-state was not totally formed when it was hit
by this commercialization of agriculture. The need to adjust to the new economic
136 Korkut Boratav, Türkiye ktisat Tarihi 1908-2002, 8. ed. (
stanbul:
mge Kitabevi, 1998), p. 101.
“dünya ekonomisiyle farklı bir eklemlenme denemesi”; “dünya ekonomisi ile hammaddeci
ihtisaslasmaya dayanan bütünlesme egilimi”.
82
policies developed capitalism in the countryside more rapidly than desired, and this
affected the ideological perception of the creation of a unified and controlled market.
As a result, the dissolution of the rural structure occurred more quickly than the
Kemalist ideologues had predicted. The dissolution brought rural migration
movements, and due to the high level of urbanization during this period, a new kind
of urbanization form, squatting or gecekondu building activities, was created.
In the ideological arena the citizenship mentality that the new nation-state
tried to create would be abandoned and instead a new kind of unifying element was
needed. During this period this unifying element, as a result of covering the
requirements of the international bloc which Turkey had joined, would most of the
time be built by the anti-communist discourse.137 This discourse was especially used
for the integration of the peasants with the country’s ideological and political
directions.
In order to explain the fact of peasants moving toward cities during the 1945-
1960 period, all of the components of the rural structures need to be taken into
consideration. Actually, as was said at the beginning, no matter which one was
chosen from the rural structures and rural migration as the starting point, any analysis
that did not include the other would be missing. This missing point leads to a
common misunderstanding in the research dealing with especially the rural
migration, which is, as
lhan Tekeli says, the settling of a “mechanical” approach on
explaining the reasons of the rural migration. 138
137 For the development of anti-communist discourse during this period, see Chapter Four.
138
lhan Tekeli, "Türkiye'nin Göç Tarihindeki Degisik Kategoriler," in Kökler ve Yollar: Türkiye'de
Göç Süreçleri, ed. Ayhan Kaya and Bahar Sahin (
stanbul:
stanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları,
2007);
lhan Tekeli, "Türkiye Tarımında Mekanizasyonun Yarattıgı Yapısal Dönüsümler ve Kırdan
Kopus Süreçleri," in Yerlesme Yapısının Uyum Süreci Olarak ç Göçler, ed.
lhan Tekeli and Leila
Erder (Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1978).
83
The Land Reform Law, the Marshall Plan, the Smallholder Peasantry and Migration
In order to understand the rural migration movements in the 1945-1960
period, the main rural economic developments need to be remembered and their
relation to the migration movements maintained. Although all of these developments
are so broad and could be the subjects of the independent research, here only their
relation to the rural migration movements will be discussed. In general, as is asserted
in this study, the main reasons for the rural migration movements in the 1945-1960
period can be sought in the united effects of the economic developments during these
years. Accordingly, if it is proper to say the last words from the beginning, the Land
Reform Law (LRL) created the juridical substructure of the increase in the amount of
cultivated land, which affected the migration movements; the Marshall Plan affected
the increase in the amount of cultivated lands, and as a result created the technical
possibilities for the rural migration; and at last, as the dominant production unit, the
small peasantry, which would continue to exist despite the increasing
commercialization in the rural production, made up the human resource of the rural
migration.
It is not possible to analyze all of these components with all of their aspects
here; for that reason only their relation to rural migration will be emphasized. The
purpose of portraying this relation in between all of these developments is to
emphasize the importance of this relation in the creation of rural migration
movements. This section can be understood as a summary of all of these
developments, and due to that, the general process will be stressed more than
presenting the statistical information of the developments. In order to avoid from
84
repetition, the statistics will be given in the section in which rural migration is
discussed in detail.
LRL is mostly defined as the visible reason for the transition to multi-party
politics. The oppositional groups in the Assembly for the first time became visible
and increased their opposition to the single-party government during the discussions
on the preparation of the Law in the Assembly. The oppositional alliance, which
became united as a result of these discussions, paved the way for the establishment of
the would-be power party, the DP. Actually, these discussions and the formation of
the oppositional parties thereafter show that the following period mostly would be
shaped around discussions on agriculture and the peasantry.
LRL can be defined, in general, as a law that aimed to distribute land to
peasants who had no or insufficient lands to sustain themselves. The land was
planned to be distributed from both big landowners’ estates and the lands that were
already owned by the state. With this law the state officials hoped to overcome the
political and economic problems that had occurred during and after the Second
World War.139 However, the law was not put into practice as it had first been
accepted. Especially during the 1945-1950 period the RPP government was hesitant
on putting into practice for lessening the oppositions’ criticisms, and as a result the
distribution of land continued at a very slow pace. During the following years, the
law’s most radical articles were abolished and during the DP’s power years the LRL
became only a tool for opening treasury-owned uncultivated lands to agricultural
production. From 1947 to 1962, 1.8 million hectares of land were distributed to
139 For discussions and comments on the LRL, see Balta, "1945 Çiftçiyi."; Ömer Lütfi Barkan,
"'Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma Kanunu' ve Türkiye'de Zirai Bir Reformun Ana Meseleleri," in Türkiye'de
Toprak Meselesi (
stanbul: Gözlem Yayınları, 1980); Süleyman
nan, "Toprak Reformunun En Çok
Tartısılan Maddesi: 17. Madde," Journal of Historical Studies 3 (2005); Asım Karaömerlioglu, "Bir
Tepeden Reform Denemesi: "Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma Kanununun" Hikayesi," Birikim, no. 107
(March, 1998); Çaglar Keyder and Sevket Pamuk, "1945 Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma Kanunu Üzerine
Tezler," Yapıt 8 (December/January 1984/1985).
85
360,000 families with the law. Only 8,600 hectares of these were not state-owned
lands and were confiscated from private estates during the execution of the law.140
The distribution of the land to the peasants by using LRL accelerated during the DP
government. Actually the DP was against the law at the beginning; however, with the
changes in the law that had been made before its power years, the DP became the
greatest practitioner of this law. Two main factors were effective in this increase. The
first one was the need to distribute land to the Turkish immigrants that entered the
country from Bulgaria after 1951. The other one was the mechanization of
agriculture. With the Marshall Plan the mechanization of agriculture enabled the
cultivation of new lands, which mostly were distributed with this law.141
The LRL had two different effects on the rural migration. The first, which
will be analyzed in detail in the section in which the Marshall Plan is discussed, had
a postponement effect on the rural migration movements. Especially with the
distribution of land to landless and sharecropper peasants in small amounts through
this law, their highly expected contribution to the migration after the mechanization
of the agriculture was delayed. When the rural migration is discussed in the academic
literature, the possession of land by these groups, however in small and inadequate
amounts, with LRL is mostly not mentioned. The second was in the ideological
context, and an ideological differentiation occurred during the execution of the LRL.
Some of the articles of the law, which had existed in its initial draft but had been
excluded in its final version, show that the ideological mentality of the law rested on
the peasantist ideology of the single-party period. According to this mentality, they
would try to obstruct the effects of the transformation of the rural structure, which
might occur after the land distribution, to the cities. In order to achieve this end, they
140 Feroz Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey (London; New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 115.
141 Zvi Yehuda Hershlag, Turkey: The Challenge of Growth (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968), p. 158.
86
tried to obstruct the rural migration and tried to keep the peasants in their villages by
ideological manipulation. The peasantist ideology basically feared the
proletarianization of the dispossessed peasants and their move to the cities, as had
been seen in the industrialization process of the Western countries. The social
problems which might occur after such a transformation shaped this attitude.142
These articles were criticized by the opposition in the Assembly and as a result they
were removed from the law. Actually, when this development is reevaluated from
another angle, it can be asserted that, even if the would-be DP members had not
criticized these articles, the RPP might have removed them from the law, because,
the RPP had already begun to adjust the country’s economic and political policies
according to the new world order, and they might be aware that these “old”
perspective would not fit to the new period’s economic preferences.
This kind of approach to rural structures would be contradictory to the
requirements of the international bloc, in which Turkey desired to take an important
role. The reorganization process of the rural structures and production according to
the requirements of the international market would at the same time bring the
dispossession of the peasants at certain levels and, as a result, the rural migration
movements. In this condition, no matter how much they desired to keep the peasants
in their villages on the ideological level, the reorganization of agricultural production
could make the execution of these articles impossible. Due to that it was a necessity
to remove the peasantist ideological mentality from the law. In this sense, by
bringing an increase in the amount of cultivated lands and by determining the
cultivation method of these lands, the LRL created the juridical standing point of the
rural transformation, which also brought about the rural migration movements.
142 Karaömerlioglu, Orada Bir Köy Var Uzakta, p. 135.
87
The Marshall Plan was created to obstruct the spread of communism to
underdeveloped and economically weak countries after the Second World War by
restructuring the economic activities of European and surrounding countries.143
Turkey, although had not actually entered the war, acquired Marshall Plan aid as a
country that was in close proximity to the Soviet Union.
The most important effect of the Marshall Plan on rural migration would be
with the agricultural investments that were applied in two main areas. The first one
was the mechanization of agricultural production and as a result, an increase in
production. This development became visible with the fact of “tractorization.” Both
with the direct investments and credit given for the development of agriculture
production the agricultural production of Turkey became mechanized at
unprecedented speed. There would be two effects of the mechanization. First, it
increased the amount of agricultural production and developed the capacity of the
production for the market. More important than that, the mechanization increased the
amount of lands cultivated. Turkey, having not entered to the Second World War,
had not lost its manpower in agricultural production, as had happened during the
previous wars; on the contrary, the population was increased. However, this increase
in population did not effect the agricultural production, because the country did not
invest in technical developments to get an increase in production. Even though the
number of people working in agricultural production increased during this period, the
peasants’ access to the simplest agricultural tools was limited. With the Marshall
Plan these deficiencies would be overcome and the lands that had not been cultivated
due to the lack of manpower was put to use. In addition to that, with the allowance of
the LRL previously uncultivated pastures, forests and lands owned by the state
143 For a detailed analysis of the Marshall Plan and its execution in Turkey, see Tören, Yeniden
Yapılanan.
88
treasury were opened to agricultural production and the amount of the cultivated
lands increased as a result. This situation also increased agricultural production, as
was expected. As for the effects on rural migration, the mechanization of agriculture
had an important effect on the agricultural workers, which will be analyzed in detail
in the following sections.
The second effect of the Marshall Plan on the migration was in the area of
transportation, which was developed for carrying agricultural products to the market
more easily. According to the Plan, priority would be given to the development of
the highway network in order to carry the products to the market without delay and at
low cost. This development both brought the villagers close to the market and eased
the transportation of the peasants to the cities. Thus, the technical substructure, which
eased the movement of the peasants towards the cities, was completed.
Maybe the most disputable problem in analyzing the rural structure of
Turkey is the existence and the continuation of the smallholder peasantry. In most of
the discussions and research on the changing characteristics of the peasantry during
the development of capitalism in Turkey, theoretical expansions are needed in order
to understand the changing characteristics of the capitalist rural structure with the
existence of the smallholder peasants and their political effects.144 During the 1960s
and 1970s, defining the condition of the peasantry was, at the same time, referred to
a kind of class struggle and the discussions were held as if the peasantry could be
accepted as a part of the struggle in alliance with the working class movement.145
144 For the general discussions on the development of capitalism in the rural structures of Turkey, see
Zülküf Aydın, "Kapitalizm, Tarım Sorunu ve Azgelismis Ülkeler I-II," 11. Tez 3-4 (1986); Boratav,
Tarımsal Yapılar; Oya Köymen, Kapitalizm ve Köylülük-Agalar, Üretenler ve Patronlar (
stanbul:
Yordam Kitap, 2008); David Seddon and Ronnie Margulies, "The Politics of the Agrarian Question in
Turkey: Review of a Debate," The Journal of Peasant Studies 11, no. 3 (1984).
145 For the brief descriptions of these discussions, see Seddon and Margulies, "The Politics."
89
The 1945-1960 period can be characterized with the development of capitalist
relations in agricultural production and moving toward a more market-oriented
mentality in agriculture. However, theoretically, these kinds of changes in the rural
structures were expected to lead to the big landownership and the development of
large-scale agricultural industry. When the agricultural surveys that were taken at the
end of the period are taken into consideration, the real situation became different
from the expectations. According to the 1963 agricultural survey results, in between
the years 1952 and 1963 the number of agricultural holdings doubled and the
numbers increased from 1,527,000 to 3,100,000.146 There was more than one reason
for this development. The primary reason was the distribution of small amount of
lands to the peasants with the execution of the LRL. With the execution of the law,
many landless peasants received small amounts of land and this increased the total
number of agricultural holdings in Turkey.
Another reason for the increase in the number of agricultural holdings was the
separation of the lands between the descendants in families whose household
population had increased during the Second World War. This separation of the lands
as a result of inheritance had made the size of the agricultural holdings smaller and
also increased the number of total agricultural holdings. According to a comparison
of statistical surveys of the two periods, the land size per agricultural holding was 77
hectares in 1952 and 35.46 hectares per unit in 1963.147 In addition to that, during the
execution of the LRL the big landowners allocated their registered lands among their
family members in order to escape from the confiscation of their lands according to
146 Bahattin Aksit, "Cumhuriyet Döneminde Türkiye Köylerindeki Dönüsümler," in 75 Yılda
Köylerden Sehirlere, ed. Oya Baydar (
stanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, 1999), p. 177.
147 Özer Serper, "1950-1960 Devresinde Türkiye'de Sehirlesme Hareketleri," .Ü. ktisat Fakültesi
Mecmuası 24, no. 1-2 (October-March 1964), p. 161.
90
the law.148 Although these lands were actually needed to be defined as being large
estates, they were accepted as small agricultural units and increased the total number
of smallholders in Turkey.
Çaglar Keyder relates this increase in smallholder peasantry to the political
attitude of the state against capitalist development. According to him, except for the
Southeastern region of Turkey, which was held apart for historical and political
reasons, the development of smallholder peasantry had a character of obstructing the
development of capitalism.149 However, it will be better to describe the process as
capitalism in Turkish agriculture developing with the existence of the smallholder
peasantry and in some degree this transition to capitalism reflected the peripheral
characteristics of a late capitalist society. Because the increasing level of rural
migration in spite of the existence of the smallholder peasantry shows that the
dominant smallholder structure in agricultural production did not create great
obstacles to the development of capitalism in the countryside. In fact, it would not be
wrong to say that the existence of smallholder peasantry became one of the things
brought about the rural migration movements. The peasants, who did not have
sufficient lands to support themselves, moved to the cities by hiring out their small
plots of land.
As will be told in the following sections, the main human resource of the rural
migration was not the totally dispossessed peasants or the peasants left landless after
the depeasantization process, but the smallholder peasantry, who hired out their small
assets and gained a little bit of capital accumulation to help them move to the cities.
The increasing agricultural production and agricultural prices, notwithstanding the
148 Karpat, Turkey's Politics: The Transition to a Multi-Party System, p. 124; Ronnie Margulies and
Ergin Yıldızoglu, "Tarımsal Degisim: 1923-1970," in Geçis Sürecinde Türkiye, ed. Irvin Cemil Schick
and Ertugrul Ahmet Tonak (
stanbul Belge Yayınları, 1990), p. 303.
149 Çaglar Keyder, "Türk Tarımında Küçük Meta Üretiminin Yerlesmesi," in Türkiye'de Tarımsal
Yapılar, ed. Sevket Pamuk and Zafer Toprak (Ankara: Yurt Yayınları, 1988), p. 171.
91
rapid increase in cultivated lands, increased the rents and selling prices of
agricultural lands.
For that reason most of the smallholder peasants did not cultivate their own
lands due to the expense and instead hired it out and moved to the cities. During this
process, it can be observed that a new category of agricultural producer was created.
This new kind of producers hired out these small lands and created a kind of middle
or large agricultural business on lands that they did not own but hired. Instead of the
smallholder peasantry, which could obstruct the development of capitalism in
agriculture and made production that did not adjust to the market mentality, this new
situation enabled the creation of some intermediary forms in the agricultural industry
which did not obstruct the development of capitalism. From that time on it is possible
to observe the development of a new mixed type of agricultural production in which
the property and business units were separated from each other.150 As a result, the
transformation of the rural structure created a new structure in which not a monotype
but the co-existence of various types of business and property relations were seen in
the agricultural structure.
The Reasons for the Rural Migration, or Is It Possible to Create a Stereotype in the
Analysis of the Rural Migration?
Is it possible to make a single definition for the reasons of the rural
migration? At the first glance the answer surely would be “no.” However, there is a
dominant understanding in social sciences on the way to stereotyping the reasons for
the rural migration that had happened during the 1945-1960 period. If you ask any
student of the social sciences that studies Turkey, the question “What was the reason
150 Ronnie Margulies and Ergin Yıldızoglu, "Tarımsal Degisim: 1923-1970," in Geçis Sürecinde
Türkiye, ed. Irvin Cemil Schick and Ertugrul Ahmet Tonak (
stanbul Belge Yayınları, 1990), p. 307.
92
for the rural migration during the 1945-1960 period?” the answer is immediate:
mechanization. However, when you ask the source of this information, the same
student would give reference to many well-known studies on modern Turkish
history. When these sources are studied, it can be seen that the answer to the question
is not clear to most of them. Even with a general scan of these well-known most-read
sources on modern Turkish history, a clear definition of this problem is never given.
However, it can be said that most of them relate the main reason for the rural
migration to the overall transformation of the rural structures during the period in
question.
For example, Erik J. Zürcher writes that: “Turkey’s rapid population growth,
a lack of opportunities in agriculture, and the attraction of the new industries
combined to increase the flow of people from the countryside to the big cities, which
had started in the 1950s.”151 It is understood that Zürcher does not maintain a direct
relation with mechanization and asserts that the developments both in the villages
and cities affected the rural migration during this period. Feroz Ahmad, on the other
hand, gives reference to tractorization as the reason for the rural migration, but
mostly limits his analysis to the effect of mechanization on the sharecroppers.
Ahmad mentions both the sharecroppers as one of the components of the rural
migration and the continuation of the shareholding among the peasants that owned
lands, but does not have any tractor or cultivation machines or animals. These
peasants acquired debts from the agas and usurer merchants in the villages and due
to that they became sharecroppers to pay their debts while they owned lands,
although they were inadequate. In other words, Ahmad shows the relation of
151 Erik Jan Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History (London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 1993), p. 283.
93
mechanization to rural migration, but does not directly relate the reason for rural
migration to mechanization only.152
Another mostly referred source is Çaglar Keyder, who says that the
importance of the sharecroppers in the agricultural production decreased due to
mechanization. In addition, he says, as a result of the mechanization “some of” these
sharecroppers were obliged to move to the cities in order to support themselves.
However, he adds that these rural migrants did not leave their lands or their
connection with agricultural production, meaning that they were not totally
dispossessed, even though they lived in the cities.153
In most of the Turkish economic history books, the relation of mechanization
to agriculture is problematized around notions of property relations, agricultural
prices and incomes. For example, in Korkut Boratav’s history of the Turkish
economy, mechanization is evaluated in relation to the increase in the amount of
cultivated lands and agricultural production. He mostly explains the break down in
the economic situation of the peasants as a result of mechanization.154 Memduh
Yasa, on the other hand, calls attention to the change in the living conditions of the
sharecroppers and highlights the decrease in the demand of agricultural labor due to
the mechanization.155 Among these kinds of sources, the most direct relation of rural
migration to the mechanization is observed in Yakup Kepenek and Nurhan Yentürk’s
study on the Turkish economy. They clearly state that: “[During the 1945-1962
period] the use of modern input, led by the tractor, was increased, this situation
152 Ahmad, The Making, p. 115-116.
153 Keyder, Türkiye'de Devlet ve Sınıflar, p. 178, 188.
154 Boratav, Türkiye ktisat, p. 105.
155 Memduh Yasa, Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ekonomisi 1923-1978 (
stanbul: Akbank Kültür
Yayını, 1980), p. 143.
94
brought the widening of the cultivated lands at first and as a result the flow of surplus
labor to the cities.”156
However, in addition to the above-mentioned sources, in many well-known
studies, the relation of mechanization and rural migration is drawn with a clear-cut
understanding. For example, Oya Köymen discusses the effect of the smallholder
peasantry in the rural migration especially for the period after 1960, but she does not
extend this analysis for the 1950s. Due to that, she only relates the rural migration to
tractorization and land gatherings.157 In her current study, she again repeats this
assertion and says, “most of the sharecroppers who became unemployed after the
tractorization migrated to the cities.”158
In a very recent study on the overall history of modern Turkey, Kemal Kirisçi
writes on migration movements of every kind during the Republican period. He also
creates a direct link between mechanization and rural migration during this period by
asserting that “the mechanisation of the agriculture sector, especially the introduction
of tractors and fertilisers, is cited as a major factor driving a growing number of
people off the land.”159 Kemal Karpat writes the reasons for the rural migration in his
other studies or in the different parts of his study that will be cited below are
different from maintaining a mechanical, direct relationship with the mechanization.
However, interestingly, he creates an unseen mathematical relation to tractorization
156 Kepenek and Yentürk, Türkiye Ekonomisi, p. 108. “[1945-1962 döneminde] Basta traktör olmak
üzere çagdas girdi kullanımı artmıs, bu durum öncelikle islenen alanın genislemesi ve isgücü
fazlasının kentlere akını sonucunu vermistir.”
157 Oya Köymen, "Bazı
çgöç Verileri (1950-1980)," in 75 Yılda Köylerden Sehirlere, ed. Oya Baydar
(
stanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, 1999), p. 263.
158 Köymen, Kapitalizm, p. 137. “Traktörlesme yüzünden issiz kalan ortakçıların büyük çogunlugu da
kentlere göç etmistir.”
159 Kemal Kirisçi, "Migration and Turkey: The Dynamics of State, Society and Politics," in The
Cambridge History of Turkey, Volume 4, Turkey in the Modern World, ed. Resat Kasaba (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 190.
95
and asserts that “the 40,000 tractors that entered into the agriculture production
during this period drove around 1,000,000 people from agriculture.”160
Even though some estimates were made to determine the possible
unemployment rates due to mechanization, it is not possible to observe any extreme
calculation which says that one tractor could have caused the unemployment of 25
peasants. Another example of this kind of estimation can be observed in Tansı
Senyapılı’s study. She says:
On the one side there was an increase in the size of agricultural holdings,
the number of tractors and productivity, on the other the agricultural
workers who were replaced with the tractors, such as sharecroppers,
were kept out of the sector. One tractor replaced at most 10 workers.
There was no choice for these workers, except to leave the agricultural
sector. On the other hand, there was no place to go, except the cities.161
Senyapılı, while underlining the importance of the smallholder peasantry in
this development, constituting a mechanical relation to the consequences of
mechanization lessens the effect of the other assertions.
One other similar comment on the consequences of the mechanization exists
in Mehmet Dogan’s study as follows: “As a result of the mechanization of
agriculture the labor force that were used in this section decreased, the agricultural
workers were replaced by professional employees that could use machinery. In
addition, it can be said that in general one tractor makes ten people unemployed. …
160 Kemal H. Karpat, Türkiye'de Toplumsal Dönüsüm-Kırsal Göç, Gecekondu ve Kentlesme, trans.
Abdulkerim Sönmez (Ankara:
mge Kitabevi, 2003), p. 104. “Bu dönemde tarıma giren yaklasık
40,000 traktör 1,000,000 civarında kisiyi tarımdan çıkardı”
161 Tansı Senyapılı, 'Baraka'dan Gecekonduya-Ankara'da Kentsel Mekânın Dönüsümü: 1923-1960
(
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2004), p. 118. “Bir yandan isletme büyüklükleri, traktör sayıları ve verim
artarken öte yandan traktörün yerini aldıgı ortakçı, yarıcı gibi tarım emekçileri sektör dısı kalıyordu.
Bir traktör en fazla 10 emekçinin yerini almakta idi. Bu emekçiler için tarım sektöründen ayrılmaktan
baska seçenek yoktu. Öte yandan kentlerden baska gidecek yer de yoktu.” Similar calculation is
observed in Mübeccel Kıray and Jan Hinderink’s sociological study on the Turkish studies as follows:
“This unplanned mass mechanization, however, carried out regardless of possible social
consequences, completely upset the pattern of farming and enhanced social differentiation in the
region. In a country like Turkey, one tractor, with equipment to match, may displace as many as ten
village farmers.” Jan Hinderink and Mübeccel B. Kıray, Social Stratification as an Obstacle to
Development: A Study of Four Turkish Villages (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970), p. 29.
Although Hinderink and Kıray underline mostly the effects of the rural transformation that would
happen after the mechanization, they give that extreme prediction without any evidence.
96
the internal migration and urbanization gained a great pace…, this in a way had to be
related to the mechanization.”162
The last example can be given from the History of the Turkish Republic
book, which was written by state officials, for creating a standardized narrative of
events in Turkish history for the use of history students and teachers. It is possible to
observe the most mechanical comment on this problem, in the section Cumhuriyet
Döneminde Ekonomik Gelismeler (Economic Developments during the Republican
Period), as follows: “The mechanization of agriculture accelerated. With the foreign
credits that were acquired with suitable conditions the import of tractors was mostly
increased. This rapid mechanization created surplus labor in agriculture. These
unemployed people were forced to migrate to the big cities.”163
Nearly all of these studies develop their assertions using similar sources. One
of the leading sources is a study, which was prepared in joint effort by US and
Turkish specialists in 1954 with the help of Ankara University Faculty of Political
Sciences. The study was based on a statistical survey which was done for the first
time in the villages that were undergoing mass mechanization in agriculture.164
However, it is possible not to reach the conclusion of the mechanical rural migrationmechanization
relation from the data gathered from this source, because in one
figure, that gives the number of sharecroppers that had become unemployed due to
mechanization only a small proportion of those who had become unemployed due to
162 Mehmet Dogan, Tarih ve Toplum-Türkiye'de Toprak Meselesi (
stanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 1977),
p. 282. “Tarımda makinalasmanın gelisimi karsısında, bu kesimde kullanılan isgücü azalmıs, tarım
isçilerinin yerini makine kullanmada ihtisas sahibi elemanlar almıstır. Bununla birlikte, umumiyetle
bir traktörün on kisiyi issiz bıraktıgı söylenebilir. ... iç göç ve sehirlesme büyük bir hız kazanmıstır...,
bu bir bakıma makinalasmayla da ilgili olmalıdır.”
163 Durmus Yalçın, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Tarihi II (Ankara: AKDTYK, Atatürk Arastırma Merkezi,
2004), p. 332. “Tarımın makinelesmesi hızlandırıldı. Elverisli kosullarla saglanan dıs kaynakla
traktör ithalâtı büyük ölçüde artırıldı. Bu hızlı makinelesme tarımda isgücü fazlası dogurdu. Bu
issizler büyük kentlere göçe zorlandı.”
164 A.Ü. S.B.F., Türkiye'de Ziraî Makinalasma (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi
Yayınları, 1954). For the details on the preparation of the surveys and the people that prepared this
study, see Köymen, Kapitalizm, p. 136.
97
mechanization had migrated to the cities. Instead, most of them had stayed in their
villages or moved to another village in order to take new jobs in the agricultural
sector. In addition to this, again in this often referred to study, it says that some of the
unemployed peasants had found new land and had begun to cultivate it after they had
become unemployed.165
There is a lot of different data on the effects of mechanization in this study.
Due to that it is possible to comment differently on any of them from a very general
perspective. However, the main outcomes of the survey point to another, different
problem, which was clearly defined and summarized by Resat Aktan, one of the
prominent agricultural economists of the period, as follows:
From the survey and research, which have been conducted by the
Faculty of Political Sciences, to investigate the effects of motor power
and the use of other agricultural machineries on Turkish Agriculture, it
is clearly has been determined that the land owners, who reside in the
cities but have their lands cultivated to other people, partially have
become actual farmers, the lands that the sharecroppers work on were
taken from their hands and some of the sharecroppers have become
agricultural workers or have begun to establish self-sufficient farms on
the less productive or empty assets, there has been an increase and
development in land tenancy against the benefits of sharecropping, the
area that was cultivated by the mechanized farms increased in size and
showed the tendency of unification.166
As can be seen from this definition of Aktan, the main consequence of this
survey and research was not due to the rural migration, but on the total
165 S.B.F., Ziraî Makinalasma, p. 129. For example, in the same figure, it says that from the total
3,270 sharecroppers, who became unemployed due to mechanization in Aegean region, only one (1)
of them moved to the district or city.
166 Resat Aktan, "Zirai Teknolojide
lerlemeler ve Arazi Reformu," Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal
Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 11, no. 1 (1956), p. 9. “Türkiye Ziraatinde motor kuvveti ve diger zirai
makinalar kullanılmasının yaptıgı tesirleri incelemek üzere Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesince yapılan
anket ve arastırmalardan, evvelce kasaba ve sehirlerde oturarak arazilerini baskalarına isleten mülk
sahiplerinin kısmen bilfiil çiftçi durumuna geçtikleri, baskalarının arazilerinde ortakçı olarak
çalısanların ellerinden bu arazilerin alındıgı ve bir kısım ortakçı çiftçilerin isçi durumuna düstükleri
veya daha az verimli bos araziler üzerinden kendi kendine yetmege çalısan zirai isletmeler kurmaga
tesebbüs ettikleri, kiracılıgın ortakçılık ve yarıcılık aleyhine olarak arttıgı ve gelistigi, umumiyetle
makinelesmis zirai isletmelerin sahaca genisledikleri ve daha toplu bir birlik olma temayülü
gösterdikleri sarih bir sekilde tespit edilmis bulunmaktadır.”
98
transformation of the rural structures. Aktan did not even mention rural migration as
being one of the results that could be acquired from the survey.167
Another popular source on the explanation of the rural migration is a study by
Barbara and George Helling. In this study, the Hellings assert that one tractor could
remove five to nine agricultural workers from agricultural production.168 The
research that have since cited this study assert accordingly that the mechanization of
the agriculture “directly” created unemployment and, due to that, encouraged the
rural migration. However, as can be seen in the examples given above, these studies
mostly have developed their assertions according to the hypothesis that every
sharecropper who became unemployed due to the mechanization “automatically”
moved to the cities. In fact, these unemployed peasants at first and most of the time
tried to look for similar jobs in their surrounding areas and preferred to migrate to the
cities as their last chance. For example, according to another frequently used source
it was calculated that during the 1948-1952 period every new tractor displaced 3.4
people from its place. Although this information is cited in most of the studies on
rural migration, the following calculation of the writer, which says in short,
according to this rate the mechanization would effect 79,000 sharecroppers in total
and 64,000 of them would stay in their villages, is rarely cited.169 The reasons for this
difference in relating the data to rural migration will be discussed later.
167 In another article, Aktan directly interprets the results of this survey and although he makes many
comments on the effects of the mechanization in agriculture, he does not even mention the relation of
mechanization to the rural migration. See Resat Aktan, "Mechanization of Agriculture in Turkey,"
Land Economics 33, no. 4 (Nov., 1957).
168 Helling and Helling, Rural Turkey, p. 29.
169 William H. Nicholls, "Investment in Agriculture in Underdeveloped Countries," The American
Economic Review 45, no. 2 (May, 1955), p. 66.
99
Relations of change
Relations of interdependence
RURAL STRUCTURE IN 1948 RURAL STRUCTURE IN 1970
I
Small
Agricultural
Estates
Table 1. The Transformation of the Rural Structure 1948-1970
Source:
lhan Tekeli, "Türkiye Tarımında Mekanizasyonun Yarattıgı Yapısal Dönüsümler ve Kırdan
Kopus Süreçleri." in Yerlesme Yapısının Uyum Süreci Olarak ç Göçler, edited by
lhan Tekeli and
Leila Erder, (Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1978), p. 311.
A agricultural workers
B the peasants that rent
out their lands
C small agricultural
producers for
market
D small agricultural
producers for
themselves
E half agricultural
producers, half
agricultural workers
that own inadequate
lands
F
Large estates that
are created by
land ownership
Large estates that
are created by
tractor ownership
G non-agricultural
newly established
works
H rural migration
II
Semi-Feodal
Large Estates
III
Usurer
Merchants that
are related with
village
sharecroppers
out of the village
100
From now on, the differentiation of the rural structure will be discussed
through an analysis of the relation of agricultural mechanization to rural migration.
The most detailed analysis of the relation between agricultural mechanization and
rural migration can be found in a study of
lhan Tekeli prepared in 1978.170 As it will
be argued in this study too, Tekeli asserts that in order to understand the rural
migration movements it is necessary to focus on the transformation of the rural
structure and the characteristics of the relations that were founded after the
transformation of the rural structure.
As can be seen in the Table 1, which presents a comparison of the rural
structures in 1948 and 1970, the development of capitalism in agriculture created not
a unified but mostly a differentiated rural structure. This differentiation also created
many relations of interdependence in between. This development, as Tekeli puts it,
was a transformation that was caused by the mechanization of agriculture, but not as
a result of a direct determination process. When rural migration is taken into
consideration, the mechanization of agriculture was not the only reason for this
transformation, but an important component of it.
The important, but mostly forgotten, aspect that was mainly effective in the
relation of the mechanization of agriculture and rural migration was the increase in
the amount of cultivated lands, the juridical substructure of which was maintained by
the LRL. After 1946, the total amount of cultivated lands increased from 12,664,000
hectares to 23,264,000 hectares in 1960, which made nearly the amount of lands that
are being cultivated today. During the same period, the number of tractors used in
agricultural production increased from 1,500 in 1948, when the mechanization in
170
lhan Tekeli, "Türkiye Tarımında Mekanizasyonun Yarattıgı Yapısal Dönüsümler ve Kırdan Kopus
Süreçleri," in Yerlesme Yapısının Uyum Süreci Olarak ç Göçler, ed.
lhan Tekeli and Leila Erder
(Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1978).
101
agriculture began, to 40,282 in 1955 at a rapid pace and reached to 44,144 two years
later. In 1960 the total number of tractors would decrease to 41,896.171
Even though these statistics are presented in many of the studies dealing with
the rural transformation and rural migration, they mostly focus on the increase in the
number of the tractors and pass over the increase in the amount of cultivated lands.
When the pace of the increase in cultivated lands is taken into consideration, this
development points to a greater transformation in agriculture rather than the increase
in the number of tractors. In addition to that, another underestimated statistical
information is the amount of lands that were being cultivated by tractors during the
period in question. According to that, while 688,000 hectares of lands were being
cultivated by tractors in 1948, this amount increased to only 3,160,000 hectares in
1960. This means that, in spite of 12 million hectares of increase in the total
cultivated lands, only 1/8 of the lands came under cultivation by tractors. 172 In
addition to that, the amount of land that was being cultivated by animal power
increased from 12.5 million hectares in 1948 to 20 million hectares in 1960.173 These
statistics show that, no matter the extent of the number of peasants that could have
been unemployed due to the mechanization, the increase in the amount of cultivated
lands required the continuation of the need for human power in agricultural
production.174
171 D.
.E., 1944-1965 Tarım statistikleri Özeti (Ankara: Basbakanlık Devlet
statistik Enstitüsü), p. 5.
172 William Hale calculates the amount of lands that are being cultivated by tractors in 1950 as 8.6
percent and at the end of the 1950s as 14 percent. William Hale, The Political and Economic
Development of Modern Turkey (London & Sydney: Croom Helm, 1981), p. 95.
173 D.
.E., Tarım statistikleri, p. 5.
174 Tekeli, "Türkiye Tarımında Mekanizasyonun," p. 304. Yet in another study by Richard D.
Robinson, while asserting that one tractor can displace 10 agricultural workers, in the following lines
he mentions that if new lands are gained for cultivation no one should be displaced. Richard D.
Robinson, "Turkey's Agrarian Revolution and the Problem of Urbanization," Public Opinion
Quarterly 22, no. 3 (Autumn, 1958), p. 398.
102
Table 2. The Size of the Area Cultivated by Draft Animals and Tractors 1944-1960
Area cultivated (1000ha)
Years
Area
sown
Fallow Total
Number of
draft animals
(in pair)
Number of
tractors
Area
cultivated
by tractors
(1000 ha)
Area cultivated by
pair of draft
animals (1000 ha)
1944 8,170 4,814 12,984 2,228,291 956 72 12,912
1945 8,044 4,620 12,664 2,287,030 1,156 87 12,577
1946 8,413 4,680 13,093 2,284,235 1,356 102 12,991
1947 8,902 4,673 13,575 2,393,868 1,556 117 13,458
1948 9,477 4,423 13,900 2,442,494 1,756 132 13,768
1949 8,990 4,274 13,264 2,510,780 9,170 688 12,576
1950 9,868 4,674 14,542 2,495,256 16,585 1,244 13,298
1951 10,600 4,672 15,272 2,506,148 24,000 1,800 13,472
1952 11,775 5,586 17,361 2,349,417 31,415 2,356 15,005
1953 13,021 5,791 18,812 2,389,868 35,600 2,670 16,142
1954 13,208 6,408 19,616 2,592,419 37,743 2,831 16,785
1955 14,205 6,793 20,998 2,563,878 40,282 3,021 17,977
1956 14,556 7,897 22,453 2,578,148 43,727 3,280 19,173
1957 14,392 7,769 22,161 2,591,316 44,144 3,310 18,851
1958 14,764 8,001 22,765 2,476,938 42,527 3,190 19,575
1959 15,020 7,920 22,940 2,596,460 41,896 3,142 19,798
1960 15,305 7,959 23,264 2,647,695 42,136 3,160 20,067
Source: D.
.E., 1944-1965 Tarım statistikleri Özeti, (Ankara: Basbakanlık Devlet
statistik Enstitüsü), p.5.
Other statistical data, which are mostly used but also underestimated, are on
the increase in the number of the people occupied with agricultural production.
According to the survey by Ankara University, four percent of the peasant families
that were included to the survey had entered into agricultural production just after the
mechanization of agriculture. This means that the mechanization encouraged four
percent of the non-agricultural population to enter into agricultural production during
this period.175
Actually, the increase in the cultivated lands happened after a very
troublesome process. Again, according to the research that was prepared by the
University of Ankara, the land conflicts in between the neighbor villages after
mechanization increased by 44 percent. According to the statements of the village
headmen, 6,304 land conflicts occurred in between the villages that were included in
the survey. Lands conflicts were mostly seen in the Central Anatolian and
175 S.B.F., Ziraî Makinalasma, p. 126.
103
Mediterranean regions of the country. The lowest rates of land conflicts were
observed in the Black Sea region, where the mechanization and the increase in
cultivated lands were the lowest.176 The land conflicts mostly occurred over the
pastures that remained in between two villages and had indefinite ownership. When a
village’s residents try to extend their cultivated lands with the help of mechanization,
first they occupied the pastures, which had always been used as communal pastures
between neighboring villages. If those two villages could not agree on the ownership,
fighting broke out between, sometimes ending in murder. Many reports of these
kinds of conflicts were published in the newspaper of the period.177 Most of the times
these land conflicts were resolved with the help of patronage relations. The village
that had supported the government party, especially when the other party had
supported the opposition, mostly was backed by the government while occupying the
communal pasture. The other village did not rely on the judgment of the government
in this situation and as a result tried to maintain the “justice” with their own hands. In
the end land conflicts caused many deadly fights between the peasants.178
However, the “tractorization” of agricultural production, which can be
considered the symbol of the capital accumulation in agriculture at the end of the
1940s and the beginning of the 1950s,179 had important influence on the
transformation of the rural structure. Although the World Bank experts said that
8,000 tractors would be enough for Turkey when the existing land system was taken
into consideration, a higher numbers of tractors were imported in a very short time.
This brought a very high burden on the foreign trade equilibrium and caused a non-
176 Ibid., p. 135.
177 For example: “Köylüler arasında iki kanlı kavga,” Cumhuriyet, 11 May 1951; “Bu haller ne
zamana kadar devam edecek,” Karagöz, 12 January 1953; “
ki Köy Halkı Arasında Savas!;” Karagöz,
12 November 1954.
178 These land conflicts would also be the subject of the village literature during that period. For the
examples of these conflicts in literature, see Chapter Five.
179 Morris Singer, The Economic Advance of Turkey (Ankara: Ayyıldız Matbaası, 1977), p. 199.
104
economic and irrational “consumption madness” among the peasants.180 After a short
time period, buying a tractor became accepted as a the symbol of prestige and wealth
among the peasants.181 Peasants that owned economically irrational small
agricultural fields would go into a heavy debt, which they could not repay by their
agricultural income, to own them. The rational size that a pair of draft animals could
cultivate was calculated as 5.5 hectares. When peasants who owned less than the
rational minimum size that the tractors could cultivate, which was 75 hectares,182
joined in on the frenzy of owning a tractor, they soon had problems with the banks
and usurers, from whom they had obtained credit for buying tractors.
The greatest effect of tractorization was on the increase in the amount of
cultivated lands, as told above. Even though the increase in the amount of cultivated
lands was a result not only due of tractorization, the mechanization of agriculture
was meaningful in providing the technical appliances for the cultivation of land.
Most of the existing lands in the previous periods had not been cultivated due to lack
of labor and technical power. However, with the mechanization of agriculture this
shortage was overcome and this development enabled the extension of the amount of
cultivated lands. In general, the increase in the amount of the cultivated lands with
the mechanization of agriculture enabled the acceleration in agricultural investments,
180 According to the calculations of Morris Singer the burden of only the import of tractors to the
budget in between the years 1950-1952 was nearly 111,225,000 USD. Ibid., pp. 203-204.
181 The most criticized fact in the mechanization of agriculture during this period would be this noneconomic
buying and use of the tractors. In most of the sources the peasants’ irrational behaviors,
such as making tractor race to prove their prestige and preferring the tractors that are flashy but not
suitable to the land type, would be satirized. Short time after these machines would not be practical
and would be inert. In addition to that, these tractors would be used out of their purpose, mostly as
being a transportation vehicle. Kemal Karpat gives one example of that kind of use of the tractors and
tells the story of a peasant, who went to Germany with his family from a Western Anatolian village
Pamukova by his tractor. Kemal H. Karpat, "Social Effects of Farm Mechanization in Turkish
Village," Social Research 27, no. 1 (Spring 1960), p. 92.
182 Tekeli, "Türkiye Tarımında Mekanizasyonun," p. 310.
105
the support of the agricultural prices, the improvement of transportation and the
increase in agricultural credit.183
These developments also brought an increase in agricultural production. The
most important point that needs to be underlined here is that the increase in
agricultural production did not occur due the mechanization in agriculture, but
mostly due to the increase in cultivated lands. Even in cases where mechanization
was supported with irrigation and fertilizing, the mechanization became harmful to
land productivity. When the fluctuations in cereals production during this period are
investigated, the harmful consequences of unplanned mechanization, irrigation and
fertilization can be seen clearly. In 1945 the total amount of wheat production was
2,189,318 tons and, even though there were some fluctuations over time, it reached
8,000,000 tons in 1953. However, despite the increase in cultivated lands, in the
following years, it rose and fell in relation to weather conditions and reached only
8,450,000 tons in 1960.184
In addition to the increase in cultivated lands, the effect of weather conditions
had an important place in the increase in the wheat production during those years. In
a study which calculated the proportions of the real reasons for the increase in
agricultural production when the weather conditions were deflated, the suitable
conditions of the world market and agricultural prices were twelve percent; the
mechanization was ten percent; development of transportation was five percent; the
improvement of seeds was two percent effective and the use of the fertilizers had
dispensable effects on the increase of agricultural production. Again in the same
study, in normal weather conditions it was calculated that there had been 43 percent
increase in the wheat production during the years 1948-1953 and the 5/6 of this
183 Yasa, Cumhuriyet Dönemi, p. 151.
184 D.
.E., Tarım statistikleri, p. 6.
106
increase was due to the increase in the amount of cultivated lands and only 1/6 of it
was as a result of improvement practices.185 In another study in which the whether
conditions are included to the calculation, the reasons for the increase in agricultural
production are given as 36 percent for the increase in cultivated lands, 32 percent for
the suitable weather conditions, 10 percent for mechanization and 10 percent for the
development of transportation. According to this study, only seven percent was
calculated as being effective on the increase of agricultural production.186 Although
the increase in the cultivated lands maintained the increase in the agricultural
production, it did not bring an increase in the amount of production per hectare,
which means productivity. For example, in cotton production, which had a stable
production increase despite weather conditions, the total number of production
increased from 118,377 tons in 1950 to 195,000 tons in 1960. However, the
production per hectare remained around 250-300 kilograms during the whole period.
The productivity in cotton production increased to 400 kilograms just after the 1962-
1963 period, when the productivity increasing precautions were began be taken
seriously.187
Productivity increasing precautions, such as irrigation and fertilization, were
not widely used during this period and these both decreased the effects of
mechanization on agricultural production and did some irrevocable harm to the
lands. The old wooden ploughs that were pulled by oxen could only dig 15
centimeter into the soil. The new metal ploughs pulled by tractors could both turn the
soil upside down and dig 25 centimeters down. However, when irrigation was
insufficient and non-suitable weather conditions were present, the productive upper
level of the soil, which was twisted and dug deeper, grew dry and wind erosion blew
185 Nicholls, "Investment in Agriculture," p. 62.
186 Ahmad, Demokrasi Sürecinde, p. 137.
187 D.
.E., Tarım statistikleri, p. 8.
107
that rich soil away. This shows that the unplanned use of the new machines in
agricultural production not only decreased the effect of mechanization, but also
decreased the level of productivity.188
This relative increase in agricultural production definitely increased the
welfare level of the peasants in a short time period. However, although there was an
increase in real agricultural prices, it can be asserted that the prices of agricultural
goods recessed when compared to the increase in the prices of industrial goods.
Although there was a nominal increase in the agricultural prices due to the Korean
War boom, the only agricultural product that benefited from this increase in the
world agricultural prices was cotton.189 Nur Keyder calculates the development of
the welfare level of the peasants in between 1938-1968 and asserted that during this
period the internal terms of trade developed against the benefit of the peasants. The
agricultural surplus was transferred to non-agricultural sectors during the period in
question.190 However, despite this relative recession in agricultural prices, the
economic welfare of the peasants was not affected by that.
When the increasing world agricultural prices and production are taken into
consideration, it is seen that the peasants earned much more money than the other
groups of society during this period. This created a relative of wealth feeling among
them. Even though agricultural prices recessed in respect to industrial prices, the
peasants who had been unable to accumulate capital in the previous periods gained
much more money and began to practice a kind of capitalist relation during this
period. According to Boratav, this was “a period in which the relations of distribution
188 Singer, The Economic Advance, p. 211.
189 Boratav, Türkiye ktisat, p. 104.
190 Nur Keyder, "Türkiye'de Tarımsal Reel Gelir ve Köylünün Refah Seviyesi," ODTÜ Gelisme
Dergisi, no. 1 (Autumn, 1970), p. 52.
108
were destroyed due to the price fluctuations but the broader peasant masses mostly
could compensate for this loss within the dynamism of production.”191
The primary question that was asked at the beginning of this section will be
analyzed hereafter through the explanation of the rural differentiation forms that
Tekeli has drawn. This analysis will also show that to maintain a stereotypical
explanation to define the reasons for the rural migration is difficult. In addition to
that, the regional differences of the effects of agricultural mechanization will be
presented here. As was told at the beginning of this section, there is a tendency in
academic literature to unify the outcomes and reasons for the rural migration that
occurred during this period. This is mostly defined in relation to the mechanization
of agriculture and mostly as a direct and mechanical relation to the rural migration.
During the research process of this study, it was observed that it is not possible to
assert a mechanical relation between the rural migration and mechanization.
Cahit Tanyol prepared a study on the Barak Plain, located in the Gaziantep
and Urfa region, during the 1950s and explored the changes in the villages after the
mechanization of agriculture. He stated that the outcomes of the mechanization
process could not be unified in one condition and even said that mechanization may
have caused unexpected consequences. According to this study, it was both observed
that in some of the villages the population had decreased even though there was no
tractorization, and in some of the villages the population had increased after the
mechanization of agricultural production.192 In order to benefit from the increasing
job possibilities, many people had migrated to the villages that had been mechanized.
These peasants mostly came from the very poor villages of that region. Actually, in
191 Boratav, Türkiye ktisat, p. 106. “genis köylü kitlelerinin ... fiyat hareketleri nedeniyle bozulan
bölüsüm iliskilerini, üretim dinamizmi içinde fazlasıyla telafi edebildikleri bir dönem[dir].”
192 Cahit Tanyol, "Traktör Giren 50 Köyde Nüfus Hareketlerinin ve
çtimaî Degismelerin Kontrolü,"
Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 13-14 (1958-1959), p. 200.
109
this example the mechanization of agriculture “pulled” the landless or poor peasants
to the villages that had been mechanized instead of making peasants unemployed. In
addition, Tanyol noted that the rural migration especially from the villages, which
were described as efendi/aga villages in which the feudal relations of productions
were still intact, after the entrance of tractors to the agricultural production.
However, he added that most of these peasants were landless and they tried to benefit
from the newly created seasonal jobs in the cities, such as in the construction
sector.193
In fact, as can be seen in the example given above, the mechanization caused
differentiated outcomes. Along with creating a group of people who became
unemployed due to the mechanization, mechanization created jobs and as a result,
most of the landless or sharecropper peasants tried to benefit from these newly
created job areas at first, instead of directly migrating to the cities.
In addition to that, there were some different and unexpected practices that
were created with the mechanization. Especially in the regions where the feudal
relations of production remained dominant and most of the peasants were deprived of
any kind of means of production, as a result of the complementation of the LRL and
mechanization, most of the sharecroppers and landless agricultural workers became
unemployed. However, these peasants did not move directly to the cities. Most of
them opened and owned new and previously uncultivated lands with the execution of
the LRL and they were transformed into the smallholder peasantry. In some of the
interviews of the period conducted with the sharecroppers and landless peasants in
those regions, the process of gaining new lands was described. This process also
brought out another characteristic of these peasants. They gained lands that they did
193 Ibid., p. 215.
110
not have before, but they did not own any kind of machine or animal power that was
used in the cultivation of land. Yasar Kemal described this situation as follows:
More than three hundred villages have been established on the Tektek
mountains since 1948. Before that the Tektek mountains were empty.
There were no footsteps of any human kind on the Tektek mountains
except for those of the shepherds. When tractors came to the country, the
tractor came and agriculture became mechanized. From year to year the
sharecroppers were expelled from their lands. There was no place for
them to go. They shook the dust off their feet and went to the Tektek
mountains. The Tektek mountains do not have water, but the Tektek
mountains are fertile. And three hundred villages were established. The
government gave the release of the lands to the peasants. However, it
gave eighty or at most hundred dönüms of field to each peasant. These
lands cannot give more than one to ten at best. According to that, eighty
dönüms of land was not enough for each family. It would not salve the
pain. Whatever, it is better than being landless. They have roofs over
their heads and lands to plough.194
Yılmaz Gümüsbas described the process of the peasants’ gaining lands
similarly and also highlights the process of their losing the lands:
The Cırcıp plain lies in between the ridges that are known as Cırcıp near
Viransehir. The owners of this plain, which is more than 150,000
dönüms wide, are almost extirpating even the state from here. The land
is the state’s, its owners are individuals. It is called cultivating by
leasing. In 1955 many landless peasants that lived in mountain villages
gained some lands from here that would be enough only to feed
themselves after a long time of resistance. But only land. After that no
one called or looked after them. The peasants and the great agas of the
region and necessarily of the cities rose up against each other. The
resistance continued for years. Due to not getting any kind of credits and
not buying agricultural tools, the peasants could not find even seeds to
use in their lands. And as a result, they became indebted to the agas. The
debts accumulated higher gradually and one day the agas want “money
or land” in return. What has money got to do with the peasants? They
gave the lands and returned to their mountain.195
194 Yasar Kemal, Bu Diyar Bastan Basa, 2. ed. (
stanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1973), pp. 478-479. “Tektek
daglarına 1948’den bu yana üç yüzden fazla köy kurulmustur. Bundan önce Tektek dagları
bombostur. Çobanlardan baska insan ayagı degmemistir Tektek daglarına. Vakta ki traktör gelir
memlekete, traktör gelir, ziraat makinelesir. Yıl yıl yarıcılar topraklarından atılırlar. Gidecekleri
yerleri yok. Baslarını alırlar giderler Tektek daglarına. Tektek daglarının suyu yoktur ama, Tektek
toprakları verimlidir. Ve üç yüz tane köy kurulur. Hükümet de toprakların tapularını köylülere verir.
Ama her köylüye seksen, çok çok yüz dönümlük tarla verir. Buraların topragı bire ondan fazla tas
çatlasa veremez. Buna göre bir aile için seksen dönüm azdır. Yaraya merhem olmaz. Her neyse
topraksızlıktan çok daha iyi. Baslarını sokacak bir evleri, saban atacak bir toprakları var.”
195 Yılmaz Gümüsbas, Toprak Agrısı (Röportaj) (Ankara: ÇGD Yayınları, 2001), p. 92. “Viransehir
yakınındaki Cırcıp adıyla tanınan sırtların arasında Cırcıp düzü uzanır. Genisligi 150.000 dönümden
fazla olan bu düzün sahipleri, bugün devleti bile söküp atmak üzere buradan. Toprak devletin,
111
This situation was repeated often in the discussions on the Agriculture/Land
Reform policies, and actually points to the real condition of the smallholder and
landless peasants. The land distributed to the peasants who did not have any kind of
capital accumulation or had no access to any cultivation tools, changed hand after a
short time period or was hired by big landowners. Çaglar Keyder and Sevket Pamuk
stress this important point in their discussion on the LRL and say that if the land
reform had not been supported with “oxen reform,” the ownership of the lands that
had been distributed would have soon after changed hands and most of these
peasants would have returned to sharecropping.196 Despite the great amount of
mechanization in agriculture this situation occurred during the 1950s because of not
creating an equal distribution of benefiting from the agricultural credits and
mechanization among all peasants.
Another factor in analyzing the relation of mechanization to the rural
migration is to maintain the identity of the migrating peasant groups. This factor is
disregarded in most of the studies on this subject. This factor, also, has a great
importance in shaping the perception of analyzing the rural migration. The narratives
of rural migration, as can be seen in the above quoted interviews, mostly dealt with
the stories of sharecroppers and landless peasants and failed to see other factors that
influenced on the rural migration movements. Actually, contrary to the above
narratives, the rural migration during the period in question did not occur from the
lands of the southeastern Anatolia or Çukurova, where the sharecroppers maintained
sahipleri kisiler. Adı icara isliyorlar. 1955’de dag köylerinde yasayan binlerce topraksız uzun süren
direnmeleri sonunda, buradan kendilerini besleyecek kadar toprak almıslar. Fakat sadece toprak.
Ondan sonra ne arayan olmus, ne soran. Köylülerle çevrenin ve illa da kentlerin büyük agaları
birbirlerine girmisler. Direnme yıllarca sürmüs. Kredi ve tarım aracı alamadıkları için köylüler gün
gelmis tohumluklarını bile bulamaz olmuslar. Ve bütün bunların sonucu da agalara borçlanmıslar.
Borçlar gittikçe büyümüs ve bir gün gelmis ki agalar “ya para, ya toprak” demisler. Köylüde ne para
gezer. Vermis topragını çekilmis dagına yine.”
196 Keyder and Pamuk, "1945 Çiftçiyi," pp. 60-61.
112
a great majority in agricultural production, but mostly from the regions in which this
kind of agricultural relation was not that much dominant. As was shown with the
examples above, the regions like Çukurova, in which the mechanization and the
increase in the cultivated lands were mostly seen, “pulled” the unemployed
agricultural workers and landless peasants to itself. In this sense, the regions, which
were highly mechanized, gained new peasant populations as the new centers of rural
migration. The mechanization created new job opportunities and new uncultivated
lands and due to this the peasant migrated to these places to work on the land.
It is not possible to assert that the mechanization did not effect on these
regions. Especially during the second half of the 1950s and since 1960s, again with
the change in the economic preferences, some deficiencies of the agricultural
mechanization process were met and soon after the mechanization process affected
the sharecroppers and agricultural workers of these regions, too. Anyhow, the
creation of new jobs in the agricultural sector with the mechanization and the
increase in the cultivated lands and with the execution of the LRL the chance to
become a smallholder peasant can be defined as a retarding mechanisms for the
sharecropper and landless peasants, which set back the participation of these peasant
groups to the rural migration during the period in question.197 The disappearance of
these chances at the end of the 1950s and during the 1960s also meant the
disappearance of the retarding mechanisms and due to that the migrating groups
mostly consisted of sharecropper and landless peasants. However, at the beginning of
the rural migration during the first years of the period in question, most of the
197 In many sources the importance of the newly created jobs in agriculture sector are stressed: Dogan
Avcıoglu, Türkiye'nin Düzeni (
stanbul: Tekin Yayınevi, 1978), p. 630; Karpat, "Social Effects," pp.
92-93; Tekeli, "Türkiye Tarımında Mekanizasyonun," p. 318.
113
immigrants were landless peasants from Eastern Anatolia and smallholder peasants
of the Black Sea region.198
Actually, when only the origins of the immigrants are taken into
consideration, the mostly repeated mechanical reason for the rural migration,
agricultural mechanization, can be falsified. The Black Sea region, which is
geographically surrounded by steep high mountains and the agricultural fields of
which have fragmented characteristics due to the geographical positioning, was the
least mechanized region after the start of mechanization in agriculture.199 This
region, as the least mechanized but origin of a large part of the rural migration, is the
clearest proof that creating a direct and mechanical relation between the
mechanization of agriculture and the rural migration is unwise.
The Black Sea migration, which would continue in the following periods, had
a special importance that could set forth the characteristics of the rural migration
during this period. Alongwith having a key position in defining the relation of
mechanization to the rural migration, when the migration from the Black Sea region
is analyzed it becomes possible to maintain the reasons for the rural migration during
198 Erol Tümertekin, in his detailed study on the rural migration during the 1950-1960 period, makes
the following categorization on the origins and the directions of the immigrants: “Actually the rural
migration movements mainly originates from the Eastern half of the country and from the
Northeastern that covers the Middle Black Sea region and are directed to the West, but in general to

stanbul in Northwest and to
zmir and surroundings in Aegean.” “Gerçekten, iç göçler, esas itibarı
ile, memleketin Dogu yarımından, özellikle, Orta Karadeniz’i de içine alan Kuzeydogu’dan Batı’ya,
fakat genellikle Kuzeybatı’da stanbul’a, Ege’de zmir ve civarına yönelmis bulunmaktadır.” Erol
Tümertekin, Türkiye'de ç Göçler (
stanbul:
stanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1968), p. 34. According
to Sami Öngör, the cities which were mostly participated to the rural migration are arranged
proportionally as follows: Rize, Gümüshane, Erzincan, Trabzon, Elazıg, Giresun, Bitlis Çankırı,
Artvin, Isparta, Kastamonu, Kırsehir, Siirt, Yozgat and Sivas. Among the other Trabzon is calculated
as having the most nominal participation to the rural migration. According to Öngör’s calculations,
the number of people, which were originally coming from Trabzon but live outside Trabzon, was
83,000 as the end of the 1950s. Sami Öngör, "Türkiye'de Dahili Muhaceret Hakkında," Türk Cografya
Dergisi 14-15, no. 18-19 (1958-1959), pp. 103, 105.
199 Peter Suzuki, in his research on
stanbul slums whose residents were migrated from Kırıntı village
of Gümüshane, says the following on the mechanization in this Black Sea region village: “...only a
few plows with steel blades in these villages, and although a small tractor owned by the district is
available to the villagers, little use has been made of it because of the fragmented holdings of each
peasant.” Peter Suzuki, "Peasants without Plows: Some Anatolians in Istanbul," Rural Sociology 31,
no. 4 (December 1966), p. 429.
114
this period. The Black Sea migration, besides having a historical background,
maintains the data through which the relation of rural migration to the increase in the
rural population, smallholder peasantry and increasing land prices can be
investigated.
The migration from the Black Sea region, especially from the cities located in
the eastern part of the region, to the developed metropolis cities, leading with

stanbul, had a historical base. The proportion of people living in
stanbul who had a
Black Sea region origin was nearly 12.5 percent even in 1950.200 This data also
shows that historical ties are very deterministic on the formation of the destination.
Gurbetçilik (expatriation) was a very common and settled practice for most of the
male peasants of the Black Sea region, both due to the land system and the
enforcement of the population increase. As Kemal Karpat writes, “the people of the
Black Sea region, who grew bored with unemployment during the Republican
period, made up a great amount of the labor force that built the railroads at the birth
of Turkey. At last, most of them reached
stanbul and had a profession for
generations.”201 The existence of the coal mines in this region and working in these
mines sometimes as forced labor settled the gurbetçilik and the practice of working
outside of the village for the people of this region. In the following periods, with the
development in the transportation opportunities these people easily moved to the
cities to work.
The Black Sea migration, which mostly was directed to
stanbul historically,
reached Ankara after the Republican period and with the development of the
200 Oya Baydar, "1950 Sonrası Göç," in Dünden Bugüne stanbul Ansiklopedisi (
stanbul: Kültür
Bakanlıgı ve Tarih Vakfı Ortak Yayını, 1994), p. 407.
201 Karpat, Gecekondu, p. 102. “Cumhuriyet döneminde issizlikten çok bunalmıs olan Karadeniz
bölgesi insanları, Türkiye’nin dogusundaki demiryollarını insa eden isgücünün büyük bir kısmını
sagladılar. Birçogu sonunda stanbul’a ulastı ve orada kusaklar boyu meslek sahibi oldu.”
115
transportation opportunities. As a result the Black Sea population became the most
settled and highly migrated population in most of the big cities in Turkey.
The historical relations to the migration practices eased the rural migration for
some regions. However, the main motif behind the Black Sea migration movements
was the land system that existed in the region. In the presence of the pressure coming
from the increasing population, the small and fragmented proportions of land
ownership did not allow the people even to feed themselves. According to one
calculation, the agricultural income of the Black Sea region was 58 percent below
that of the average of Turkey.202 Only this statistic can give a clear idea about the
proportion of inadequacy of land and agricultural production in this region. The
geographical limitations did not allow for the extension of cultivated lands like as in
other regions. The lack of increase in the cultivated lands and the population increase
created a base for the migration from this region.
In addition to these factors, there were also some developments in the region
during this period which slowed down the rural migration from this region. Due to
the region’s geographical limitations the peasants in the Black Sea region could not
compete with the increasing agricultural development. As a result, some them tried
to produce different agricultural products, which raised them to an advantageous
position. Especially in Rize, the development of widespread tea production slowed
down the rural migration from that region. Also the development of some local
industrial and port cities, such as Eregli, Zonguldak and Samsun, limited the
departure of the rural migration in that region and the peasants preferred to go to
these cities than to
stanbul and Ankara.203 The development of variations in
agricultural production was seen not only in the Black Sea region, but in other
202 Gülten Kazgan, "Sehirlere Akın ve
ktisadî Degisme," .Ü. ktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 19, no. 1-4
(October 1957-July 1958), p. 388.
203 Tümertekin, Türkiye'de ç Göçler, p. 27.
116
regions of the country with different products.204 The transition from less profitable
agricultural products to some other profitable and industrially supported agricultural
products limited the migration movements of some smallholder peasants during this
period.
The most important reason for the rural migration, more intensively from the
Black Sea region but also from other regions of the country, was the pressure coming
from the population increase in rural families. The twentieth century began with wars
and great disasters for the Anatolian people. After the foundation of the new
republic, a steady development in the population occurred and the human resources,
which had nearly come to an end at the beginning of the century, were renewed in
this new period. The main political goal of the new state was to increase the
population in order to maintain the labor force for the continuance of production.
This policy became effective and the population increased as the time passed.
Turkey’s decision not to enter the Second World War accelerated the population
growth. Also the public health policies which were adopted from the 1930s, the
newly discovered antibiotics during the 1950s, the widespread use of the DDT and
penicillin after the war, the reduction on the deadly effects of contagious diseases
such as syphilis and malaria, and healthy nutrition for children with the increase in
the agricultural production, decreased infant mortality rates and this caused an
increase in the overall population.205
As can be seen in Table 3, the population increased by seven million from
1927 to 1950, and 5.5 millions of this increase occurred in the countryside. This
204 For the Southeastern Anatolia region, see Tanyol, "Traktör Giren 50 Köyde," p. 198.
205 Hürriyet Konyar, "Çok Partili Hayata Geçis ve Yeni Siyasi Yapılanmanın Toplumsal Hareketlilikte
Meydana Getirdigi Degisim," in II. Ulusal Sosyoloji Kongresi-Toplum ve Göç 20-21-22 Kasım 1996
Mersin (Ankara: Devlet
statistik Enstitüsü Matbaası, 1997), p. 684; Rebii Barkın, Osman Okyar, and
Dogan Avcıoglu, Sehirlere Akın ve Mesken Davası (Ankara: C.H.P. Arastırma Bürosu, 1959), p. 8;
Tunçay et al., "Cumhuriyet
stanbul'u," p. 79.
117
increase in the rural population worsened the living conditions of the peasants and
this situation pressured the rural population to move elsewhere to make their living.
All of the population increase policies and practices there were undertaken during the
republican period caused an increase in the parental mass, which means an increase
in the number of households. The increase in the number of households caused the
division of the lands of the smallholder families into many small parts as a result of
inheritance. As a result, the small-sized lands, which were already below subsistence
level, got much smaller. This pressure of the population increase created the
“pushing” effect of the rural migration in the countryside.206
Table 3. Overall Population / City and Village Population 1927-1960
Proportion of city and village
Population in total (%)
Census Years Total City Population
Village
Population
City Village
1927 13,648,270 3,305,879 10,342,391 24.22 75.78
1935 16,158,018 3,802,642 12,355,376 23.53 76.47
1940 17,820,950 4,346,249 13,474,701 24.39 75.61
1945 18,790,174 4,687,102 14,103,072 24.94 75.06
1950 20,947,188 5,244,337 15,702,851 25.04 74.96
1955 24,064,763 6,927,343 17,137,420 28.79 71.21
1960 27,754,820 8,859,731 18,895,089 31.92 68.08
Source: TÜ
K. Demografi statistikleri.
Available August 2009: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=202 13 June 2007.
Consequently, it is now possible to assert that the smallholder peasantry,
which was clearly defined in Tekeli’s rural transformation chart given in Figure 1,
was directly the subject of the rural migration. In fact, the smallholder peasants
should be defined as being the agents of the rural migration to a large extent than the
landless peasants, who are mostly indicated in the mechanic narration of the relations
of rural migration. During the period in question, the juridical substructure that had
206 For a detailed study on the increase in the parental mass and its relation with the rural migration,
see Besim Darkot, "Türkiye'nin Nüfus Hareketleri Üzerinde Yeni Gözlemler," Türk Cografya Dergisi
17, no. 21 (1961).
118
been created with the LRL, the technical substructure that was created with the
Marshall Plan and the pressure of the population increase developed the smallholder
peasantry into the dominant type of agricultural relations of production and they
rapidly increased in number. However, another important aspect of this relationship
type was the maintenance of the lands that were left behind in the countryside after
the migration.
Table 4. Average Field Size and Proportions According to Operational Types
Years
Average Field Size
(in dönüms)
Proportion of Private
Fields (%)
Proportion of Fields
by Rent (%)
Proportion of Fields
by Sharecropping (%)
1948 847 87 6 7
1949 875 85 7 8
1950 944 82 9 9
1951 1 011 77 12 11
1952 1 113 74 14 12
Source: Yahya Kanbolat, Türkiye Ziraatinde Bünye Degisikligi (Ankara: AÜ, SBF Maliye Enstitüsü,
1963.), p. 40.
Some limited numbers given in Table 4 show that there was an important
development tendency in the rural structures. According to the chart given above,
although the average field size did not increase rapidly or in great number, there was
a decreasing tendency in the proportion of privately owned fields. On the other hand,
there was an increase in the proportion of fields which were rented (both as renting
and sharecropping). This shows an interesting characteristic of the Turkish
agricultural development. Middle and big agricultural production units were created
by the absorption of small agricultural units by their rental, while the proportion of
the small landownership in the rural structure increased. Resat Aktan discusses this
development, according to the same numbers that were given in Table 4 as follows:
Since mechanization started there has been a tendency for larger farms
which use machinery extensively to increase in size. According to the
survey the average size of mechanized farms was about 840 decares
119
(about 210 acres) in 1948, whereas it increased to 1113 decares (about
280 acres) in 1952. However, most of this increment was due to spread
of the practice of renting land; the amount of land owned by these farms
increased by only 45 decares (10 acres) each between the two years.
Turkish villagers generally put great value on land and hold it very
closely to their hearts. Thus the peasant is very reluctant to sell a piece
of land he owns even if he is not cultivating it at that time, unless he is in
great distress. Tractor owners could enlarge their operation by renting
tracts of land which were formerly kept idle or leased to small
sharecroppers. Since cash renting is a more suitable arrangement than
share-cropping for large farmers, during the period of increasing
mechanization the practice of cash rental of land has increased and
sharecropping of small farmers has decreased.207
In order to understand how these relations in the agricultural structure were
developed, some number from the following periods can be given. For example, in
1970 18.8 percent of the agricultural enterprises that operated on more than 500
decares of land hired nearly half of their lands.208 In more data of the same period,
although the 42 percent of the landowners had registered their lands as being less
than 2.5 hectares, only 9 percent of the wheat producer enterprises in Central
Anatolia had that much land.209
This situation can be accepted as the result of the transformation of the rural
structure during the 1950s. The gradually diminishing size of land ownership for
historical and demographic reasons and the increase in the number of small land
ownership as a result of the suitable conditions that had been created by the LRL
maintained the dominance of the smallholder peasantry in Turkey in appearance.
However, even though the size of the land ownership did not get bigger, the
agricultural enterprises developed into middle and big enterprises by gaining control
of land by renting it. After the capitalization of agricultural production, the big
landowners, who had access to the necessary tools for agricultural production (such
as easy access to agricultural credits and machinery), increased the size of their
207 Aktan, "Mechanization," p. 281.
208 Tekeli, "Türkiye Tarımında Mekanizasyonun," p. 319.
209 Margulies and Yıldızoglu, "Tarımsal Degisim," p. 307.
120
agricultural enterprises not by buying the lands but by hiring them from the
smallholder peasants.210
As with the increase of agricultural prices due to the Korean War, the price of
lands also increased. As a result, the smallholder peasants preferred to hire out their
small lands instead of cultivating them and obtaining inadequate returns. Although
these peasants were in financial difficulty, after hiring out their lands they migrated
to the cities to seek their livings. Accordingly, by not selling their lands when they
moved to the cities they were able to generate the initial capital that would help them
in their move.
It is possible to identify the reasons why sharecropper and landless peasants
did not follow the pattern of the smallholder peasants. The landless peasants were
unable to raise the initial capital to travel and settle in the cities. For this reason the
landless peasants did not participate in the migration movements at the beginning.
This situation also created the continuance of the smallholder peasantry as the
dominant type in the rural structure. Although the sharecroppers became unemployed
during this period, not many of them participated in the rural migration. Instead of
moving to the cities they stayed in the countryside and worked in newly created
agricultural jobs or gained new small lands or at least went to such places as
210 Deniz Kandiyoti analyzed the developments in the rural structure after the mechanization during
the 1950s in Sakarya and told a similar story as follows: “One of the most noteworthy developments
in Sakarya, when the village lands reached their cultivable limits, was a 'rush for land' where
mechanized villagers went out of the village and as far South as the plain of Konya in search of land
tenancy. This tenancy was a new form of contractual relation whereby mechanized farmers rented
land by paying a specified amount per dönüm (icar), thus optimizing their holding size to make
mechanization feasible. Clearly, while labour constituted the major limiting factor in the premechanized
period, land took on the most critical role after mechanization, so that ultimately the
differing fortunes of many households could be explained in terms of their ability to retain and
optimize their holdings in the face of pressures to pay debts incurred through credit for tractors and
production costs. Meanwhile, non-mechanized small producers found it increasingly profitable to let
out their land on an icar basis to mechanized farmers. Thus, the former could secure a fixed income
from land which they now had to supplement with additional sources such as wage-work, while
mechanized farmers used these smaller holdings to optimize their larger ones. This created a new
dependence of small producers on mechanized farmers who benefited from this symbiotic
relationship.” Deniz Kandiyoti, "Some Social-Psychological Dimensions of Social Change in a
Turkish Village," The British Journal of Sociology 25, no. 1 (1974), p. 49.
121
Çukurova to work as agricultural workers. Adana, a major city in the Çukurova
region, gained population due to this movement especially in the second half of this
period.211
Table 5. The Temporal Change in Transportation (in hours)
Cities
50 Years Ago by
Cart or Horse
By Automobile in
1957
By Bus in 1949 By Bus in 1957
Ankara-
stanbul 79 7.30 18 14
Ankara-Kayseri 69 5.00 11 9
Ankara-Samsun 96 7.00 20 16

zmir-Balıkesir 37 3.45 - -
Adana-Konya 80 6.00 - -
Erzurum-Trabzon 57 7.45 - -
Source: Cavit Orhan Tütengil, "Türkiye'de
çtimaî Degismeler ve Yol." in 1960-1961 Ders Yılı Sosyoloji
Konferansları, (
stanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası, 1962), pp. 26-27.
Together with the necessity of raising the initial capital, another important
factor that eased the participation to the rural migration was the development of the
transportation systems with the development in the construction of highways during
this period. No matter the reason a peasant had for migrating from his village, if he
had no transportation possibilities or if the transportation was so hard that it did not
allow him to move from the village, he might decide to postpone migration. Thus, it
can be asserted that the rural migration was direct related to the development of
transportation.
The rural migration literature on Turkey and world mostly highlights the
importance of the development of highways as an element that eased and gave pace
to the rural migration.212 To the two main facts that are usually used to define the
reasons for the rural migration, the “push” and “pull” forces, a third fact is added in
211 In 1955-1960 period the pace of the rural migration would be slowed down in many major cities,
but Adana would go in the opposite direction. The rural migration that was directed to Adana doubled
during the second half of the period. Tümertekin, Türkiye'de ç Göçler, p. 41.
212 Karpat, Gecekondu, p. 54.
122
order to explain the effect of the development in the transportation systems. This
third fact is called the “transmitter” force, makes the connection between the pulling
factors in the cities and pushing factors in the countryside.213 The underdevelopment
of the transmitter forces decreases the effects of the other forces and directly
maintains the pace of the rural migration. The degree of development of the
transportation system determines the pace of the rural migration.
In the early Republican period both the difficulties in transportation and the
lack of initial capital had limited the connection of the villages to the city centers.
The transportation from the villages to cities and from city to city was difficult.
During this period it was not the peasants who needed to reach to the city centers, but
the state needed to reach the villages; the roads were built in order to serve to the
needs of the state.214 Before the 1950s, especially in terms of the migrations from the
Black Sea region, the seaways were used for transportation to
stanbul and
zmir.
People boarded in the cheap class of steamboats, called ambar (depot), departing
from the port cities of the Black Sea and reaching
stanbul through Trabzon and
Giresun. The railway destinations that were built during the Republican period also
determined the routes of the rural migration.215
The development of the highways was planned as being part of the Marshall
Plan, by which agricultural products were to be transported to the market easily and
rapidly. In 1948 the US Public Roads Administration to Turkey prepared a survey on
the state of the Turkish highways, which is generally known as the Hilts report.216
This report mainly includes the suggestions of the US administration on the
213 Rusen Keles, 100 Soruda Türkiye'de Sehirlesme, Konut ve Gecekondu (
stanbul: Gerçek Yayınevi,
1972), p. 37; Yakut Sencer, Türkiye'de Kentlesme (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı Yayınları, 1979), pp. 66-
67.
214 Konyar, "Çok Partili," p. 681.
215 Tunçay et al., "Cumhuriyet
stanbul'u," p. 76.
216 H. E. Hilts, The Highway Situation in Turkey: A Report of the United States Public Roads Mission
to Turkey to the Minister of Public Works of Turkey (Ankara: 1948).
123
development of highway networks in order to develop Turkey’s agricultural
production in relation to its place in the international division of labor.
Just after the report, on 11 February 1950 a new law was accepted in the
Assembly called Karayolları Genel Müdürlügü Kurulus ve Görevleri Hakkında
Kanun (The Law on the Establishment and the Duties of the General Administration
on Highways). With this law, the juridical and administrative substructure for the
development program for the highways in Turkey would be maintained according to
the recommendations of the US administration.217 In a short time, the construction of
the highways started. When the amount of highway is accepted as 100 in 1947, in
comparison the increase in the state and district roads reached 228 in 1957. The total
amount of roads which were covered with asphalt increased from 532 km in 1946 to
4,376 km in 1957.218 Together with this development in the construction of the
highways the time for transportation between the cities shortened, as can be seen in
Table 5, and the amount of people and loads increased. The average number of
transportation vehicles that passed from a certain point increased from 26 to 120 in
the 1948-1958 period.219
Another development was a decrease in the prices of transportation. With the
start of the construction of the highways, also together with the bettering economic
conditions of the peasants, the costs of transportation for people and loads decreased.
For example, the cost of carriage for per ton/km, 25 piasters in 1948 fell to 14.5
piasters in 1953 and the cost of carrying per passenger/km fell from 2 to 1.7 piasters
during the same period. However, with the worsening economic conditions and the
crisis that occurred in the last years of the DP government, these prices rose
217 Cavit Orhan Tütengil, çtimaî ve ktisadî Bakımdan Türkiyenin Karayolları (
stanbul:
stanbul
Matbaası, 1961), pp. 20-21.
218 Ibid., pp. 22-23.
219 Ibid., p. 163.
124
significantly, the load carriage increased to 47 piasters and the passenger carriage
became 5.2 piasters in 1958.220
As the development of the highways affected the prices of transportation, so it
did affect the cultural living conditions of the peasants. Firstly, the connection of the
villages to the cities was increased with the development of the highways, and the
villages were not as isolated as they had been in previous times. Newspapers
published in Istanbul or Ankara quickly reached the villages, resulting in the
awareness of the peasants about the country’s problems increasing. With the
development of the newspaper distribution network initiated by Hürriyet newspaper,
the peasants had access to various newspapers more easily. For example, sending
newspapers to Edirne by private truck increased newspaper sales in Thrace from
2,500 to 6,500 in 1955.221
Secondly, when the distance between the cities and the villages decreased
with the establishment of new highway networks, the consumer habits of the cities
spread to the villages. Together with the effect of the advertisements on radio and in
newspapers many grocery stores were opened in the villages which sold modern
canned foods.222 The spatial convergence between the cities and villages created the
unification of the peasants with the perception of time throughout country. The time
schedules of the transportation vehicles changed the use of the old alaturka time to
that of the national time system.223
At this stage it can be asserted that the relation between transportation and
rural migration was significant in the decision of peasants to move to the city. Along
with the increase in the transportation systems the cities were no longer places to be
220 Ibid., p. 77.
221 Cavit Orhan Tütengil, "Türkiye'de
çtimaî Degismeler ve Yol," in 1960-1961 Ders Yılı Sosyoloji
Konferansları (
stanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası, 1962), pp. 28-29.
222 Karpat, "Social Effects," p. 90.
223 Tütengil, "Yol," p. 25.
125
scared of but attractive places for the peasants who could no longer continue their
lives in their villages. To prove this, it should be noted that the participation in the
rural migration was limited from the places where the transportation systems were
not developed. Especially from the underdeveloped regions such as the southeastern
Anatolia, the landless peasants did not participate in the migration movements during
the first phases. The main reasons for this were their inability to raise the initial
capital and underdeveloped transportation systems. The migration of these people
began in the second half of the 1950s and especially during the 1960s.
After all of these explanations of the reasons for the rural migration, it is
necessary to evaluate the overall reasons for not making a stereotyped definition for
the rural migration movements, by returning to the first question. As was shown in
Table 1, the transformation of the rural structure created various and differentiated
structures in the countryside. Also the old structures in the countryside did not
change by passing through a unique experience. On the contrary, many economic,
geographical, demographic and cultural developments affected the creation of the
new rural structures.
lhan Tekeli summarizes this development as follows:
The transformation that was created with the process of capitalization
and mechanization in agriculture created a two-sided development. On
the one side, the mechanization and capitalization created the
mechanism for dispossession and depeasantization by rural migration;
on the other hand, it created the mechanism that would allow staying in
the countryside by creating a kind of rural marginal group. Here, to
show the existence of the formation of such a marginal group in the
countryside recovers the explanation of depeasantization by rural
migration be attached to only one independent factor, which enters to the
countryside from outside.224
224 Tekeli, "Türkiye Tarımında Mekanizasyonun," p. 328. “Tarımda kapitalistlesme ve mekanizasyon
sürecinin yarattıgı dönüsüm iki yönlü bir gelisim ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Bir yandan mekanizasyon ve
kapitalistlesme, mülksüzlesme ve kırdan kopus mekanizmasını olustururken, öte yandan bir çesit kırsal
marjinal kesim yaratarak kırda kalmaya olanak saglayan mekanizmalar olusturmaktadır. ste kırsal
kesimde böyle bir marjinal kesim olusumunun varlıgının gösterilmesi, kırdan kopusun açıklanmasını
kıra dıstan giren tek bir bagımsız degiskene baglı olmaktan kurtarıyor.”
126
As was shown above, instead of maintaining the reason for the increase in the
rural migration movements, the mechanization of agriculture created some
intermediary mechanisms that obstructed the migration movements during this
period. The most important ones of these mechanisms were the increase in the
amount of cultivated lands and the creation of new job opportunities with the arrival
of machinery. In fact, the relation of mechanization with rural migration had an
inversely proportional relation. Gülten Kazgan describes the characteristics of this
relationship as follows:
How much did the mechanization increase the flow to the cities in our
country? As it is commonly known, the agricultural machinery displaced
in Turkey mostly the landless strata defined as “sharecropper.”
However, it is understood that the ones who left the village to earn their
livings are not from the rich villages that the agricultural tools and
machines have entered, but from the villages that the machines have not
entered yet and the level of living is very low. B. and G. Helling
observed a negative correlation as (r = -5.543,) which cannot be
underestimated, between the standards of living and the workers that
leave to earn their livings. This point shows us that the importance of the
flow out from the village due to the mechanization is not that great yet.
In fact, although the number of peasant families is nearly 2.5 million, the
number of tractors is approximately 45,000 and this means that the ratio
of mechanization is barely 1/600. It can clearly be seen that … there is
an inversely proportional relation between the regions that send out
labor from the villages and the regions that have modern machineries. In
other words, there is a strong flow of leaving the villages in the regions
that have less agricultural tools and machinery.225
In the light of these statements, then, it must be asked why the relation of
mechanization and rural migration was understood as a direct mechanical
225 Kazgan, "Sehirlere Akın," p. 386. “Makinalasma memleketimizde ne dereceye kadar sehirlere
akını siddetlendirmistir? Bilindigi gibi, ziraî makinalar Türkiye’de daha ziyade “ortakçı-yarıcı”
denilen topraksız zümreyi yerinden etmistir. Ancak, köyden dısarı kazanç maksadiyle gidenlerin
çogunlukla modern ziraî âlet ve makinaların girdigi zengin köyler degil, fakat henüz makinanın
girmedigi, hayat seviyesi çok düsük köylerden oldugu anlasılmaktadır. B. ve G. Helling hayat
standardı ve köyden dısarı kazanç maksadiyle giden isçiler arasında (r = -5,543) gibi
küçümsenmiyecek menfî bir korrelasyon tesbit etmistir. Bu husus da bize, makinalasma dolayısiyle
köyden dısarı akının öneminin henüz pek fazla olmadıgını göstermektedir. Gerçekten, çiftçi aile
sayısının 2,5 milyon civarında olmasına karsılık, traktör sayısının 45 bin kadar olması dolayısile
makinalasma nisbeti ancak 1/600 nisbetinde demektir. Köyden dısarı isgücü gönderen bölgelerle
modern makinaların mevcut bulundugu bölgeler arasında ters orantılı bir münasebet bulundugu,
diger bir deyisle, ziraî âlet ve makinalar kıymetinin düsük bulundugu bölgelerde köyden dısarı daha
kuvvetli bir akının mevcudiyeti … açıkça görülmektedir.”
127
interaction? Three main reasons can be put forward in order to explain this
perspective. First, it is an easy way to accept the mechanical explanations while
trying to explain a related problem. Especially in urban studies, this mechanical
perception is often seen. Most urban studies researchers do not pay attention to what
happens in the countryside, but focus mainly on the developments and
transformation in the city. Especially with the development of the field of urban
studies in the 1960s and 1970s, most studies theorized urban and rural areas as
distinct places. The dominant effect of these studies determined the perception on the
rural migration. However, as Mehmet Ecevit writes, “without knowing ‘what kind of
migration dynamics is in question,’ it becomes almost impossible to answer the
question of ‘what kind of city’.”226
Second, this outcome is reinforced with the perception created by the
prejudgments on the DP period. Especially after the 1960 coup, the efforts to accuse
the DP for everything that had been done during its years in power without
questioning them created this belief about the rural migration. By ignoring the entire
structure of the economic preferences of Turkey after the Second World War, this
judgment on the rural migration follows the mechanic linear conceptualization of
Americanization-Marshall Plan-mechanization-rural migration. This linear
conceptualization obstructs the understanding of the whole period. As was told in
this chapter, it was not only the political and economic preferences of the DP, but the
whole economic transformation of the rural structure that enabled the rural migration
movements during this period.
Finally, not making any distinctions between the phases of rural migration
movements creates an understanding that asserts all phases have same reasons and
226 Ecevit, "
ç Göçün Unutulan Kaynakları," p. 501. “’nasıl bir göç dinamiginin söz konusu oldugu’
bilinmeden, ‘nasıl bir kent’ sorusuna da cevap verebilmek neredeyse imkânsız hale gelir.”
128
consequences. The effect of agricultural mechanization can be more easily traced in
the rural migration movements during the 1960s and 1970s. However, in the 1950s,
there were also some intermediary mechanisms that obstructed and delayed some of
the peasants’ participation in the rural migration movements. By ignoring these
differences between two periods, a unified understanding of rural migration was
created that held that it existed similarly in all phases of the rural migration. The
rural migration movements which began during the first years of the 1950s, were
different from those of the 1960s and 1970s. They were also undergoing change
during the last years of the 1950s. This need for a unified reasoning of the rural
migration movements occurred as a result of the need to find solutions to the
problems that were occurring in the cities due to the rural migration, as stated at the
beginning of this section. The increasing questioning in the academic and political
spheres in order to solve the problems of urbanization quickly also brought a
perception that create a rapid and easy description of the problem. This mechanic
description of the rural migration problem settled in the academic and political
spheres and the stereotyped relations of mechanization and rural migration definition
were widely accepted.
From now on, the developments that occurred after the peasants move
towards the cities will be analyzed. In this way, what happened to the peasants that
moved to the cities will also be investigated.
The Peasants in the Cities and the Invention of the “Gecekondu”
According to
lhan Tekeli, there are three main consequences of the people’s
spatial move for the production order of industrial society. These are the
129
displacement of the labor, capital and the consumer or the market.227 Actually all of
these movements reveal that the economic structure is basically changing. The
spatial move of all of these elements, except for fixed varieties of economy such as
land and machinery, from countryside to cities also show that there is an overall
development in the capitalist relations of production. This situation also reveals that
with the movement of labor, capital and market there can be changes in the
characteristics of the capitalist relations of production. The effect of the rural
migration on the capitalist relations in the cities during the period in question was on
two main bases. One of these effects was on the relations of production in the cities
and the other one was on the spatial structures. The first one was determined through
the city’s capacity to absorb the new labor supply, which increased with the rural
migration, and this employment process was shaped through the development level
of the city. The second one created a new building and construction form in the cities
that occurred in order to meet the shelter requirements of the newcomers, which is
commonly called the gecekondu (literally-built in one night).
In the previous sections it was shown that the mechanization of agriculture
and rural migration did not have a direct relation of determination. In addition, it was
said that although with the creation of some intermediary mechanisms the rural
migration did not involve all of the peasants of the period, the mechanization
affected more directly the peasants in the following periods. This situation was also
stated by some researchers of the period. William H. Nicholls called attention to the
complementary relation in between agriculture and industry by comparing the singleparty
economic policies with the economic policies in the DP period and said that
“any further increase in the number of what might be called ‘Bayar’s oxen’ (tractors)
227
lhan Tekeli, "Türkiye'de
çgöç Sorunsalı Yeniden Tanımlanma Asamasına Geldi," in Türkiye'de
çgöç, Sorunsal Alanları ve Arastırma Yöntemleri Konferansı 6-8 Haziran 1997 Bolu-Gerede
(
stanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, 1998), p. 11.
130
should largely await more ‘Atatürk minarets’ (smokestacks).”228 He was trying to
say that if the development in agriculture that was based on mechanization was
supported by the development in industry the rural migration waves, which might
occur afterwards, could create problems in the cities; especially the employment
problem for the rural migrants, who were needed to be replaced in industrial work in
the city. Due to that, the development in industry had to follow the development in
agriculture.
After the Second World War the economic condition of the cities in Turkey
were not in good condition. They were too small to employ all of the peasants that
migrated to the them. The economic structure of the cities was not very developed
due to both the economic preferences of the single-party period and the destructive
effects of the Second World War. As a result, the peasants who migrated to the cities
began to work in non-industrial and non-registered sectors, which are commonly
known as the marginal sector. The marginal sector would become a settled economic
activity in the cities later, due to the underdeveloped structure of the cities, which
could not employ all of the peasant immigrants. The newly arrived groups first
entered into the most active sector of the 1950-1960 period, which was that of
building and road construction.
These workers, who had grown up outside of the city culture, created a binary
structure between the old labor forces in the cities. This process gave birth to a
“fragmented working class,” as described by Ahmet
çduygu,
brahim Sirkeci and

smail Aydıngün, between,
the institutionalized mass of the working class, who had become
workers before and due to that were relatively more organized and
conscious … and on the other hand, the new migrant workers, who were
still in a phase of proletarianization, more weak in the meaning of class
228 Nicholls, "Investment in Agriculture," p. 67.
131
consciousness, unorganized, but with the labor force they serve they are
in intensive competition with the conscious mass of workers that was
stated before.229
This new working class would mostly be composed of the above-mentioned
peasants. These workers were not totally dispossessed, due to the mechanisms that
maintained the continuance of the smallholder peasantry, and as a result they did not
totally take on the working class characteristics while they were in the cities.
However, although these new workers found themselves in rivalry with the
previously existing workers in the cities, they caused the creation of a new labor
market in which all kinds of workers would take part. Again with the descriptions of

çduygu, Sirkeci and Aydıngün, these new workers contributed to the creation and
the continuance of the import substitution model in the economy, which would start
at the end of the 1950s and would be dominant in the 1960s, by providing a cheap
labor force for all sectors, by meeting the supply deficit with imitated and nonregistered
products, by spreading and making cheaper the distribution facilities with
itinerant trade and other such ways, by increasing domestic demand in order to
support the development of the production in the cities and by transferring their
limited accumulation to the cities that they made due to their continual ties with the
agricultural production.230 In a way, the rural migration and the peasants that came to
the cities maintained the creation of industrial city production through the 1960s with
their labor and cultural habits.
The continuation of this new labor market can be related to two basic factors.
First, the continual need of the industrial production in the cities for cheap labor
229 Ahmet
çduygu,
brahim Sirkeci, and
smail Aydıngün, "Türkiye'de
çgöç ve
çgöçün
sçi
Hareketine Etkisi," in Türkiye'de çgöç (
stanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı,
1998), p. 211. “bir yanda, kentlerde daha önce isçilesmis ve böylece görece olarak çok daha örgütlü,
bilinçli, kurumsallasmıs bir isçi kitlesi ..., diger yanda ise isçilesme sürecinin bir noktasında bulunan,
sınıf bilinci anlamında çok daha zayıf, örgütsüz, ancak sundugu isgücü ile ilk olarak saydıgımız
bilinçli isçi kümesi ile yogun bir rekabet içinde olan yeni göçmen isçiler”
230 Ibid., p. 235.
132
increased the probability of finding jobs for the newly arrived members of the city. In
a way, while the industry was developing, these worker-peasants were
operationalized as a reserve labor force and were used as a cost-decreasing element.
The second factor, which will be analyzed below in detail, was the proliferation of
gecekondu settlements in the cities. This housing type eased the settlement of the
peasants in the cities at first and also was accepted as a cost-decreasing factor for the
industrial sector, as when the peasants found cheaper places to live, their demands
from the labor market would be limited. The gecekondu settlements, in a way,
decreased the cost of shelter in the total costs of industrial production. In this way the
proliferation of the gecekondu settlements did not bring much burden on the cities’
economic development at the first instance.
Squatting is defined mostly as a “problem” which occurred as a result of the
different paces of development in industry and agriculture sectors. As Mübeccel
Kıray writes, the squatting occurs “in societies in which relatively the market
oriented production in agriculture (cash cropping) and the accumulation of
population in the cities are increasing rapidly but a very slow industrialization
happens.”231 Kemal H. Karpat says that this kind of development is a general
characteristics in every late capitalist society and by counting the names of this kind
of squatting from twenty different countries asserts that these names could be the
subject of very meaningful cultural studies “because they expressed the perception
and culture of every country on confiscating someone else’s land and other related
matters.”232
231 Mübeccel Kıray, "Gecekondu: Az Gelismis Ülkelerde Hızla Topraktan Kopma ve Kentle
Bütünlesememe," Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 27, no. 3 (1972), p. 561.
“tarımda pazara yönelik üretime (cash cropping) geçisin göresel olarak hızlandıgı ve kentteki nüfus
yıgılmasının hızla artmasına karsılık, çok yavas bir sanayilesmenin gerçeklestigi toplumlarda”
232 Karpat, Gecekondu, pp. 9, 34-35.”her ülkenin fakire, baskasına ait araziye el koymaya ve diger
konulara dair kültür ve bakıs açısını ifade ettigi için”
133
In Turkey the term gecekondu is used to define the settlement type, which is
made on state or private property without permission and without the existence of
any substructure facilities. The term was invented as a result of the amazement that
was felt by the common public from the building of these settlements, often in a
single night. Again, Karpat says that “the squatter districts [can be defined] as the
side product of the rapid economic development and industrialization, the
developments in agriculture and the scarcity of residence,” should not be confused
with the slums, which mostly exist in developed industrial cities.233 Even though the
slums resemble gecekondus in appearance, gecekondus are different from slums in
their creation and life styles and the characteristics of the people that reside in
them.234
The 1940-1960 period corresponded to a similar process in other parts of the
world. During the 1940-1960 period the population in the urban settlements of
underdeveloped countries increased from 220 million to 490 million. At the end of
this development, the United Nations calculated in 1970 that squatter settlements in
23 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America made up 35 percent of the total urban
population in these countries.235
This migration and urbanization process happened very rapidly in Turkey
and, as Tekeli says, this transformation “has over and done within a person’s
233 Ibid., p. 50. “gecekondu semtleri hızlı iktisadi kalkınma ve sanayilesmenin, tarımdaki degismelerin
ve mesken kıtlıgının bir yan ürünü olarak”
234 Nephan Saran states that the gecekondu type in Turkey stands in between the English and Indian
types of squatter settlements. Although in all three of these countries there is an intense flow of
migration from the countryside the reaction of the states differs in each other. In England state builds
houses for the new comers through municipalities. As oppose to that in India these immigrants stay in
parks, streets and train stations. In Turkey the rural immigrants did not wait any help from the state or
they did not stay in the streets, instead they built their own buildings. Nephan Saran, "Squatter
Settlement (Gecekondu) Problems in
stanbul," in Turkey, Geographic and Social Perspectives, ed.
Peter Benedict, Erol Tümertekin, and Fatma Mansur (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974), p. 330.
235 Halil I. Tas and Dale R. Lightfoot, "Gecekondu Settlements in Turkey: Rural-Urban Migration in
the Developing European Periphery," The Journal of Geography, no. 104 (Nov/Dec 2005), pp. 263-
264.
134
lifetime.”236 The urbanization that occurred as a result of the rural migration was so
rapid that the pace of urbanization, which was much more rapid than that of the
natural growth, transformed the structure of the big cities almost overnight. For
example, according to the calculations of Ferhunde Özbay, if
stanbul had never
gained population with rural migration, with at a natural rate of growth its population
would have been roughly 2.5 million in 1990, whereas, the population of
stanbul
was already 7.5 million at that time.237 This rapid rural migration and limited
industrialization and urbanization, which did not meet the needs of the immigrants,
created the fact of squatting in Turkey, and due to that the increasing urbanization
since the 1950s have always been defined together with this fact. In a study prepared
by the Ministry of Development and Housing in 1960 it was stated that the amount of
the gecekondus among the total number of the residences were 64 percent in Ankara,
46 percent in Adana and 40 percent in
stanbul,
skenderun and Erzurum. Again
according to the same study, the proportion of people that were living in the
gecekondus to the people that lived in other types of residences was calculated as
59.22 percent in Ankara, 45 percent in
stanbul, 44.95 percent in Adana.238
As Karpat said in the quotation given above, the most important aspect that
was effective in the creation of the gecekondus was the scarcity of housing or, as it
was called and discussed in Turkey, the “housing crisis” (mesken buhranı). When the
rural migration brought peasants to live in the cities, the scarcity of housing
necessitated the creation of alternative housing types. The difference of the
gecekondus from the slums occurred at this point. In the case of the nonavailability
of spare houses or places which could be used to meet the shelter problem of the
236
lhan Tekeli, "Türkiye'nin Göç Tarihindeki Degisik Kategoriler," in Kökler ve Yollar: Türkiye'de
Göç Süreçleri, ed. Ayhan Kaya and Bahar Sahin (
stanbul:
stanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları,
2007), p. 455. “bir kisinin yasam süresi içinde olup bitmistir.”
237 Baydar, "1950 Sonrası Göç," p. 406.
238 Karpat, Gecekondu, p. 33.
135
poor city-dwellers or rural migrants, the only alternative solution to this problem
became the construction of new houses. If this scarcity was met by the state or the
private sector or if the values of the shelters that were maintained by the state or
private sector were so high for these people, new alternative off-system ways needed
to be invented. The appearance of these alternative places with the invention of the
gecekondus can be explained by the inadequacy of the state and private sector during
the post-war period. Although the building of illegal houses had been seen during the
Ottoman period,239 the widespread construction of the gecekondu type building was
connected with the special conditions of the post-war years.
During the Second World War period the construction sector nearly stopped
due to various reasons. Gerhard Kessler calculated roughly the number of required
houses for the period of 1942-1948 as 11,200. The new rural immigrants were not
added to this number. Kessler added that the number of required buildings increased
in the following periods and if new houses were not built immediately there would
be a “housing crisis.”240 The “housing crisis,” which was widely discussed during the
period, can be defined as a problem that occurred due to an inadequate number of
houses not only for the rural migrants, but also for the existing urban population.
This situation also created suitable conditions for the establishment of the gecekondu
settlements in Turkey.
Writing in 1949, Ekmel Zâdil defined three main reasons for the housing
crisis. These were the confiscations which had done without building new houses
instead, the rapid decline in construction activities due to the economic destruction of
the Second World War, and as a reason that affected each of them, the restriction on
239 See Orhan Erinç, "250 Yıl Önce
stanbul'da Gecekondu Kaçak
nsaat Sahil Yagması Sorunları ve
Çareleri," Belgelerle Türk Tarihi Dergisi, no. 10 (July1968).
240 Gerhard Kessler, "
stanbul'da Mesken Darlıgı, Mesken Sefaleti, Mesken
nsaatı," Arkitekt 18, no.
5-6 (1949), p. 131.
136
the increase of rents which was executed by the National Protection Law.241 In order
to protect tenants from the destructive effects of the war, Article 30 of the National
Protection Law that was promulgated on 1 January 1940 said that no changes could
be made to the rental contracts of 1939 and as a result rents could not be increased; in
addition, except for some limited reasons, landlords could not evict tenants. This
situation caused a great decrease in rental incomes during the inflationist economic
atmosphere of the war and also caused the rental-based construction activities to
come to a halt. The main reason for the stop of construction activities during the war
was the pressure of the state to sell or rent houses underpriced, while the prices of
construction materials skyrocketed due to the war.
This situation changed the structure of the cities in which not only the new
arrivals but also the existing population could not meet their housing requirements.
Zâdil said that in this situation the families looking for housing, preferred one of
three alternatives. The first was to live together in a common or shared building.242
The second one was creation of the landlords in order to protect themselves from the
restrictions of the law. The tenants could find themselves a house by paying extra
money to the landlord (called hava parası-key money).243 This practice was created
during the Second World War due to the restrictions of the law on the increase of the
rents. When the landlords could not increase the rents they increased the hava parası.
241 According to Zâdil’s calculations when the year 1938 is accepted as 100, the decrease in the
construction activities was 78 in 1940 and 47 in 1941. Ekmel Zâdil, "
stanbul'da Mesken Mes'eleleri
ve Gecekondular," in çtimai Siyaset Konferansları, kinci Kitap (
stanbul:
.Ü.
ktisat ve
çtimaiyat
Enstitüsü Nesriyatı, 1949), pp. 72-73-74.
242 Kemal Demirel tells the story of this kind of living during the Second World War years in his
memories named Evimizin nsanları (The people of our house). This book later filmed by Tunç
Basaran in 1990 as Piano Piano Bacaksız (Piano Piano Kid).
243 Gerhard Kessler defined and curses the invention of hava parası as being the illegal practice of the
war riches and says the following words: “The wealthy ones without obeying to the law, in addition to
the legal rents, illegitimately follow the way of paying a great amount in order to find a new house,
which is named and commonly known today as hava parası.” “Varlıklı kimseler kanuna riayet
etmiyerek, yeni bir mesken bulabilmek için, kanuni kiraların yanıbasında, bugün herkesin malûmu
olan hava parası namındaki büyük bir meblâgı gayrı mesru olarak tediye cihetine giderler.” Kessler,
"
stanbul'da Mesken Darlıgı," p. 132.
137
Adopted during the war, this practice continues today. However, the first moving
expenses in this practice were much higher and due to that the tenants did not leave
the houses into which they moved and eventually no new spare houses were left
again. The last alternative was, in Zâdil words, “the necessity to reside in nonhealthy
barracks that were built in empty fields, in other words, the gece-kondus.”244
These problems that occurred due the execution of the National Protection Law were
solved as late as the 1950s. However, the rural migration could no longer be stopped
and the squatting was accepted as a settled and applicable construction activity for
the rural immigrants during that period.
As for the squatter settlements, Istanbul underwent the most remarkable
transformation. As the most crowded place and center for economic activities and
with its distinctive culture,
stanbul became the center of the discussions on the
squatter settlements and the transformation of the cities with the rural migration.
When the origins of the rural migrants that came to
stanbul is investigated, it can be
seen that most of them came from cities, which mostly participated in the rural
migration. The people that came from Black Sea region mostly settled in
Zeytinburnu and Kazlıçesme, which were the first established gecekondu settlements
in
stanbul. The Balkan immigrants, who came to the country after 1951, settled in
Taslıtarla (Bayrampasa) together with Black Sea migrants. As the last gecekondu
activities during this period, migrants from Black Sea, East and Southeastern and
Central Anatolian regions settled along the hills of the Bosporus and the hills of
Gültepe, Kustepe, Çeliktepe and Kagıthane.245 When it is thought that the
244 Zâdil, "
stanbul'da Mesken," pp. 75-76. “bos arsalarda kurulan gayri sıhhi barakalarda ikamet
zarureti, yâni Gece-kondular.”
245 Baydar, "1950 Sonrası Göç," p. 410. It is possible to find the proof of the assertion that the most of
the migrants to
stanbul came from the Black Sea region, in the oral history studies that were made on
this subject. For example, in an oral study on Taslıtarla, in the interviews conducted with the
immigrants that came from Bulgaria first and afterwards move to
stanbul, they told that even the
138
establishment of the gecekondu settlements was done by people that migrated from
the countryside, it is again possible to assert that the rural migration was mostly
occurred from the regions in which the mechanization of agriculture was low and the
smallholder peasantry was dominant.
The popular and academic perceptions on the people living in the gecekondu
settlements differ according to the periods in Turkish history. According to Tahire
Erman’s classification, the perceptions on the gecekondu people can be defined in
four different periods. The people living in the squatter settlements were defined
during the 1950s and 1960s as the “Peasant Squatters,” and during the 1970s as the
“Exploited/Disadvantageous Squatters.” During the 1980s and 1990s the definition
transformed to a binary opposition between the “Squatters that acquire illegally” and
the “City-Poor Squatters.” This definition has been transformed since the 1990s as
again to a new binary opposition between the “Slum Dwellers as Inconvenient
Squatters” and the “Squatters as Agents.”246
The definition of the “Peasant Squatters” pretty much fits the period that is
analyzed in this study. During this first period, in which there was a rapid increase in
urbanization and rural migration, the newly established structures could not be
defined. These new immigrants in the cities were not accepted as being city-dwellers;
instead they were called “peasants in the cities.” These peasants in the cities lived
alongside the old residents of the cities. Sharing the same places with these
newcomers created an exclusionist perception among the old city dwellers.
mafia-type organizations dominant in the gecekondu construction business in Taslıtarla were from the
Black Sea region. This situation gives us the proof of intense and historical Black Sea migration to

stanbul. "Bulgaristan'dan Türkiye'ye Sivas'tan
stanbul'a...
ki Kez Göçmen!..(Akdeniz Sesleri Projesi
Kapsamında Bir Sözlü Tarih Çalısması)," Toplumsal Tarih, no. 140 (Agustos 2005), p. 88.
246 Tahire Erman, "Gecekondu Çalısmalarında 'Öteki' Olarak Gecekondulu Kurguları," European
Journal of Turkish Studies, no. 1 Thematic Issue, Gecekondu, p. 1.
139
Karpat describes these reactions as follows: “The old residents of the city, in
other words settled, notable, self-confident and middle-class valued families, defined
the rural migration as an invasion. … As being the loyal defenders of old elitist order
and its values, while living in their elite settlements these families also surrounded
gradually with this rising wave from the countryside.”247 On the other side, wellknown
academics of the period, Gerhard Kessler and his student Ekmel Zâdil,
praised the labor that created the gecekondu settlements and asserted that these
newcomers should have been included to the political system of the cities in order
not to create social disorder.248 However notwithstanding the statements of Kessler
247 Karpat, Gecekondu, p. 114. “Kentin eski sakinleri, yani eski orta sınıf degerlerine sahip kendinden
emin, tanınmıs, yerlesik aileler göçü bir köylü istilası saydılar. ... Eski seçkinci düzenin ve onun
degerlerinin sadık savunucuları olarak, bu aileler kendi seçkin semtlerinde yasamaya devam ederken,
kırdan yükselen bu dalga tarafından tedricen kusatıldılar.”
248 Kessler said the following words on this subject: “Hereby at first, I want to state that I deeply
appreciate the people that apply to the precautions of self-help. These people proved their love,
intentness of purpose and devotion to their families. They are included to the most hardworking and
valuable citizens of our city and the best ones among them should be elected to the City and National
Assembly in the following elections.” “Bu vesile ile evvelâ, bu kendi kendine yardım tedbirine bas
vurmus olan insanları son derece takdir ettigimi belirtmek isterim. Bunlar ailelerine karsı olan
sevgilerini, azimkârlık ve fedakârlıklarını ispat etmislerdir. Sehrimizin en çalıskan ve kıymetli
hemsehrileri arasına dahildirler ve insan bunların aralarındaki en iyileri gelecek seçimlerde Sehir
Meclisine ve Millet Meclisine intihap etmelidir.” Kessler, "
stanbul'da Mesken Darlıgı," p. 132. Ekmel
Zâdil idealizes the gecekondu settlements almost like telling an utopian city, by leaning on his
observations as follows: “Among one of them that I looked around was owned by a carpenter and it
was a well furnished, properly heated house. You cannot find such a clean and cheerful house in the
city center today for 60 liras. There was a white-bearded old guy in his eighties in the garden working;
I watched with admiration this vigorous old man, who said he was the father of the carpenter and
working to make the garden more beatiful and fertile with the pride and pleasure of owning a detached
house. Almost in every house there was a child at primary school age. They were playing in their
garden with such a joy and pleasure that one could not stop appreciating with a new love the ones that
had created these places with great deprivation for the health, joy and felicity of their children. Our
amazement increased while we walked; you came across all new grocery stores and coffeehouse.
There were even butchers, coal dealers and wood dealers here, I mentioned earlier from the barber
shop and tailor. As I said before one imagined himself in a new commune. The security work was
handled by four gendermeries, whereas there was no need for such official guards because here is
safer than Beyoglu. Everyone knew and respected each other. They said that there were no stealing
and molestation events. The worker girls say that they could return back from the factories late at
night without any hesitation or fear.” “Bunlardan gezdigim ve bir marangoza aid olanı güzel
dösenmis, iyi ısınmıs bir evdi. Gayet temiz iç açıcı vaziyetteki böyle bir evi bugün sehir içinde 60
liraya bulamazsınız. Bahçesinde ak sakallı 80 lik bir ihtiyar çalısıyordu; marangozun babası
oldugunu söyleyen ve müstakil bir evin sahibi olmak gurur ve zevkiyle bahçesini daha güzellestirmege
ve daha verimli bir hâle kalbetmege çalısan bu dinç ihtiyarı hayranlıkla seyrettim. Hemen her evin ilk
mektep çagında bir çocugu var. Bahçelerinde öyle keyifli ve nes’eli oynuyorlardı ki, insan,
çocuklarının sıhhat, nes’e ve saadeti için büyük mahrumiyetlerle buralarını meydana getirenleri yeni
bir sevgi ile takdir etmekten kendini alamıyordu. Yürüdükçe hayretimiz artıyor; yeni yeni bakkal
dükkânları, kahvehane ile karsılasıyorsunuz. Burada kasap, kömürcü ve oduncu da var, berber ve
terziden daha evvel bahsetmistim. Diyorum ya insan kendini yeni bir komünde zannediyor. Emniyet
140
and Zâdil, the general social perception was that the old urban structure had been
spoiled with the rural migration and the state had to restore the old order.249
Against this rapid rural migration movement the state seemed unprepared.
Although the state officials tried to create some solutions to this problem, most of
them were fruitless. The state officials, soon after the establishment of the first
gecekondu settlements, tried to take the situation into their hands and tried to control
these settlements by demolishing these “illegal” buildings. However, as a rapid and
cheap construction activity, the construction of the gecekondus continued even after
the intervention of the state officials. These buildings could be rebuilt in one night
after they had been demolished and this is why they were called gece (night)-kondu
(building). This rapid rebuilding characteristic of the gecekondus made the struggle
of the state against them nearly impossible. A Bulgarian immigrant who migrated to
Taslıtarla in
stanbul at the beginning of the 1950s related how they built the
gecekondus and the scenery of a gecekondu settlement as follows:
At nights we were building gecekondu for one of us, in turns, I built my
gecekondu in 54-55. My mother brought some gold jewelry from
Bulgaria, I sold it in the Kapalıçarsı. We built a gecekondu, which
consisted of a small room, a big room and a smaller terrace. Many things
happened to us while building it. The gendarmeries came, they were
demolished from one side, we built again from another, there was no
water, we were carrying water from the spring at night and so forth. For
example, we were digging the foundation in the daylight, when the night
fell we made the foundation, at night we set the bricks, as such with our
hands. We put mud instead of mortar. At the same time we were so
respectful to each other and there were a good neighborhood
relationships. During that time the roads were all dirt, there was no water
or electricity, of course, we had to sit with the gas lambs. When the night
fell we could not be late, if we were late we could not find the houses.
isleri dört tane jandarma tarafından temin ediliyor, halbuki böyle resmî bekçilere hiç de hacet yok
zira burası Beyoglundan daha emin. Herkes birbirin biliyor ve sayıyor. Hırsızlık ve sarkıntılık
vakalarına hiç rastlanmadıgını söylüyorlar. sçi kızlar gece geç vakit fabrikalarından hiç korkmadan
ve çekinmeden geldiklerini söylediler.” Zâdil, "
stanbul'da Mesken," p. 83.
249 For an early evaluation of this kind of perception in literature, see Cevat Fehmi Baskut, Göç
(
stanbul:
nkılap ve Aka Kitabevi, 1962). In this play of Baskut, the pace of the adaptation of the
rural immigrants to the city values is shown. Also Baskut satirizes the changing conditions by
dramatizing that the old city-dwellers cannot coop with these newly changed condition of the city and
“migrate” to the countryside.
141
Because the houses were all the same, same roof tiles, same roofs, same
gardens…250
The squatters entered into various kinds of struggles with the state officials,
sometimes bargaining with or sometimes struggling against them. In 1948, as a result
of negotiations made with the district governor who came to demolish the gecekondu
settlements in Zeytinburnu, the squatters blocked the demolition of their buildings.251
Various struggle forms were invented by the squatters in order to resist the
demolition and these forms were known even during that period.252 Sometimes the
resistance was not so easy. For example, in the Altındag district of Ankara, 1500-
2000 squatters defended their settlements and resisted the gendarmerie with digging
tools.253 After the spread of the gecekondu settlements the squatters got organized
and they struggled to obtain their urban rights and even organized some street
meetings. Tansı Senyapılı describes these activities as follows:
According to an article published in Hürriyet newspaper on 21 February
1955, 600 people living in 100 gecekondus in the demolished
zmir
Araphasan neighborhood organized a “protest meeting.” On 6 May, the
stanbul Gecekondularını Güzellestirme Dernegi (Association for the
Adornment of the Gecekondus of
stanbul) came to Ankara with a
committee consisting of 6 people and wanted from the government to
show places for the 5,000 gecekondus which planned to be demolished.
On 22 August, the Association for the Adornment of Gecekondus held
an assembly and declared to the press that they wanted to create a
federation by coming together with the gecekondus of Ankara and
zmir.
In the same assembly they advised the squatters to cut their nails, comb
their hair and wear clean and proper clothes, when going to the state
offices. This interesting advice shows that the squatters were conscious
250 "
ki Kez Göçmen," p. 198. “Aksamları birimize gecekondu yapıyorduk, sırayla, Gecekondumu 54-
55’te yaptım. Bulgaristan’dan annemin getirdigi besibiryerdesi vardı, Kapalıçarsı’da sattım onları. Bi
ufak oda, bi büyük oda, bi de ufacık terasdan olusan gecekondu yaptık. Onu da yaparken basımıza
neler geldi. Jandarmalar geliyor, onlar bi uçtan yıkıyor, biz bi uçtan yapıyoruz, su yok, kaynaktan su
tasıyoruz, geceleri falan. Mesela gündüzden temelini kazıyorduk, hava kararmaya basladıgı zaman
hemen temelini yapıyorduk, gece briketleri isliyorduk, böyle elimizlen. Harç yerine çamur
koyuyorduk. Bu arada çok saygılıydık birbirimize ve iyi komsuluk iliskileri vardı. Gaziosmanpasa’da
o zamanlar yollar toprak, su yok, elektrik yok, tabii, mecburen gaz lambalarıyla oturuyordu insanlar.
Aksam oldugu zaman geç kalamıyorduk, geç kaldın mı evleri bulamıyorduk. Çünkü evler, hepsi
birbirine benziyordu, aynı kiremit, aynı çatı, aynı bahçe...”
251 Saran, "Squatter Settlement," p. 333.
252 For the various struggling forms of the squatters, see Kenan Yıldıran, "Gecekondular ve
Mücadeleleri," Forum 17, no. 253 (Ekim 1964).
253 Senyapılı, 'Baraka'dan Gecekonduya, p. 198.
142
that they were distinguished groups that could not integrate to the city,
however they thought that this integration problem could be solved in a
way. The administrators believe that if they could settle the gecekondu
population in houses that resemble the houses of the rest of the city, the
problem would be solved. As opposed to that, the squatters believed that
they could integrate to the city if they dressed and behaved like the citydwellers.
Both of the sides evaluated the problem at a similarly
superficial level.254
As a result of these developments and together with the increasing
population, the gecekondu settlements gained a political importance. The squatters
used these political developments, and the obstructions of the state became limited to
the frequently accepted gecekondu pardons. In a way, the state agreed that it could
not meet the housing requirements of its citizens and it accepted the existence of the
right of land speculation in the cities for not only a privileged minority, but also for
the squatters.255
The integration of the city was one of the major problems during this period.
A new tension between the old residents of the city and the people living in the
gecekondu settlements arose in this period. This new development, which can be
described as the creation of new behaviors by the rural immigrants that were
different from those of the urban culture of the old residents of the city created a new
academic literature called “urbanization.” This new literature mainly observed the
adaptation levels of the rural immigrants in the cities. One of the main subjects of
254 Ibid., p. 200-201. “Hürriyet gazetesinin 21 Subat 1955 tarihinde ilettigi bir haberde, zmir
Araphasan Mahallesinde yıkılan 100 gecekonduda yasayan 600 kisinin bir 'protesto mitingi'
düzenlendigini ve Basbakan Menderes'e 600 imzalı bir telgraf çektiklerini iletir. 6 Mayıs'ta ise
stanbul Gecekondularını Güzellestirme Dernegi yedi kisilik bir heyetle Ankara'ya gelir ve yıkılması
söz konusu olan 5.000 gecekondu için yer gösterilmesini ister. 22 Agustos'ta ise gecekonduları
Güzellestirme Dernegi bir toplantı yaparak basına Ankara ve zmir gecekonduları ile birleserek bir
federasyon kurmak istediklerini açıklar. Aynı toplantıda gecekondululara, is takibi için resmi
dairelere giderken tırnaklarını kesmeleri, saçlarını taramaları, temiz ve kıyafet yasasına uygun
biçimde giyinmeleri ögütlenir. Bu ilginç ögütler gecekonducuların kendilerinin kentle bütünlesmemis
ayrı gruplar oldugunun bilincine vardıklarını ancak bu bütünlesme sorununun bir biçimde
çözülebilecegi sanısında olduklarını gösterir. Yöneticiler gecekondu nüfusunun kentin olagan
konutlarına benzeyen konutlarda barındırabilirlerse sorunun çözülecegine inanmaktalar, buna karsın
gecekonducular da kentli gibi giyinip davranabilirlerse bütünlesebileceklerine inanmaktadırlar. Her
iki taraf da sorunu benzer bir yüzeysel düzeyde düsünmektedir.”
255 Tekeli, "Türkiye'nin Göç," p. 465.
143
this literature was to define to what degree these migrants had become part of the city
or if they were still peasants. Substantially, this literature mostly was affected by the
modernization perspective and due to that, they asserted that these rural immigrants
would be absorbed by the city soon and they would become the part of the system
accordingly. However, this result did not happed as time passed. The rural migrants
created some intermediary mechanism in the cities in order to support themselves.
When this situation was observed, the urbanization literature tried to offer some
political precautions in order to solve this integration problem.
The definitions of these groups were changed accordingly. Mübeccel Kıray
says that, even though these groups defined themselves still as peasants, they lived in
the cities and earned their livings in the cities, due to that they should be defined not
as peasants but as city-dwellers because they did not want to return to their homes in
the countryside. They preferred to stay in the city even if they lived in bad
conditions. Nevertheless, these peasant-squatters preferred to maintain the ownership
of a small amount of land in their hands as a security mechanism.256 As a result,
these new kinds of city-dwellers lived in the cities, worked in the cities but still had
ties with the countryside. This confused many of the definitions that were peculiar to
urban areas.
Behind all of these definitions, the resistance and struggle mechanisms of the
peasant-squatters which were developed to continue or ease their livings in the city
can be defined as the effective force. The peasants that came to the cities invented
some defence and solidarity practices in order to protect themselves from the state’s
256 Kıray, "Gecekondu," p. 570-72. In a survey conducted in 1960s, the question of “Do you want to
turn back to your village?” is answered 94 percent as “no” by the rural immigrants. Saran, "Squatter
Settlement," p. 358. However, in another survey conducted in the 1990s, 49.5 percent of the people
that are living in the gecekondus even in the 1990s define themselves as peasant. Tahire Erman,
"Sehirli Olmak Ya Da Köylü Kalmak: Kentteki Kır Göçmenin Kendini Tanımlaması Olayı," in II.
Ulusal Sosyoloji Kongresi: Toplum ve Göç (20-22 Kasım 1996, Mersin) (Ankara: Devlet
statistik
Enstitüsü Matbaası, 1997), p. 304.
144
pressure. The most important of these solidarity practices was organizations that
were created around the notion of hemsehrilik (fellow countryman). According to
Ayse Günes-Ayata, hemsehrilik was a kind of “identity-gaining” mechanisms for the
migrant groups:
For the first-time migrants, the people that take part in the crowded city
life is an unresolved entity. They have relatives, people who came from
the same village; they see them as “us.” In the course of time the
definitions of “us” multiply and differentiate. These different definitions
of “us” help the immigrant population to differentiate the groups in the
city and herewith to relate themselves with other groups and as a result
to acclimatize them with the city. Due to that the hemsehrilik is
protected all the time. What is expected from this is along with helping
each other when necessary, to create and sustain a state of belonging.257
Even though hemsehrilik had bounds with the place of origin for rural
migrants, it was more a city-based relation. If everyone comes from the same place,
hemsehrilik could not become a defence mechanism or an identity. Other types of
distinguishing or defining elements have to be replaced instead. In the countryside,
class differences can be defined more easily. However, among the rural migrants in
the cities, class differences can be ignored. For example, Peter Suzuki noted the
solidarity cash-box, which was used to help the newcomers and needy relatives that
stayed in the villages.258 This situation shows that the peasant that came to city did
not lose their connections with their villages and created a new mechanism which
helped them continue their newly created identity in the cities.
The municipalities did not bring urban services rapidly to these newly
established settlements. Due to that the squatters invented mechanisms that helped
257 Ayse Günes-Ayata, "Gecekondularda Kimlik Sorunu, Dayanısma Örüntüleri ve Hemsehrilik,"
Toplum ve Bilim, no. 51-52 (Autumn 1990-Winter 1991), p. 101. “Kalabalık sehir hayatında yer alan
insanlar ilk göç edenler için ayrısmamıs bir bütündür. Akrabaları vardır, aynı köyden gelenler vardır,
onları “biz” olarak görürler. Zaman içinde “biz” tanımları çogalmakta ve farklılasmaktadır. Bu
farklı “biz” tanımları göç eden nüfusun sehirdeki grupları farklılastırmasına ve böylelikle kendisine
baska gruplarla iliskilendirmesine ve sehre uyum saglamasına yardımcı olmaktadır. ste bunun için
hemsehrilik sürekli olarak korunur, bunda da beklenen, ihtiyaç halinde yardıma kosmak yanında, bir
aidiyet duygusu yaratmak ve yasatmaktır.”
258 Peter Suzuki, "Encounters with Istanbul: Urban Peasants and Village Peasants," International
Journal of Comparative Sociology 5 (1964), p. 211.
145
them survive in the city. For example, in order to solve the transportation problem, a
new form of vehicle was invented, called the dolmus (shared taxi). The gecekondu
settlements were not defined in the limits of municipalities and due to that urban
services such as municipality buses did not reach at these places. With the invention
of the dolmus this problem was solved with the initiation of the squatters.259
The peasants that migrated to the cities were seen as being elements that
would be absorbed by the urban culture in time by modernization theory. However,
instead of getting lost in the urban culture, they created new intermediary
mechanisms to survive in the city conditions. Due to that the articulation of the
peasant-squatters to city life was seen in ways different from how it was expected.
As Gülsüm Bayar Nalbantoglu writes, “in order to support him or herself in the city,
the migrant peasant discovered some spatial and architectural tactics which have not
been emphasized by the architectural discourse until today. While conditionally
internalizing, changing or imitating the existing urban and architectural orders, they
never rejected the language of the city with a strict traditionalism.”260
This new architectural style, which was the invention of the gecekondu, also
shows the characteristics of the rural migration in Turkey, which was undertaken by
not totally dispossessed peasantry. The peasants that moved to the cities did not leave
their lands behind; they in a way remained connected always to the agricultural
production even though they worked at industrial jobs in the cities.
The cities also did not transform these peasants with their culture. This was
mostly due to the existence of an underdeveloped city culture in Turkey. Especially
259 Kepenek and Yentürk, Türkiye Ekonomisi, p. 125.
260 Gülsüm Baydar Nalbantoglu, "Sessiz Direnisler ya da Kırsal Türkiye
le Mimari Yüzlesmeler," in
Türkiye'de Modernlesme ve Ulusal Kimlik, ed. Sibel Bozdogan and Resat Kasaba (
stanbul: Tarih
Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1999), p. 165. “köylü göçmen kentte hayatını sürdürebilmek için mimari
söylemin bugüne degin pek de üzerinde durmadıgı mekânsal ve mimari taktikler kesfediyordu.
Varolan kentsel ve mimari düzenleri yerine göre özümser, degistirir ya da taklit ederken hiçbir zaman
katı bir gelenekçilikle kentin dilini yadsımıyordu.”
146
the abandonment of the main elements of the bourgeois city culture in Turkey after
the foundation of the new republic impoverished the existing urban culture. The new
republic tried to create a new urban culture, shaped by its new ideological
perspective. However, before the creation of this new urban culture was concluded,
the changing economic and political preferences transformed the rural structure and
this caused a rapid and speedy rural migration movements. The urban culture, which
was not strong enough to resist both culturally and economically the migration
movements, was changed this time by the newcomers.
The economic and political requirements of these immigrant masses affected
politics, too. Due to the squatters’ voting potentials the political authorities
approached them and the squatters became the centers of political patronage and
populism in the cities. In a way,
The “peasants” that migrated to the city changed both themselves and
the city during the time passed and the labor market, housing market, the
structure of the local politics and city administrations got their share
from this change. … The new lives of the migrants mostly were
reshaped with the cultural characteristics they brought from their
villages and their experiences in the city. As a result of this interaction,
“new city-dwellers” and “new
stanbul resident” groups emerged, which
had very different characteristics than before.261
This development, although it created a class differentiation among the urban
residents, as Karpat says, created cultural, political and religious homogenization at a
certain level in the country.262
As for concluding remarks, in this chapter the transformation of the rural
structure during the post-war period is analyzed. The transformation of the rural
261 Sema Erder, stanbul'a Bir Kent Kondu-Ümraniye (
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 1996), pp. 12-13.
“kente göçeden ‘köylüler’, kentte geçirdikleri süre içinde, hem kendileri degismisler hem de kenti
degistirmislerdi ve kentin is piyasası da, konut piyasası da, yerel siyaset yapısı ile kentsel kurumlar da
bu degisimden nasibini almıslardı. ... Kente göçedenlerin yeni hayatları köylerinden tasıdıkları
kültürel özellikleri, kentte yasadıkları deneyimlerle, büyük ölçüde yeniden biçimlenmistir. Bu
etkilesimin sonucunda da, eskisinden çok farklı nitelik tasıyan ‘yeni kentliler’ ve ‘yeni stanbullu’
gruplar ortaya çıkmıstır.”
262 Kemal H. Karpat, "The Genesis of the Gecekondu: Rural Migration and Urbanization (1976),"
European Journal of Turkish Studies 1 Thematic Issue, Gecekondu (2004): p. 19.
147
structures occurred both due to the economic developments in the international level
and the changing economic preferences, which were the practices that helped the
accommodation of the country’s economic structure to the changing economic world
order. It can be asserted that the urban structure was transformed as a result of the
rural transformation during this period. Within this framework the LRL, the Marshall
Plan and the continuation of the smallholder peasantry were analyzed and their
effects to the rural migration during this period were evaluated accordingly.
During the reconstruction of the world economic order in the post-war period,
the change in the economic preferences of Turkey occurred with the transition from
an industrial-based development mentality to one of agricultural-based development.
This change was the main basis for the creation of the rural migration during this
period.
Within this framework, the main factors and reasons that created the rural
migration during this period were analyzed in this chapter. As opposed to the
mechanic reasoning of the rural migration movements, the overall transformation of
the rural structure was offered as the main reason for the migration. Although the
mechanization of agricultural production during this period is accepted as one of the
factors that created the rural migration, it was not the only or the most effective
reason. The main effect of the mechanization during this period was to make an
increase in the total amount of cultivated lands. When taken together with the LRL,
the mechanization was the element that for the most part maintained the continuance
of the smallholder peasantry in Turkey.
As a result of the rural migration, massive numbers of peasants moved to the
cities and they settled there. The transformation of the rural structure thus not only
created the rural migration movements, but also changed the urban structure. In order
148
to observe the effect of the transformation of the rural structure on the urban
structure, the development of the gecekondu settlements, which were invented as a
result of the rural migration during this period, were analyzed in this chapter. The
gecekondus were developed as a peculiar type of urban settlement, as a result of the
economic destruction of the cities that was created with the Second World War.
When the rural migration movements began after the war, the cities were unable to
cope with the massive increase in the urban population. This underdeveloped
condition of the cities gave way to the creation of the squatter-type settlements. The
development of squatter settlements in the major cities became the most discussed
problem during the period, more than the actual rural migration movements, because
the effects of the rural migration became visible mostly with the creation of such
settlements and they directly affected the daily lives of the urban residents.
The urbanization policies of the single-party regime depended on the
separation of the urban and rural areas and to the policy of keeping the peasants in
their “natural” places. According to the economic policies, this ideological
perspective corresponded with the separation of urban and rural production as selfsufficient
units. However, with the changing political preferences after the Second
World War, this separation in the economic production activities disappeared. The
necessity of transforming agricultural production from its self-sufficient structure to
a market-based cash-cropping system brought the transformation of the rural
structure and, as a result, the previously adopted industrial-based production changed
with agricultural-based production. Accordingly, the previously adopted industryrailroad
policy changed with the agriculture-highways policy in accordance with the
recommends of American specialists during that period. With the construction of the
highways the connection of agricultural production to the market was secured. In
149
addition to that, the cities became relatively much closer to the villages, easing the
connection of the peasants with the major cities. In addition to the transformation of
the rural structure, another factor that accelerated and eased the rural migration
movements was the development of highways during this period.
The ideological perspective of keeping the peasants in their villages changed
with the transformation of the rural structure and the rural migration. The cities were
not prepared for such a flow of immigrants and due to that many problems arose in
the cities in terms of meeting their job and housing requirements. Squatting emerged
as a solution to these problems.
The amazement that met the creation of the gecekondu settlement in the cities
brought with it a redefinition of the peasantry. The urban and rural spaces, which
were efforts had made to keep separated previously, became intersected in the urban
structure with the rural migration. The residents of the gecekondu settlements were
not totally dispossessed and did not leave their lands behind. They were still, in a
way, related to the agricultural production, although they had settled in the cities.
This situation created a new identity that was more rural than urban. For that reason,
the peasants that move to the cities during this period are mostly referred to as
“peasant-squatters.”
The peasants were defined afterwards through the new structures they created
and transformed in the cities. Urban residents, for the first time, met “actual”
peasants in the cities with this development. The migration movement was declared
as a “real” problem, since the existence of the rural immigrants became visible in the
cities. As a result, the rural migration was not only a process related to the peasants,
but also became a relation that transformed the cities. For the city-dwellers, who met
the peasants in the cities accordingly, the peasants stopped being an unknown
150
“imaginary” entity and became a concrete “reality” that affected their everyday lives.
In this sense, the transformation of the rural structure resulted in the creation of the
peasants as “real” elements with the rural migration.
This intervention of the rural migration into the urban spaces gave rise to the
creation of a new academic area in Turkey, urban studies. Urban studies developed in
Turkey during this period as an academic area that researches on the problems that
created by the “real” peasants in the cities. With these studies, the “reality” of the
peasants in the cities became a research subject.
In the next chapter, the relation of the peasants to politics will be analyzed.
During the period in question, in which the rural structure was wholly transformed,
the effects of the relation of the peasants to politics became as great as the
transformation of the economic structures and the peasants became visible in politics
as much as they became visible in the cities. Within this framework the
transformation of the peasants, by which they were released from being abstract and
imaginary elements and became concrete and real entities, will be analyzed through
their relation to the politics in the next chapter.
151
CHAPTER IV
PEASANTRY AS AN ACTIVE COMPONENT OF POLITICS
In this chapter, the emphasis will be on the relation of the peasants to politics
during the period in question. The political behaviors that were developed by the
peasants during this period, and government’s changing political perception of the
peasantry will be discussed. By defining these relations between politics and
peasantry, the differing positions of the peasantry in politics from the previous period
will be examined. During this period, although the peasants did not become the
subjects of politics exactly, they became more visible as an active component of
politics. As opposed to the “imagined” existence of the peasantry, which was created
discursively during the previous period, peasants gained the consciousness of their
political existence and effect during this period. As a result of their active
participation in politics, they put themselves forward as being a “real” and
indispensable political force. As said in the other chapters of this study, the peasants
were accepted by the other groups in society as a “real” component in politics as
well.
The relation of the peasants with politics in the 1945-1960 period will be
investigated from different angles. First, by reviewing the general literature on the
period in question, how the relation of the peasants with politics is defined in these
works and the main factors that affected these works will be shown. Second, the
“Arslanköy Case” will be investigated as an example of peasants being an active
component of politics before the DP came to power. The peasants’ relation with law
and politics will be discussed in the light of this example. Especially, how the new
152
understanding of rule of law, as an arena of political struggle, affected politics in
general and the peasants’ participation in politics will be shown. The development of
the “rights demand” phenomenon and the importance of this demand in the making
of the peasants as a political entity will be put forth with a wider analysis of this case
and the general political atmosphere of the period. This “rights demand”
phenomenon continued after the DP came to power. Examples of the peasants’
continual demands of their rights from the government will be presented by using
state archival documents.
After the Arslanköy Case, the alteration in the government’s political
discourse will be examined. As the peasants became an indispensible factor in
politics, the governments changed the evaluation of the peasantry in their political
discourse. In the following section, the emphasis will be on how politics were put
into practice in the villages. An analysis of all of the kinds of villages and peasant
households is not possible. Due to that, the change in the political space in the
villages will be investigated. At this point, the development of the village
coffeehouse as a political space will be the main unit of analysis. The local
organization forms of the political parties during the period in question made the
development of village coffeehouses as political institutions possible.
Finally, the relation of the peasants with anti-communist policies will be
investigated. To make the peasants’ political integration to the political system
smooth, an anti-communist discourse was used as a functional tool, which was
imposed on the peasants as an ideological control mechanism. Within this framework
an evaluation of the use of anti-communism will be made by analyzing the media
tools which were mostly read by and shaped the peasants’ political and social
consciousness, such as special newspapers published only for the peasant audience.
153
Herewith, by focusing on some main developments that shaped the political world of
the peasants during this period, the differing meanings of peasantry in politics will be
set forth.
Samuel Huntington distinguishes the “village” and the “city” as being matters
of politics as follows: “The city becomes the continuing center of opposition to the
political system. The stability of a government depends upon the support, which it
can mobilize in the countryside … In a modernizing society, the successful party is
born in the city but matures in the countryside.”263 Huntington reaches this inference
by studying modernizing countries, like Turkey, and the political problems they
come across during their modernization process. This inference also bears a proposal
in itself, according to which, in the modernizing countries, when oppositional
movements emerge in the cities, it is not possible to acquire the continuity of politics
by ignoring the rural population, which make up vast majority of the society.
Accordingly, if any political party wants to be successful throughout a country, it has
to gain the support of rural population. Whether in a single-party regime or in a
competitive multi-party system, the agents of modernization have to be in close
relation with the components of the rural structure and without permitting the
violation of its own political perspective, it has to “politicize” the rural population.
It is possible to consider the relation of peasants with politics in the 1945-
1960 period from this perspective. As part of the new word system built after the
Second World War, Turkey’s socio-economic structure changed accordingly. The
transformation of the agricultural structure and the effects of this transformation were
discussed in the previous chapter. As political side of this transformation, the
political system changed from an inward-oriented single-party regime to a
263 Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Heaven and London: Yale
University Press, 1968), pp. 433-434.
154
competitive multi-party system. With this transformation, the political effect of the
peasantry, which made up the vast majority of society, increased comparatively. The
hegemonic uptrend of the political opposition, which started in the center of the
politics and gained mostly city-oriented support at first, began when it carried out the
peasants’ entrance into politics. The DP would be successful at attracting the support
of the groups which had been economically battered and politically disregarded
during the single-party period, with the help of an organizational awareness of this
situation of the people. Examples of these developments will be given in detail. But
before that, how the relation of the peasants with politics is defined in the literature
dealing with the period in question will be presented.
The primary resource on the political developments of the 1946-1960 period
in the academic literature of Turkey is Cem Erogul’s preliminary book Demokrat
Parti-Tarihi ve deolojisi (The Democrat Party: Its History and Ideology), which was
published in 1968.264 The most important aspect of this study is its time of
publication. It was published during a period close to the events discussed in the
book and so many years ago from now. It is having been written so soon after the
events allows a more accurate version of the events. It is also meaningful that a book
written forty years ago still designates our appreciation of a historical period. This
book remains valuable even today and such broad information on the political events
of the period is not available anywhere else. But it could be insufficient to evaluate
the period due to its distinctive approach to the period in question. Actually Erogul
himself emphasizes this point in the foreword he wrote for the book’s 1998 edition:
264 Cem Erogul, Demokrat Parti-Tarihi ve deolojisi (Ankara:
mge Kitabevi, 1998). Kemal Karpat’s
book, which mostly covers the DP during its oppositional years, was published before Eroglu’s study.
See Karpat, Turkey's Politics: The Transition to a Multi-Party System. But Karpat’s work deals mostly
the events until the DP came to power and its primal concern is to explain the “transition” process.
Due to that we have to accept Erogul’s book as the first compact study of the DP period.
155
On the other side, as the years passed, the necessity to make a warning
to the reader gradually increases: Ones who read the book today should
not miss out that the analysis in the book represents the situation of
Turkey in the 1960s.265
By making this warning, Erogul actually wants to state that the book
represents not the general understanding of the 1950s but of the 1960s. No matter
which part of the 1945-1960 period is being studied, it is necessary to pay attention
to Erogul’s warning, because, it points out that the historiography of the 1950s is
mostly affected by the political atmosphere of the 1960s. When discussing the
relation of the peasants with politics, this fact needs to be considered.
During the process of evaluating the DP period from a historical perspective,
a deflective phenomenon, which will be called hereafter as “the perception rupture,”
is mostly influential. “Perception rupture,” in short, indicates the breaking points
which affect the formation and our perception of the factual knowledge of a given
historical period. These breaking points present the various components of the period
and the definition of political events that happened during the period are different
from how they were understood and known at the time they actually happened. From
within this framework, the most important perception rupture that affect explications
on the facts and the components of the 1946-1960 period was the 27 May 1960 coup
d’état. The justification discourse, or roughly the “pretext,” of the coup designates
the perceptions on the DP period in general. The justification of the coup manifests a
“new” perception, which creates a new “real” historical narrative of the period. The
oppressive political behavior of the DP, which existed mostly during the last years of
its power, becomes the only fact that is used to define the whole period. Both for
these who are still in the realm of politics following a political mentality closer to
265 Erogul, Demokrat Parti, p. 6. “Öte yandan, yıllar geçtikçe, okura temel bir uyarıda bulunma
geregi gitgide artıyor: Kitabı bugün okuyanlar kitaptaki çözümlemelerin Türkiye’nin 1960’lardaki
durumunu yansıttıgının gözden kaçırmamalıdır.”
156
that of the DP, and for the ones who do not hesitate to mention the “progressive”
characteristics of the coup, the effect of the coup forms the basis of their explanations
and as a result are problematic in the same way.
It is possible to follow up the effects of the coup on the literature of the period
in question by investigating various researchers’ evaluations of the relation of the
peasants with politics. On the way to understand these effects, it is better to focus on
the descriptions of the DP’s acquisition of power on 14 May 1950. With these
elections, for the first time in Turkish modernization process, the party in power was
replaced by another with the help of the electoral process. The main moving force of
this change was the peasants, who were the main supporters of the DP and also the
majority in the overall population. It may be wrong to say that the whole rural
population supported the DP during this takeover. Nevertheless, the political support
of the peasants and the DP’s propaganda activities to gain this support were the main
dynamics that carried the DP to power.
Actually, some of the descriptions of this change in power which belittle or
exaggerate this takeover do not base their assumptions on any kind of social analysis.
These kinds of descriptions, mostly seek to support their political perceptions, which
have been created by the effect of the coup. For example, in the political speeches of
a political tradition which describes itself as the follower of the DP tradition, this
change in power is described as a “people’s movement.” Rıfkı Salim Burçak, who
was an active member of the DP during the 1950s, expresses this view as follows:
In fact, the Democrat Party, which was founded by Celal Bayar, Fuat
Köprülü, Adnan Menderes and Refik Koraltan on 7 January 1946,
advanced in a very short time period after its foundation and by gaining
the trust of the people it created a massive people’s movement. This was
the first people’s movement that was seen after the National Struggle.266
266 Demokratlar Kulübü, 14 Mayıs 1950 Seçimlerinin 40. Yılı Sempozyumu (Ankara: Demokratlar
Kulübü Yayınları, 1990), p. 9. “Gerçekten de Celal Bayar, Fuat Köprülü, Adnan Menderes ve Refik
Koraltan tarafından 7 Ocak 1946’da kurulan Demokrat Parti, kurulmasıyla birlikte çok hızlı bir
157
The basic factor that lies behind this expression is to stress that, with the 27
May 1960 coup, the military made the intervention “against the people.” This kind of
perspective mainly asserts that only they, as a party or movement, represent the
people. As Çaglar Keyder says, they actually, “implicitly deny the representative
legitimacy of the National Assembly.”267 As a result, every opposition to the party in
power is accepted as being directed against the “people.” Such an account of the
event tries to reckon with the coup and make the pretext of the coup ineffective, but
does not describe the general understanding of the period.
The second perspective on the 1950 elections is shaped by hostility towards
the DP and its political mentality. The extreme side of this perspective describes the
DP’s coming to power and the political developments during the period as a
“counter-revolution.”268 This perspective mostly applies to the pretexts of the coup in
their descriptions and legitimatizes the coup as being a political and historical
necessity. This perspective mostly describes the political position of the RPP as
having been more “progressive” than the DP and claims that the DP was nothing but
a coalition of groups united to destroy the progressive reforms which had been put
into practice during the single-party period. According to that, during this “counterrevolution,”
peasants were nothing more than “passive” supporters of the DP’s
policies and, besides, they had been deceived into behaving like that. Keyder
describes this perspective as follows: “the supporters of the RPP and statist policies
later try to claim that, the 1950 victory of the DP was nothing but the conservative
gelisme kaydetti ve kısa sürede milletin güvenini saglayarak, büyük bir halk hareketini olusturdu. Bu,
Milli Mücadele’den sonra görülen ilk büyük halk hareketiydi.”
267 Çaglar Keyder, Türkiye'de Devlet ve Sınıflar, trans. Sabri Tekay, 5. ed. (
stanbul:
letisim
Yayınları, 1999), p. 163. “Meclisin temsili mesruiyetini üstüörtülü bir biçimde inkâr.”
268 For a typical example of this perspective see, Sina Aksin, "DP'nin Karsı Devrimi," Radikal ki 14
May 2000, p. 4.
158
reaction of the peasants, who rejected keeping up with the modernizing elites with
the effect of distant religious leaders.”269
In the first perspective, the peasants are conceived as active subjects of the
movement and the central political developments are left aside. In this way, they try
to position the “people” and the groups that supported the coup against each other. In
the second perspective, the peasants’ relations with politics were ineffective or
unimportant and they could have had only a kind of guided relation with the central
forces of the politics. As a result, the peasants, mostly due to their lack of education,
were “deceived” by the “counter-revolutionary” forces. Neither perspective gives
any proper information about the peasants’ relation with politics during the period in
question. These perspectives, mostly affected by the “perception rupture” described
above, obstruct our evaluation of the events that occurred during the period.
In the general literature on the period, some of the studies deal with the
peasants’ relation with politics to some degree. But in most of these studies, the
peasants mostly exist as not “real” political beings, but more like political elements
that were “affected” or “directed” by the center of the politics. As a matter of fact,
these kinds of studies mostly focus on the characteristics of rural power relations, but
not the actual relation of the peasants with politics. The main problematic of these
kinds of studies is mostly to evaluate the importance of patronage and clientelist
relations in the rural structure, and in this kind of problematization peasants are
defined only as rural elements directed by the rural powerful landowners. For
example, in Horst Unbehaun’s socio-political study on the villages of Datça, the
peasants are defined only as a population element in the struggle between the agas of
269 Keyder, "Türkiye Demokrasisinin," p. 54. “sonraları CHP ve devletçi politikanın savunucuları,
DP’nin 1950’deki zaferinin, samimiyetsiz dini önderlerin etkisiyle, çagdaslastırıcı seçkinlere ayak
uydurmayı reddeden köylülerin tutucu bir tepkisinden baska bir sey olmadıgını iddia etmeye
kalkacaklardır.”
159
that area. The peasants are not discussed as political elements for their own sakes,
and no political participation form apart from that is mentioned.270 When patronage
relations are in question the most important subject to remember in describing the
political participation of the peasants is the “buffer mechanism,” which is a
reciprocal relation that provides the adaptation of peasants to the changing
conditions, as defined in Mübeccel Kıray’s works.271 In a patronage relation type,
peasants are not passive elements that only obey the patron’s desires. As a reciprocal
relation at the economic level, there is also a mutual interaction in politics. Also, as a
hegemonic relation type, patronage, depends on both the obedience and the consent
of all parties. In order to get the consent of the peasants, the landlords are required to
offer some kind of “freedom” or “allowance” to them. This mutual relation made the
peasants of the period more closely involved with the political developments of the
period. Due to that, during the dynamic political atmosphere of the 1945-1960
period, the peasants were able to develop some kind of political consciousness
“even” if they were surrounded by the boundaries of the patronage relations.
The most frequently encountered description of the peasants in this period is
made with the effect of a general perception which accepts the peasants as the
passive recipients of political developments. This kind of perception mostly
developed as a result of a belief that implies that both the DP and the peasantry in
this period could not put into practice a “desired” or “intended” way of political
270 Hans Unbehaun, Türkiye Kırsalında Kliyentalizm ve Siyasal Katılım-Datça Örnegi: (1923-1992),
trans. Mehmet Öztürk (Ankara: Ütopya Yayınevi, 2005). This kind of perspective can be seen in
Unbehaun’s book in the section where he deals with the political function of the village coffeehouses,
which is going to be analyzed here in detail. The headline of Unbehaun’s section is “The
‘Politicization’ of the Peasants: The Separation of the Coffeehouses” Here, the term “politicization”
defines the peasants as passive recipients of politics, by which peasants are only directed by the
powerful landlords of the region (p. 240). In this section, he is not dealing with the political thoughts
or the behaviors of the peasants but he tries to stress that “even” the coffeehouses are separated
according to the political needs of the landlords.
271 Mübeccel Kıray, "Degisen Patronaj Kalıpları Yapısal Degisme Üzerine Bir Çalısma," in Toplumsal
Yapı Toplumsal Degisme (
stanbul: Baglam Yayınları, 1999), p. 300.
160
existence. In an analysis on the effect of the 1950 elections, Sungur Savran reduces
the peasants’ political role in this change to a more passive level and says that,
“People did not ‘arise’ during this change; they at the most applauded this change
over from where they sat!”272 Keyder similarly relates this political passivity of the
peasants to the socio-economic condition of the peasantry in Turkey and says that,
“the peasantry, of which at least 80 percent were independent petite producers, could
not have much revolutionary potential”.273 The peasantry was thus not very
“revolutionary” during the period in question, but the peasants were also active
political elements that could intervene into politics when necessary.
Özer Ozankaya writes the following about the development of the political
culture in the countryside: "If the material life conditions by which the villager is
surrounded could not bind him to the broader society, the broader society's
government style would not have an active place in the villager's problems. So,
there should not be any political consciousness."274 The political elites of the singleparty
period were hesitant about the political participation of the peasants. The RPP
did not try to bring politics to the countryside and particularly tried to leave the
peasants outside of the political realm. During this new period, the peasants would
be introduced to politics and they would participate in the new political system.
With the passage to a multi-party direct suffrage system, peasants started to
participate in politics directly without the intermediacy of the rural representative of
the central power. This means that, from that time on, politics would directly affect
272 Sungur Savran, Türkiye’de Sınıf Mücadeleleri-Cilt I (1919-1980) (
stanbul: Kardelen Yayınları,
1992), p. 92. “Halk ‘ayaga’ kalkmamıstır; olsa olsa oturdugu yerden bu düzenli nöbet degisimini
alkıslamıstır!”
273 Keyder, Türkiye'de Devlet ve Sınıflar, p. 174. “en azından yüzde 80’i bagımsız küçük üreticilerden
olusan bir köylülügün fazla bir devrimci potansiyeli olamaz.”
274 Özer Ozankaya, "Köyde Toplumsal Yapı ve Siyasal Kültür," Amme daresi Dergisi 4, no. 1 (March
1971), p. 33. “köylünün içinde bulundugu maddi sartları … onu genis toplumla bütünlestiremiyorsa,
genis toplumun yönetim biçimi köylünün sorunları arasında etkin bir biçimde yer alamaz. Böylece bir
siyasal bilinçlenme de söz konusu olamaz.”
161
the overall rural structure. From its first years of opposition, the DP would seek to
spread its organization to the countryside. For the first time in history, the peasants
would directly come across with the political representatives of the central power,
who were trying to gain their support. With the improvement of the material life
conditions of the villages, the political sphere of the villages was widened and the
peasants become integrated into the broader society.
brahim Yasa describes these
developments as follows:
…with the transition to the multi-party period, it can be said that various
groups of people slowly become aware of their belonging to a strata or
class. Meanwhile, the peasants become aware that they were not only a
part of their closed and limited community, but also the part of the
broader society and they could have an impact on the political
preferences of the country. With the transition to liberal from closed
economy the arrival of various party propaganda and politics to the
villages made the oppositional and disintegrating powers, which
naturally existed in the village communities, more effective than before;
this is the most characteristic reason for this change. … Today, villagers
and city dwellers have more chances to know each other well and to
have close incorporation than before.275
After the Second World War, with the political and economic transformation,
the relation of the peasants with politics was transformed, too. In a multi-party
competitive system, some issues, which had not been put into words before, began to
be spoken. Especially after the DP came to power in the 1950 by elections, the
peasants became aware of their importance in politics. In most of the works
published before the coup, this awareness of the peasants is openly expressed:
When sitting in the coffeehouse in Bölceköy, they began to talk about
politics. One of the Democrat villagers loudly said:
275
brahim Yasa, Türkiye'nin Toplumsal Yapısı ve Temel Sorunları (Ankara: Türkiye ve Orta Dogu
Amme
daresi Enstitüsü Yayınları, 1970), p. 201. “…çok partili döneme girildikten sonra çesitli halk
yıgınları yavas yavas kendilerinin de birer tabakaya, sınıfa baglı olduklarını algılamaya
baslamıslardır denilebilir. Bu arada köylüler sadece kendi kapalı ve sınırlı toplulukların degil, aynı
zamanda da büyük toplumun parçaları olduklarını, kamuoyu ve ülkenin güdecegi siyasada etkili
olabileceklerini anlar olmuslardır. Bu degismenin en belirgin nedeni kapalı toplumların açık pazar
ekonomisine geçmesiyle birlikte çesitli parti propagandalarının, siyasanın köye ulasmasının, zaten
köy toplulugunun kendi dogasında varolan, birbirlerine karsıt ve parçalayıcı güçleri daha etkili hale
getirmis olmasıdır. … Bugün köylü ile kentli eskisine göre, birbirlerin daha iyi tanıma ve birbirleriyle
daha yakından kaynasma olanakları içinde bulunmaktadır.”
162
-We brought the Democrats to power; if they do not come to our village
and sit with us, if they do not listen to our problems and do not
accomplish what they promised, we will overthrow them, too. They
taught us how to overthrow. We will not give even a vote to them either.
We will turn our face to another party!.. as such.
In these villages, the name of the government officer became servant. A
deputy of parliament comes to the Poyracik for the election propaganda.
Because he was a member of the DP, most of the villagers did not go to
meet him. Some of them said, “it will be disgrace not to meet him, let’s
go and say welcome”. One of them says:
-Minister or deputy is the servant to the people. I am the people; I will
not go near him if he won’t visit me personally!.. This idea became
dominant, they did not go. For he did not find anyone to listen his
propaganda, the deputy returned without saying a word.276
The DP’s coming to power can be accepted as an important phase in the
peasants gaining a political consciousness. How peasants appraised this takeover can
be seen clearly when the “perception rupture” that the coup created is eliminated.
Also in this way, it is possible to give meaning to the discourse that the peasants of
the period were appropriated. For example, during the 1954 elections one of the
peasants said, “we made a revolution in [1]950, but we will make elections in
1954.”277 These words reveal the political consciousness of the peasants and the
actual meaning of elections for them. The peasants gained the consciousness that
they had a great affect on politics during this period. Besides, different from the
single-party period, they did not hesitate to voice their opinions loudly. This change
in their political consciousness was expressed by them as “freedom.” But the concept
of this “freedom” was different from what was really understood by the political
276 Yalçın Daglar, Köylerimizden Örnekler (
stanbul: Kader Basımevi, 1951), pp. 100-101.
“Bölceköyde kahvede otururken bahsi siyasete döktüler. Demokrat bir köylü bagıra bagıra: -
Demokratları iktidara getirdik; köyümüze gelip aramızda oturmazlar, dertlerimizi dinlemezler,
vaitlerini yerine getirmezlerse, onları da deviririz. Onlar bize devirmeyi ögrettiler. Gelecek seçimde
onlara da tek rey vermeyiz. Baska bir partiye daha döneriz!.. gibi sözler söylüyordu.Bu köylerde
memurun adı hizmetçi olmus. Seçim propagandası için Poyracik’a bir milletvekili gelmis. Çogu
demokrat oldugu için yanına giden olmamıs. Birkaç kisi “ayıp olur, gidip hos geldin diyelim”
demisler. çlerinden biri: -Bakan veya milletvekili milletin hizmetçisidir. Ben milletim; o benim
ayagıma gelmedikçe ben onun yanına gitmem!... demis. Bu fikir hâkim olmus, gitmemisler.
Propagandayı dinleyecek kimse bulamadıgı için, giden zat, agzını açmadan, geri dönmüs.”
277 Muzaffer Celasun, “Demokrat Parti Afyon Teskilatında Kaynasma”, Cumhuriyet, 3 April 1954.
“biz 950 senesinde inkılap yaptık, 954 senesinde de seçim yapacagız”
163
elites of the period. Turan Günes, a prominent political personality of the period,
defined the understanding of “freedom” by the peasants of the period as follows:
It used to be that the mediator between the state and people was the aga
or the notables of the region… In the DP period these were displaced by
the chief of the district or village branch of the parties. … for the broader
voter masses freedom was something else. … For this mass of people
freedom was not to be beaten up by the gendarmerie, not to be treated
harshly by the tax collector. Applying to the district governor easily or to
ask for something, even if it was against the law, from him.278
Demands that were defined as “against the law” by the government in power
or the political elites were the definition of “democracy” or “freedom” for the
peasants. Politics for the peasants was a way to realize all of the things of which they
had been deprived in the single-party regime. This new attitude was actually a
political attitude for the peasants. These demands, which would gradually increase
and were the creation of the DP’s propaganda during its oppositional years, would be
reclaimed by the peasants later in a “rights demanding” framework. For example, in
an election district report prepared by RPP Ankara deputy Mebrure Aksoley on 16
November 1947, the peasants’ understanding of democracy is described as follows:
The peasant citizens understand democracy as, waging complaints about
everything rashly, not obeying the existing law and orders and not
respecting the state authority. Due to that the works ordered by law
could not be executed. Our moves are pausing. … The peasants
especially harshly object to the road building business and the peasants
of the 18 village in Etimesgut district raised their objection to me as: -the
state officials take road money from us, make the roads of the cities,
why do they not make our roads, too? Why does the district manager
pressure us to build our own roads?279
278 Mehmet Barlas, "Turan Günes Anlatıyor," Milliyet 20 January 1979. “Eskiden halk ile devlet
arasındaki aracı, aga ya da esraftı… DP zamanında bunların yerine ocak-bucak baskanları geçti. …
büyük seçmen kitlesi için özgürlük baska bir seydi. … Bu kitle için özgürlük, jandarmadan dayak
yememek, tahsildarın gadrine ugramamaktır. Kaymakamın yanına rahat çıkmak ya da ondan
kanunsuz bir seyi de isteyebilmektir.”
279 Ankara Bölge Müfettisi Esad Uras’ın Teftis Raporunun Genel Sekreterlige Sunuldugu, 23.1.1951,
BCA 490.01/618.26.1. “Köylü vatandas demokrasiyi, ulu orta her seyden sikayet etmek, mevcut kanun
ve nizamlara riayetsizlik etmek, devlet otoritesine saygısızlık göstermek seklinde anlamaktadır. Bu
sebeple kanunların emrettigi isler maalesef yaptırılamamaktadır. Hamlelerimiz duraklamaktadır. …
Köylü bilhassa yolların yapılması isine siddetle itiraz etmis ve Etimesgut bucagına baglı 18 köy halkı
bana: -devlet bizden yol parası alıyor, sehirlerin yollarını yaptırıyor, neden bizim yollarımız
yaptırılmıyor? Bucak müdürü neden bizi yol yapacaksınız diye sıkıstırıyor?- diye sikayette bulundu.”
164
During these years the peasants demanded their rights, raising their objections
and questioning the government; all of which can be defined as peasants’ “political
behavior.” By developing some behaviors that were defined as “against the law” by
the state officials, as can clearly be seen in the report, they raised their objections to
the state affairs and they obstructed the continuation of the projects they did not
want. These examples, which happened before the DP power, show that the peasants
started to be an active component of politics without fear of the government power.
Documents in the State Archives of Turkey contain the case files of some
villagers who engaged in lawsuits due to political struggle in the countryside.280 In
addition to lawsuits, the peasants began to express their objections loudly and
directly face-to-face to the representatives of the state.281 Occasionally, the peasants
did not hesitate to confront officials, whom they saw as the representatives of the
state.282 It is possible to trace the developments of how the peasants talked about
politics between each other in the intelligence reports, which were prepared in order
for the state to understand this change in the peasants’ political attitude.
After saying that there remained no goodness and blessing the others
broke into the conversation. After talking of this and that, Harun from
Çerkes says that he heard from outside that there is a so-called powerful
hodja in Ankara and people heard of and know him as a very
straightforward man and he has a lot of followers and through his
followers he calls for the enrollment in the Democrat Party and either
Maresal is a very Muslim person, as the hodja wanted, and the path he
follows is straightforward. As for the People’s Party it caused the
suffering of many peasants and citydwellers for years and he said he had
280 Eskisehir’in Bozan Köyü’nden Ali Pismis’in Laiklik Aleyhine Suç sledigi, 19.7.1950, BCA
490.01/459.1886.3; Balıkesir Mebuslarının Teftis Raporlarının Genel Sekreterlige Sunuldugu,
19.9.1950, BCA 490.01/624.52.1. The lawsuit petitions of the peasants in these folders contain the
political fighting and affronts between the RPP and DP members in the countryside, after the DP’s
victory in the 1950 elections.
281 “During a propaganda trip, one of the villagers talked to Hasan Saka as follows: ‘My wife gives
honey to the cows three times a day. And milks them two times a day; you milk us for twenty years,
but did not give honey once.’.” Cumhuriyet, 16 July 1946. “Hasan Saka’nın yaptıgı propaganda
gezisinde bir köylü kendisine söyle demis: ‘Bizim kadın, ineklere günde üç ögün bal verir. ki defa da
sagar; siz bizi yirmi sene sagdınız, bir defa bal vermediniz’.”
282 “A villager sued a gendarmerie.” Cumhuriyet, 28 April 1947.
165
heard that, without god’s consent, charged many people heavy taxes and
from the people that could not pay the taxes took their assets and sold
them, but he did not know this clearly and wanted to learn who and
when this happened. Accordingly the others said is that a lie, once
people think reasonably they can find the truth. The path of the
Democrat Party is a Muslim way, because it both gives freedom and
finds cures for the troubles of the peasants and city dwellers. In addition
to that both Maresal and Celal Bâyar travelled through the country
without distinguishing village and district or listening to our
problems.283
The DP’s propaganda campaigns to win the support of the peasants made the
peasants more aware of the country’s political developments and talk about politics
between themselves. The rising opposition against the 27-year old continuous rule of
the RPP made all social groups in the country more interested in politics than they
had been in the previous periods.284 Individuals were interested not only in politics as
supporters of a party; they sometimes took the initiative into their hands and acted as
active participants in politics. For example, an event that took place in
zmir before
the 1946 elections greatly displeased the political elites of the period. The news of
283 Bir Emniyet Yetkilisinin Hazırladıgı Rapor, 24.12.1946, BCA 30.01/65.404.14. Maresal in the text
means Maresal Fevzi Çakmak, a prominent commander during the National Struggle and the
supporter of the DP opposition. “Hayır bereket kalmamıs demesi üzerine digerleride söze karısarak
surdan burdan derken Çerkes’li Harun hariçten isittigine göre güya Ankara’da gayet kuvvetli bir
hoca oldugunu ve bunun çok müstakim bir zat olarak halk tanıdıgını isittigini ve bunun bir çok
müridleri de bulundugunu ve bu müridleri vasıtası ile halkı Demokrat Partiye kayt edilmelerini ve
Maresal’ın da unun istedigi gibi çok Müslüman bir zat olup bunun gösterdigi yolun dogru bir yol
oldugunu Halk Partisi ise senelerden beri bu kadar köylü ve kentlinin canını yaktı ve allahın rızası
olmadıgı halde yükledigi agır vergiler yüzünden borcunu ödeyemeyenlerin malını elinden alarak
sattıgını isitmis ise de bunun nerede ve kim oldugunu ögrenmek istedigini söyledi ve digerleri de
yalanmı bir kere insan aklı ile düsünse hakikatı bulur. Demokrat partinin tuttugu yol Müslüman
yoludur. Çünkü hem hürriyet veriyor hemde köylünün kentlinin elinden tutarak dertlerine çare
buluyor. Bundan baska gerek Maresal ve gerekse Celâl Bayar nahiye ve köy bırakmadan geziyorlar
ve dertlerimizi dinliyorlar. dediler.”
284 In a short public survey held by Cumhuriyet in the first days of the political change, they ask “20
people that you first encounter with in the street” the question, “What is Democracy?”. The results of
the survey reveal that not so many people are aware of the meaning of democracy. Most of them
remember only the 1908 Revolution and its slogans. There are some people saying that “We passed to
democracy with the Republic”, but still it is apparent that “democracy” is an alien word for the general
public in the first days after the Second World War. (Cumhuriyet, 24 September 1945.) After the
transition to multi-party system this meaning of this term will be filled by the people. But still, for the
peasants and the broader public, the meaning of “democracy” will be nothing but the sphere of
“freedom” to do the things that could not be done during the single-party period. In the newspapers of
the period, this confusion in the meaning of “democracy” intensely took place. For example, in one of
the cartoons, a man sitting in the middle of a bulk of papers like trying to solve a problem, another one
asks him what he is doing there. The man replies, “I am just noting the meanings that is given to the
word democracy.” Cumhuriyet, 31 July 1949. “demokrasi kelimesine bizde verilen mânaları not
ediyorum”
166
this event, which was given in Cumhuriyet with the headline “An Inconvenient
Incident,” was as follows:
Today in our city some declarations are captures, written by typewriter
with the headline “Unofficial personal notice sent to the Democrat Party
board of entrepreneurs.” The declaration says: “In the demonstration
which will be held for greeting Celal Bayar, the founder of the Democrat
Party that will protect the rights of Turkish peasants and workers and
was founded for the development of the country, the postponement of
the coming elections will be demanded. I request all of your
participation in this demonstration with your supporters, in which all of
the youth of Izmir will be present, and extend my greetings to you.” The
declaration is signed: “Mustafa Rizeli: Kristal Hotel,
zmir,
Basmahane.” The declaration also included a note saying that, if
someone wants information about the event he/she may appeal by letter
within five days, and Mustafa Rizeli will personally respond in
written.285
This personal initiation made the political atmosphere tense and both state
officials and journalists begin to investigate the person in charge and the “real”
motivation behind this move. In the following days, the DP officials explained that
they had no relation with this move and it was totally the personal attempt of Mustafa
Rizeli.286 This incident shows that ordinary citizens had begun to take the political
initiative into their own hands and tried to be an active component of politics.
The political attitudes of the peasants were experienced not only during the
elections or in the discussions on the meaning of democracy. During this research I
encountered information about other kinds of political activities of the peasants.
When their economic situation was in danger the peasants acted to protect their
interests and sometimes their reactions resulted in land occupations or even
285 “Münasebetsiz bir hâdise”, Cumhuriyet, 1 May 1946. “Bugün sehrimizde “Demokrat Parti
mütesebbis heyetlerine gönderilen ve resmî olmıyan hususî tebligattır” baslıgı altında daktilo ile
yazılmıs beyannameler ele geçirilmistir. Beyannamede: “Memleketin kalkınması için kurulan ve Türk
köylüsü ve isçisinin haklarını koruyacak olan Demokrat Partinin kurucusu Celâl Bayarı tebrik
maksadile yapılacak nümayiste seçimlerin geri bırakılması istenilecek. Bütün zmir gençliginin istirak
edecegi bu nümayise sizin de taraftarlarınızla birlikte gelmenizi rica eder, selâmlarımı sunarım.”
denilmekte ve “Mustafa Rizeli: Kristal oteli, zmir, Basmahane” imza ve adresi bulunmaktadır.
Beyannamenin bir de notu vardır ki bunda Mustafa Rizeli malûmat isteyenlerden bes gün zarfında
kendisine mektubla müracaat edene tahriren cevab verecegini bildirmektedir.”
286 “Egede dagıtılan beyannameler”, Cumhuriyet, 3 May 1946.
167
rebellions. Some of the political publications in the following period mention some
of these events. For example, some of the land occupations are mentioned in the
defense report on the case of Türkiye htilalci sçi Köylü Partisi (TKP) [Turkish
Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Party] as follows:
In various places in Anatolia, land and freedom demanding peasants
occupied the lands. They shared the land of the agas in between. The
most important one occurred in Denizli. Shareholder peasants
confiscated the Adacabir farm, which is hundred thousand dönüm. The
peasants of Çesmebası, Dönemenli, Ada, Aptal, Cabir, Döseme,
Küçükada and Halasbası villages shared the land.287
Similar information of this kind of land occupations can be seen in some of
the Soviet and Bulgarian sources of the period.288 The information on this kind of
287 T...K.P. Davası-Savunma, (
stanbul: Kaynak Yayınları, 1992), pp. 216-217. “Anadolu’nun çesitli
yerlerinde toprak ve hürriyet isteyen köylüler toprakları isgal ettiler. Agaların topraklarını aralarında
paylastılar. Bu mücadelelerin en önemlisi Denizli’de oldu. 100 bin dönümlük Adacabir çiftligine
ortakçı köylüler el koydular. Çesmebası, Dönemenli, Ada, Aptal, Cabir, Döseme, Küçükada ve
Halasbası köylüleri topragı bölüstüler.”
288 For example, in Turkish History book written by the Soviet Union Academia of Sciences similar
events are told as follows: “In August 1946, the correspondent in Yeni Asır writes that the peasants
‘do not want to be silent anymore, it is even impossible to make them silent, they have nothing for this
reason they have nothing to lose’. In November 1947, 90 villagers are being courted ‘with the pretext
of attending to rebellion against government’ in Konya. During the spring of 1948 the peasants in
Çatalca district conflicted with the police and gendarmerie. During the summer of the same year,
when the peasants were sharing the lands of the landlord in Sekeroba village, they conflicted with the
police and 36 of them died or wounded. In Balıkesir district, police have arrested 50 peasants in the
same conditions. In 1949, peasant movements occurred in Kayseri, Samsun, Maras, Artvin and in
other districts. Only during the first half of the 1949, 323 incidents have been reported in 22 districts,
such as occupation of lands owned by the agas, burning down of the wheat silos and animal stealing.”
“1946 Agustos’unda Yeni Asır gazetesinin muhabiri, köylünün ‘artık susmak istemedigini, hatta onu
susturmanın olanaksız oldugunu, hiçbir seyi olmadıgına göre yitirecek bir seyinin de olmayacagını’
yazıyordu. Kasım 1947’de, Konya’da ‘hükümete karsı ayaklanmaya katıldıkları gerekçesiyle’ 90
köylü yargılandı. 1948 ilkbaharında Çatalca bölgesinde köylüler polis ve jandarmayla çatıstılar. Aynı
yılın yaz mevsiminde Sekeroba köyünde toprak agasına ait toprakların köylüler tarafından
paylasılması sırasında polisle yapılan çatısma sonucunda 36 kisi öldü veya yaralandı. Polis Bandırma
bölgesinde aynı kosullarda 50 köylüyü tutukladı. 1949 yılında Kayseri, Samsun, Maras, Artvin ve
öteki bölgelerde köylü eylemleri oldu. Sadece 1949 yılının ilk yarısında 22 vilayette agalara ait
toprakların köylüler tarafından isgali, bugday ambarlarının yakılması ve hayvanların çalınması
seklinde 323 olay kaydedildi.” SSCB Bilimler Akademisi, Ekim Devrimi Sonrası Türkiye Tarihi II,
trans. A. Hasanoglu (
stanbul: Bilim Yayınları, 1978), pp. 51-52. Some of the events mentioned in this
book can be confirmed. However, it will be wrong to assert that all of these events are rebellion-like
incidents. In another source, Bulgarian literary critics explain the reasons for these land occupations as
follows: “During these years, due to capitalism’s gradually increasing oppression, land deficiency of
the peasants became a social disaster and mobilized the peasants. Between the peasants land conflicts
are seen and this caused various irregular mutinies in Anatolia.” “Bu senelerde Anadolu’da
kapitalizmin köylüler üzerinde gitgide artan baskası neticesinde, toprak yetersizligi sosyal bir felaket
halini alarak köylü tabakalarını harekete geçirmistir. Köylüler arasında toprak kavgasına yol açmıs,
Anadolu’da birçok düzensiz ayaklanmalara sebep olmustu.”
brahim Tatarlı and Rıza Mollof, Hüseyin
168
incidents derived from similar sources, and political motivations made the basis for
the interpretations of these events. Due to that, some of the land conflicts between
the peasants are interpreted as “occupation” or “rebellion” by these sources.
However, the exact names and places are given in these sources. This means that
some of these events were known and interpreted differently from how they are
today during the period in question, at least in between some definite groups.
Although these sources are not very much dependable, there are some
examples of rebellion-like incidents undertaken by the peasants against the
oppression of the agas due to land conflicts. One of these incidents happened in
Baladız village of Isparta in 1946. Cumhuriyet gives the news of this incident as
follows:
The hearings of the case on the murder of Abdullah Demiralay, who was
one of the prominent rich residents of Isparta, by lynching by the people
of Baladız village five months ago, continue in Isparta Criminal Court.
The case of Abdullah Demiralay, who was killed with crushing his head
with stone by the peasants that were indebted money to him but refused
to pay back, aroused attention in the district, because he was also the
head of the Democrat Party Isparta district branch.289
In a variety of sources this event is mentioned as important during the time of
the incident. Such as, Ruhi Su, a prominent Turkish folk singer and poet, wrote a
poem and song about the event.290 Fakir Baykurt, while describing the relations of
Rahmi'den Fakir Baykurt'a Marksist Açıdan Türk Romanı (
stanbul: Habora Kitabevi Yayınları,
1969), p. 251.
289 “Köyde Linç Edilen D.P. Baskanı Davası”, Cumhuriyet, 18 January 1947. “Bundan bes ay kadar
evvel, Baladız köyünde halk tarafından linç edilen Isparta zenginlerinden Abdullah Demiralayın
ölümüne aid davanın görüsülmesine, Isparta Agırceza Mahkemesinde devam edilmistir. Kendisine
borclu olan ve borclarını ödemiyen köylüler tarafından, bası tasla ezilerek öldürülen Abdullah
Demiralay, aynı zamanda sparta Demokrat Parti ilçe baskanı oldugu için, dava muhitte büyük bir
alaka uyandırmıstır.”
290 The poem is titled as “An Epic Poem For Baladız” [Baladız Destanı]. The poem is as follows:
“During the summer of nineteenfourtysix / The grains of Baladız are winnowed / In Demiralay’s dust
and soil / It is revolved as birds telling the time of death / The seizure of land dissolve the homes /
Some of them want taxes some of them to interrogate / It became irresistible the people got tired of
their lives / If it continues the iron becomes sharp / They said let’s make peace he did not accept /
There is neither justice in landlord nor patience in peasants / The news have arrived but the
gendarmerie did not come / The black soil is kneaded with the blood of the landlord.” “Bin dokuz yüz
kırk altının yazında / Baladız’ın harmanları savrulur / Demiralay topragında tozunda / Ecel gelmis
169
the dominant classes in city and countryside with the state and governments, he
mentions the event in his memoirs and asserts that during this period the peasants
gained a kind of economic and political consciousness and they even began to rise
against this status quo.
As the feudal system in the villages continues, tomorrow our condition
will be hard. I am worried about today. They have their men
everywhere, their own deputies in the Assembly. They keep the ministry
and the government under their strict control. They are holding it under
control, for sure! But the ant is developing wings by the way. The
peasants of Baladız, who have had enough, killed Abdullah Demiralay
aga by crushing his head with stones. It is an epic poem sold for five
piaster.291
As can be seen, this incident was neither the result of the impetuosity of some
“unconscious” peasants, who were acting as a result of a discontent with the RPP
government and guided by the DP opposition, nor did it occur as a result of
individualistic heroism or the discrete “madness” of the peasants. The Demiralay
family was a prominent and dominant economic and political force in the region and
had close relations with the state during both the DP and the RPP periods. Thirty six
people brought to trial during this case, which proves that the incident was a
collective action. Unfortunately, the final verdict of this case not provided in the
newspapers of the period. But even this example is important to show that the period
in question was filled with kind events of this kind that show a different side of the
relations between peasants and politics. During this period, the peasants did not exist
in the political sphere only within the framework drawn by the DP movement, but
kuslar gibi çevrilir / Haciz geldi ocakları bozuyor / Kimi vergi kimi sorgu yazıyor / Can dayanmaz kul
canından beziyor / Böyle olursa demir kalmaz sivrilir / Sulh olalım dediler de olmadı / Beyde insaf
kulda sabır kalmadı / Haber gitti jandarmalar gelmedi / Kara toprak bey kanıyla yogrulur.” Edip
Akbayram, a protest-folk singer, sing that song in his album titled 33’üncü published in 2002 as “The
Requiem For Baladız” [Baladız Agıdı].
291 Fakir Baykurt, Köy Enstitülü Delikanlı-Özyasam 2 (
stanbul: Papirüs Yayınları, 1999), p. 148.
“Köylerde beyli düzen sürdükçe yarın isimiz zor olacak. Simdiden kaygı çekiyorum. Her yerde
adamları, Meclis’te milletvekilleri var. Bakanlıgı, hükümeti baskı altında tutuyorlar. Tutuyorlar
amenna! Ama karınca da kanatlanıyor. Canına tak diyen Baladız köylüleri, Abdullah Demiralay
agayı, basını tasla ezerek öldürdü. Destanı bes kurus.”
170
also became active participants in politics, which sometimes went beyond the limited
political content of the DP.
During the 1946-1960 period, the most important subject related to the
peasants’ relation with politics was the voting behavior of the peasants. Voting
behavior had a different meaning in the period after the Second World War from
what it has today. Especially, after the “controversial” 1946 elections, as a result of
the DP propaganda that emphasized the “sacredness” of the elections and votes, the
peasants had gained a consciousness about protecting their right to vote, no matter
what the cost. Before the 1946 elections, the majority of the peasants did not
participate in the elections, which held in two phases, and in which the prominent
people in the countryside were the only electors on behalf of the remaining majority.
Consequently the participation rates were still very low. Within this framework, it
may be asserted that the 1946 elections were first elections, in which the peasants in
Turkey learned how to vote. The great majority of masses, who had not been aware
of even the existence of such a political mechanism, gained the consciousness of
affecting the process of politics by using the election mechanism. This happened
especially as a result of the DP’s propaganda campaigns. Due to that, the voting
behavior after 1946, when compared to that of the previous periods’ limitations on
the participation mechanisms to politics, was perceived as a “revolutionary” tool to
be used to change their existing condition in the eyes of the people. As an example,
the voting behavior is described in the propaganda brochures of the DP as follows:
We have got an atom bomb in our hands. This weapon is the ballot,
which is held inside an envelope. When we use this, the People's Party
and the oligarch mentality that leans on the military forces, the state's
treasury and governmental administrators, will be only a part of history
and the past at once. The next general elections will be the scene of a
new period full of surprises in the Near East. No threat at all can daunt
us. We will protect our voting rights just as we defended our
171
independence at Dumlupınar with the same definiteness, determination
and belief.292
The propaganda brochures of the DP feature instructive content which stresses the
importance of the right to vote and the protection of this right. The voting right, which can
be defined as a political right naturally gained as a result of being a citizen, was perceived
as the most important tool for the peasants to affect politics. After the DP came to power in
the 1950 elections, this perception of the peasants gained strength and was accepted by
everyone. To show this instructive propaganda style of the DP, the following words in a
propaganda brochure of the DP that was spread out during the 1946 elections in Gaziantep
is a good example. The stress on “political rights” in this paragraph is an example of a
typical discourse of the DP propaganda.
Citizen: with the decision taken unanimously in the Great National
Assembly the elections will be held in a direct suffrage system. The
main characteristic of DEMOCRACY, which means the governance of
the People, is the direct suffrage system and the foundation of Parties
that will assure the equilibrium in the Assembly. For this reason, the
domination of solely a single party will be called off. If you want to
have a role in the elections on Sunday, 21 July 1946, which will create
the new Assembly and the deputies that will constitute it, do not hesitate
to use your votes. You have the political right to elect and be elected,
just as you have the property right on your house and land, and it is only
possible by using your votes. No one can touch this right of yours. You
are totally free to use your vote without any hesitation and without the
influence of any other person. If you remain under pressure from anyone
insisting on directing your vote, apply to the Attorney Generalship; legal
proceedings will be held for that kind of people. If any of our fellow
townsmen come across with such a situation apply to our Party
immediately, we will acquire necessary help for them.293
292
hsan Yurdoglu, C.H.P.'nin Oyunları ve Demokrat Parti (
stanbul: Rıza Koskun Matbaası, 1948),
p. 23. “Elimizde atom silahı var. Bu silah bir zarf parçası içine sıkısmıs bir rey pusulasıdır. Bunu
kullandıgımız zaman, silahlı kuvvetlere, hazineye ve idare amirlerine dayanan Halk Partisi ve zümre
zihniyeti bir anda tarihe ve maziye karısacak, gelecek genel seçim, Yakın Doguda sürprizlerle dolu
yeni bir devrin açılmasına sahne olacaktır. Bizi hiçbir tehdit yıldıramaz. Dumlupınar’da, istiklalimizi
nasıl müdafaa ettikse; rey haklarımızı da aynı kat’iyetle, azimle ve imanla koruyacagız.”
293 Gaziantep’te Demokrat Parti’nin seçim propagandası yaptıgı, 12.5.1950, BCA 490.01/442.1830.2.
“Yurddas; Büyük Millet Meclisi karariyle Tek dereceli ntihaba ittifakla karar verilmistir.
DEMOKRAS yani Halk idaresinin esaslı vasfı Tek dereceli intihap ve Mecliste muvazeneyi temin
edici Partilerin kurulmasıdır. Bu suretle ancak bir tek Partinin hakimiyetine son verilmis olunacaktır.
Eger sizler 21-Temmuz-946 Pazar günü yeni seçilecek Meclisin ve onu teskil edecek Millet
Vekillerinin seçiminde rol oynamak istiyorsanız, reyinizi kullanmaktan çekinmeyiniz. Nasıl eviniz,
Tarlanız üzerinde bir mülkiyet hakkınız varsa ayni sekilde Seçmek ve Seçilmek gibi bir de Siyasi
hakkınız vardır ki oda Reyinizi kullanmakla kabildir. Bu hakkınıza kimse dokunamaz. Reyinizi
172
This kind of information to give political consciousness on the way to
produce a voting behavior and presenting these instructions within the framework of
“political rights” would lead to the establishment of a “rights demanding” perception
in the peasants’ political consciousness. During this period, the peasants were
transformed from passive subjects to active components of politics. During this
transformation, this stress on the rights and freedom were the main keywords that
affected the creation of their political consciousness. In this way, the peasants
obtained the chance to experience the processes of politics and understand what kind
of political change they could achieve by using the election mechanism. Actually,
some of the researchers, who were active during the period in question mention the
importance of this point. For example, Behice Boran, who was a prominent
sociologist and the leader of the Turkish Workers Party in the following period,
explained the effects of the general political atmosphere of the period, which was
based on this perception of rights and freedom, as follows:
At the same time, the multi-party try at democracy during the 1945-1960
period … expedient too. It was not possible to deal with basic social and
economic problems, to investigate internal and external policies from a
class-based perspective and criticize them all. The repression of the
leftist political movements to defend the working classes’ rights and
freedom never wavered, but political power, government, “our elders”
were released out from being sacred and need to be repentant during this
period. A tradition and habit of criticizing and opposition began to be
formed. Within the limits of bourgeois-class ideology and even if
everyone should strictly obey the dominant class definitions of rights
and freedom, the political and parliamentarian rules of the multi-party
democratic regime, the opposition’s rights to criticize, audit and resist
against the government, were discussed at length and defended during
this period. … Another important point is that, during this period the
Turkish people adopted their right to vote and brought the DP to power
by going to the ballots in growing numbers like snowball and turned the
plans of the RPP upside down. … The importance of the 1950 elections
çekinmeden ve kimsenin tesirinde kalmadan istediginiz kimseye vermekte tamamiyle hürsünüz, Rey
hakınıza dokunarak reyinizi bize vereceksiniz diye zor karsısında kalırsanız Savcılıga müracaat
ediniz, o gibilerin haklarında kanuni takibat yapılacaktır, bu gibi vaziyetlerle karsılasan
hemsehrilerimiz, hemen Partimize bas vursunlar kendilerine lazım gelen kolaylıklar gösterilecektir.”
173
was based not on the DP’s winning of the power but mostly on the
overthrown of the RPP by the people’s votes. This incident was the first
sign of the people’s gaining a political consciousness, and the first
resistance against the authoritarian, Jacobin state mentality.294
The questioning of the government power and widespread acceptance of the
general opinion that all of the governments could be changed by the hand of the
people, paved the way for the peasants to be active participants in politics. Within
this framework, it will not be wrong to assert that from that time on the peasants did
not perceive politics as unchangeable or far from themselves. This active
participation of the peasants soon changed the general structure of politics in a way.
Even the “state-party” of the single-party regime, the RPP, changed its organizational
structure and political attitude in order to fit these changing conditions. In fact, this
change also can be defined as the continuation of the transformation that was created
when the peasants became involved in politics. Kemal Karpat describes this
transformation as follows:
The peasantry on the other hand, had acquired a sense of power and
dignity and consequently felt confident that their status and freedom
would be respected, regardless of which party was in power. They
believed in their own power and in the system that had achieved it, and
their allegiance to the Democratic Party consequently began to lose
personal character. It was this change in the attitude of the peasantry
which led many politicians in Turkey, including high-placed
Republicans, to affirm that with proper leadership the peasantry was one
294 Behice Boran, Türkiye ve Sosyalizmin Sorunları (
stanbul: Gün Yayınları, 1968), pp. 43-44.
“Bununla beraber, 1945–60 arasındaki çok partili demokrasi denemesi ... yararlı olmadı degil. Temel
sosyal, ekonomik meselelere inmek, bunları ve güdülen iç ve dıs politikayı sınıf münasebetleri
açısından incelemek, elestirmek mümkün degildi. Sola, emekçi sınıfların hak ve hürriyetlerinin
savunulmasına karsı baskı hiç gevsemedi, ama iktidar, hükümet, “büyüklerimiz” tenkit edilemez,
önünde sadece boyun egilir varlıklar olmaktan bu devrede çıktı. Bir tenkit ve muhalefet alıskanlıgı,
gelenegi olusmaya basladı. Burjuva sınıfının ideolojisi sınırları içinde ve egemen sınıfların hak ve
hürriyetlerine münhasır kalmak sartıyla da olsa, çok partili demokratik rejimin politik ve parlamenter
kuralları, muhalefetin iktidarı tenkit, denetleme ve ona karsı koyma hakları bu devrede enine boyuna
tartısıldı, savunuldu. … Çok önemli bir nokta da, bu dönemde Türk halkının oy hakkına sahip çıkması
ve C.H.P.’nin hesaplarını altüst ederek sandık baslarına çıg gibi bir akısla D.P.’yi iktidara getirisiydi.
… 1950 seçimlerinin sonucu, D.P.’nin iktidarı kazanmıs olmasından çok C.H.P.’nin iktidardan halkın
oyu ile düsmüs olması açısından önemlidir. Bu, halk kitlelerinin politik bilinçlenmesinin ilk etkin
belirtisi, otoriter, tepeden inme devlet sekline karsı ilk direnisiydi.”
174
of the major forces capable of establishing democracy on a permanent
basis.295
The momentum which was created by the DP on the way to giving the
peasants a political consciousness during its years of opposition resulted in the
establishment of the perception that the peasants were an important component of
politics. As can be seen in the words of Karpat, after a while, the peasants became
aware of their power over politics, regardless of the political effect of the DP. This
change in their attitude towards the politics soon changed the general content of
politics, too. From that time on, the political parties had to change their political
discourse and activities in order to gain the support of the peasants.
In the next section, in order to show this changing relation of the peasants to
politics more clearly, an analysis of an important case will de presented. The
perception of peasants on concepts such as rights demanding, freedom and rule of
law and the use of these concepts during the political struggle of the peasants in the
unique example of the “Arslanköy Case” will be analyzed in detail.
The Arslanköy Case and the Development of the Rule of Law
The RPP government took the decision of early elections, which was held on
21 July 1946, after the DP’s foundation in January 1946 and before the DP got its
branches open throughout the country. Although the DP objected to the election
methods, the RPP won the elections. After the elections, the DP raised objections
about the election process and asserted that the government in power oppressed the
electorates and directly changed the votes. The complaints by the electorates as such
and widespread rumors on irregularities made the results of the 1946 elections
295 Kemal Karpat, "Recent Political Developments in Turkey and Their Social Background," in
Studies on Turkish Politics and Society (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2004), p. 158.
175
debatable. After these elections, the provincial elections were held in September, but
the DP protested the irregularities that had happened during the 1946 general
elections and did not participate to the elections in 56 cities. From that time on, the
main discussion was on the irregularities practiced during the elections by the RPP
government, until the DP’s coming to power in 1950. The most widespread
complaint of the peasants was the oppression of the gendarmerie during the voting
process.296
Until the DP came to power, the foremost discourse of the DP propaganda
consisted of the suppression to the electorates and the “dictatorship” of the
government, which did not respect to the rule of law. After the 1946 elections, the
propaganda activities of the DP at all levels were shaped around the protection of
voting rights, as shown in the examples given above. The Arslanköy incident took
place during this tense political atmosphere and had a symbolic meaning as actual
proof of the DP’s accusations of the RPP government.
In a book written after the Arslanköy incident, Arslanköy village is described
as follows:
Arslanköy is a charming, heroic village that is located on one of the
plateaus on the Taurus Mountains, 2000 meter above sea level, 19 hours
far from the city of Mersin and has a population of 3000. Its residents
are really smart and hardworking. Up to the present, there have been
many great men who from the residents of Arslanköy, such as doctors,
engineers, intellectuals and agriculturists. During the National Struggle,
the “Etrenk” company was formed in this village, which contained the
national forces that had saved
çel from the enemy. During that time, it
was the warrior children of this village who shot the first bullet at the
enemy. After the salvation from the enemy, the name of our charming
village changed to Arslanköy, with the decision of the
çel provisional
council, referring to the Etrenk Company.297
296 Erogul, Demokrat Parti, p. 40.
297 Mustafa Atalay, Aslanköy Faciası (Ankara: Güven Basımevi, 1954), p. 10. “Arslanköy,
toroslardaki yaylalardan birinin üzerine kurulmus, deniz seviyesinden 2000 metre yükseklikte ve
Mersin vilâyetine 19 sat uzaklıkta 3000 nüfuslu sirin ve kahraman bir köydür. Halkı gayet zeki ve
çalıskandır. Simdiye kadar Arslanköy halkı arasından Doktor, Mühendis, Alim ve ziraatçi gibi, pek
çok sayıda büyük adamlar çıkmıstır. Kurtulus savasında çeli düsmandan kurtaran millî kuvvetlerin
176
The Arslanköy incident, the story of which is told even today is trimmed with
the themes of “heroism” as quoted above, occurred as a result of the condition that
were created after the 1946 elections. The incident happens during the provincial
elections on February 1947. Cumhuriyet gives the news of the event as follows:
During the provincial elections of 23 February, the residents of this
village started a propaganda campaign to support the new village
headman, Harun, for they did not want the old one. Thus, they gave their
votes to Harun and his friends on the election day. The old headman
realized this, went to the city, claimed that the people of Arslanköy had
made irregularities during the election. Due to that, on the next day, the
Private Administration Manager and a gendarmerie captain were sent to
the village and came across the newly elected headman, Harun, on the
way to the village. They asked Harun if they had the elections for the
village headman, and he answered “Yes, we did, and I was elected as the
new headman. I have the election protocol in may hand and am going to
the city to register it.” The Private Administration Manager and the
gendarmerie commander did not disavow the headman, and said “Turn
back to village, the elections would be renewed.” This group arrives to
the village, asked the people of Arslanköy the place of the ballot box.
The villagers said that the elections were finished and the votes were
classified and they refused to renew the elections. As a result, they used
the gendarmerie to get the ballot box by force. The people of Arslanköy
tried to obstruct this. During that time the villagers and the security
forces began to struggle with each other and as a result this unfortunate
incident happens.298
barındıgı bu köyde tarihi “Etrenk” bölügü meydana gelmisti. O zaman düsman ilk kursunu atan bu
köyün cengaver çocukları idi. Bu sirin köyümüz, düsman isgalinden kurtulduktan sonra, içel genel
meclisinin yerinde bir kararı ile, bu köyün ismi “Etrenk Bölügü”ne izafeten Arslanköy’e çevrilmistir.”
The older name of the village is written wrong the source quoted here. The true version has to be
Efrenk. Although there is no information on the origin of the old name of the village, due to its
similarity with the word efrenc, meaning “western” or “European”, it may be asserted that the village
was founded by the migrants coming from the western side of the country. As a result of the bravery
that the residents of the village had shown during the National Struggle, the name of the village was
changed with Arslanköy. See Arslanköy Tarihçesi, Available August 2009:
http://www.arslankoy.com/8_tarihce.asp 12 February 2009. This historical reference will always be
remembered and repeated constantly during the case.
298 “92 Sanıklı Dava”, Cumhuriyet, 4 September 1947. “23 subat muhtar seçiminde bu köy halkı eski
muhtarı istemediklerinden yeni muhtar Harun lehinde bir propagandaya baslamıslardır. Nitekim
seçim günü sandıga Harun ve arkadasları adına rey atmıslardır. Bunu hisseden eski muhtar, vilâyete
kosmus, Aslanköylülerin usulsüz seçim yaptıklarını iddia etmistir. Bunun üzerine ertesi günü idarei
Hususiye müdürü ve bir jandarma yüzbasısı bu köye yollanmıs ve yolda köye yeni muhtar seçilen
Harunla karsılasmıslardır. Bunlar, Haruna köyde muhtar intihabı yapılıp yapılmadıgını sormuslar, o
da, “Yapıldıgı ve muhtar olarak ben seçildim. Mazbatam elimde, vilayete tasdike gidiyorum” cevabını
vermistir. darei Hususiye müdürü ile jandarma kumandanı muhtarı tanımamıslar, “Geriye dön,
seçim yeniden yapılacaktır” demislerdir. Bu heyet Aslanköye gelmis, aslanköylülere rey sandıgının
nerede oldugunu sormustur. Köylüler intihabın yapıldıgını ve reylerin tasnif edildigini söyliyerek
yeniden bir intihaba girismiyeceklerini söylemislerdir. Bunun üzerine jandarmalar vasıtasile rey
177
The incident grew worst when the old headman tried to use the power
relations of the old single-party regime in order to intervene to the elections. As a
result, the gendarmerie came to the village and used force against to the villagers.
The villagers did not want to elect the old headman, due to that they did not want to
give the ballot box to the state officials. When they refused to obey the commands of
the state officials they tried to use force against them. But this time they stood up to
the oppression of the state officials. During the fight between the soldiers and the
villagers, the commander was injured from his head with a stone. The struggle
between the villagers and the soldiers was told in the legal statement of some
witnesses, which were later drawn back due to the witnesses’ claim that the
gendarmerie and local officers had forced them to give such a statement, as follows:
Only the old headman and five witnesses said that the villagers had not
given the ballot box to the captain and walked all over to the
gendarmerie captain and the privates with stones and clubs. One of the
witnesses, named Dogan, said that he had been seen one of the
defendants, Hasan Yavuz, with a rifle in his hand and delivered it to the
captain and some of the defendants who were standing on the top of the
roof tried to roll a heavy stone present at the top of the roof on to the
captain, but as a result of his warning the captain had escaped and
survived. Most of the witnesses had asserted that the incidents were
planned in their previous statements and by counting nearly all of the
defendants names, claimed that they all had walked all over to the
captain with stones and clubs and it was after that the captain used his
weapon against them. During the hearings today, the witnesses did not
accept their statements and claimed that these words had been added by
the judge of interrogation.299
sandıgının alınmasına tesebbüs edilmis, Aslanköylüler, buna mâni olmak istemislerdir. ste bu sırada
köylülerle zabıta kuvvetleri arasında mücadele baslamıs ve böylece müessif hadise vukubulmustur.”
299 “Aslanköy Davası”, Son Telgraf, 14 November 1947. “Bunlardan yalnız eski muhtarla bes sahit
köylülerin yüzbasıya rey sandıgını vermediklerini ve taslarla, sopalarla jandarma subayının ve
erlerinin üzerine yürüdüklerini söylediler. Bunlardan Dogan adında bir sahit, sanıklardan Hasan
Yavuz’un elinde bir tüfek gördügünü ve bunu yüzbasıya teslim ettigini söyledi ve damın üzerinde
bulunan sanıklardan bir kısmının da damdaki agır bir tası yüzbasının üstüne yuvarlamak istediklerini,
fakat kendisinin ikazı üzerine yüzbasının kaçıp kurtuldugunu söyledi. Sahitlerden çogu evvelki
ifadelerinde hâdisenin mürettep oldugunu bildirmis ve sanıklardan hemen hepsinin isimlerini
zikrederek bunların sopalarla ve taslarla yüzbasının üstüne yürüdüklerini ve ancak bundan sonra
yüzbasının silâh kullandıgını söylemislerdi. Bugünkü durusmada sahitler bu ifadelerini kabul
etmediler ve bu sözlerinin Sorgu hakimi tarafından ilave edildigini iddia ettiler.”
178
The first reaction of the government was to evaluate the incident as a
rebellion against the state, based on the information gathered from the local officials.
Hakkı Tümer, who was the Private Administration Manager of Mersin, investigated
the incident at first hand and prepared a report in which the incidents called as a
“rebellion.” He wrote that the peasants cut the telephone lines and showed armedresistance
against the government forces. These practices were accepted as
constituting a “rebellion” against the government. When the officials in the central
government learned the incident, they also called it a “rebellion”, and sent
gendarmerie forces to Arslanköy to quell the rebellion.300
After the incident, 92 villagers, of whom 47 were arrested, became
defendants in the case, accused of having been in relation with a “rebellion” attempt.
They were put on trial on charge of “showing resistance against the state forces to
obstruct their duty; inflicting battery and assault on the officials on duty and partial
revolt against the armed forces of the state.” The defendants were charged with the
258th, 271st and 149th articles of the Turkish Penal Law. “The mutiny against the
state” was defined in the article 149.301
300 The official newspaper of the RPP government, Ulus, gives the news of the incident in the first
days as follows: “The victory of the RPP candidates in the village headman elections in most of the
Mersin villages impelled the democrats to some extreme propaganda activities. Even in some villages,
it is told that some feckless people try to carry out various provocations. The Arslan Village is one of
them. The governorship of
çel took all necessary measurements in order to restore the security.”
“Mersin köylerinden pek çogunda muhtar seçimlerini C.H.P. adaylarının kazanmıs olması,
demokratları asırı birtakım propagandalara sevketmistir. Hattâ bazı köylerde, sorumsuz bazı
kimselerin çesitli tahriklerde bulundukları da haber verilmektedir. Arslan köyü de bunlardan biridir.
çel Valiligi, inzibatı saglamak üzere gereken bütün tedbirleri almıstır.” “Mersin’de dün bir hadise
oldu”, Ulus, 27 February 1947. In the following days Ulus says that the incidents are being
investigated by the state officials and “the telephone lines, which were cut down during the incidents
by the democrats, are fixed at first.” “Muhtar Seçimlerini C.H.P. adayları çogunlukla kazandı”, Ulus,
1 March 1947. During the court hearings, one of the witnesses of the incident, Osman, says in his
statement that “the telephone lines were not cut down in the day of the event, they were already
broken three days before and the lines are fixed personally by him.” “telefon tellerinin hâdise günü
kesilmedigi, ondan üç gün evvel de kesik oldugunu ve bu tellerin bizzat kendisi tarafından tamir
edildigini belirtiyordu.” “Aslanköy davası karara kaldı”, Cumhuriyet¸ 5 February 1948.
301 Arslanköy Hadisesinin Davası”, Yeni Sabah, 9 October 1947. “devlet kuvvetlerini vazifeden
menetmek için mukavemet göstermek; vazifedar memurlara, vazifeleri sırasında müessir fiil ika etmek
ve kısmen de devletin silâhlı kuvvetlerine karsı isyan etmek”
179
The press and public showed a great interest in the trials and all phases of the
trials were followed in detail. The DP was a party to the legal proceedings from the
very first days and prominent attorneys of the period who were members of the DP,
defended the villagers.302 The place of the trials, which began on 8 October 1947,
was moved from Mersin to Konya and this change was defined as a “cruelty” of the
state against the villagers, who were mostly women and old people.303 During their
trip to Konya the defendants were met by the supporters of the DP at every station
and when they reached Konya the DP members visited them and asked about their
needs.304
During the trial, the villagers asserted that the old headman was responsible
from the development of the events. They said that when the old headman realized
that he was going to lose the elections, he misinterpreted the events to the
302 The attorneys, who declare that they will undertake the advocacy free of charge, are listed in the
newspapers of the period as follows: “From
stanbul Kenan Öner, Emrullah Ültay, Süreyya Agaoglu,
Fethi Tahin, from Ankara Hâmid Sevket
nce, Zühtü Veli Bese,
smail Hakki Evila, Osman Sevki
Çiçekdag, Samed Agaoglu,, Nihad Akpınar, Meliha Gökmen; from Konya Fahri Agaoglu, Tarık
Kozbak, Muammer Abuz, Sedad Dikmen, Ahmed Efeoglu, Halis Sungur, Ziya Göktürk, Mustafa
Kıray, Mehmed Ali Apalı, Mehmet Emin Balay, Emin Agâh Ünver; from
zmir Osman Kapanî, Rauf
Onursal, Sekib
nal, Muhiddin Erener, Pertev Aral, Nahid Özen, Emin Degirmen, Refik Sevket
nce,
from Adana Said Nil, Kamil Tekerek, Mustafa Tunç, Memduh Bülbül, from Mersin, Yakub
Çukuroglu, Hüsrev Elde, Haydar Aslan, Mustafa Nuri, from Afyon Hasan Dinçer, Hazım Tuzca,
Kemal Özçoban, from Antalya; Sırrı Hocaoglu, Ömer Lütfi, Abdullah Fevzi, Fevzi Kurnal, from
Samsun; Celaleddin Danısman, from Sivas, Hüseyin Fırat, from Isparta Sefik Seren, from Kayseri
Kamil Günde, Fikret Apaydın, from Mugla Nuri Özsan, Necati Erdem.” “Aslanköy davasına 8
Ekimde baslanıyor”, Cumhuriyet, 17 September 1947.
303 “A Heroic Tale” content of this case, which will be seen constantly during the case, will be
repeated in the press during this transfer of the defendants to Konya. For example: “Two of the
women defendants are pregnant and soon to be labored; some of the arrested defendants are holding
their babies on their arms and regardless of being man or woman all of them are stuffed in an old
wagon, which even does not have a toilet in it. 15 guarding gendarmerie private and one gendarmerie
officer are put in the same wagon together. A few minutes before the move of the train several voices
are rising in between the people, who are gathered in the station. The voices of ‘We believe to God
and the conscience of the judges; you have water to drink in Konya; you all go in peace! We have
great faith in your acquaintance…’ are echoing in the darkness of the night.” “Kadın sanıklardan ikisi
dogurmak üzere; birkaçı da kucagı çocuklu olan mevkufların hepsi kadınlı erkekli helâsı dahi
olmayan eski bir vagona doldurulmuslar 15 muhafız jandarma ile bir jandarma subayı da aynı
vagona yerlestirilmislerdir. Trenin hareketinden birkaç dakika önce; istasyonda toplanmıs olan halk
arasında ayrı ayrı sesler yükseliyor ‘Allaha ve hakimlerin vicdanına inanıyoruz; Konyada içecek
suyunuz varmıs; güle güle gidin! Beraet edeceginize inancımız büyüktür…’ sesleri gecenin karanlıgı
içinde yankılar yapıyordu.” “Arslanköy hadisesinin sanıkları kara vagonlarla yola çıkartıldı”
“Arslanköy hadisesinin sanıkları kara vagonlarla yola çıkartıldı”, Yeni Sabah, 6 September 1947.
304 “Arslanköy hâdisesi sanıkları Konyada”, Cumhuriyet, 6 September 1947; “Konyada halkın
besledigi 47 mevkuf”, Cumhuriyet, 9 September 1947.
180
gendarmerie and as a result their “legal rights” were obstructed by them. The
attorneys mostly objected to the claims of defining the incident as “rebellion” and
tried to prove that the events had grown bigger as a result of the intervention of the
military police commander, in cooperation with the old headman, and the
misinterpretation of the private administration manager. During the hearings, the
attorneys and the villagers mostly stressed the existence of their “political rights” and
unlawful administration, which tried to obstruct the use of their rights. For example,
during the first hearing one of the attorneys, Hâmid Sevket
nce, said the following
words:
You are face to face with a legal disaster here. There are important days
in the memories of every nation’s life. One day, the history of law will
certainly write on the tragedy of this case. You have a grasp of the
content of the file. This insight convinces us that you have reached your
legal opinion. Our clients, I mean these innocent villagers sitting in that
cage, are miserable people, whose political rights and freedom have
been assaulted. A rebellion against to the state cannot arise in a village
founded on the slope of the Taurus Mountains, 2000 meters above sea
level. Rebellions arise from us, the intellectuals. We will go in deep and
present the reasons of this case in detail while defending the real claims
of this court. The document we have read presents a horrible decision of
the judge of interrogation of a legal district to you, and as a result of this
decision, these innocent men, these women with their babies in their
tummies and on their hands have been groaning for months. The Turkish
justice has been injured due to this disaster. You are going to heal it with
your health-giving hands. By becoming aware of the permutation in the
characteristic of this guilt, you are going to show maybe the most natural
result of justice by releasing these aggrieved people and restoring their
liberty. We are righteously insisting that you give such a verdict.
Because it is the national will that is being undermined; it is the political
freedom; it is the rights and justice. We came here at full speed,
breathlessly, to protect these aggrieved people and to make these rights
live. Yes, the people have undertaken a rebellion; but this rebellion is
not against the state and the government, but against the old headman
Tahir Sahin, under whose oppression they groaned for eight years.305
305 “Aslanköy davasına dün Konyada baslandı”, Cumhuriyet, 9 October 1947. “Büyük bir adlî facia
karsısındasınız. Her milletin hatırai hayatında ehemmiyetli günler vardır. Adalet tarihi, bir gün
gelecek; bu vak’anın fecaatini muhakkak yazacaktır. Dosya muhteviyatına vâkıfsınız. Bu vükuf, hukukî
teshisinizi koydugunuza bizi ikna etmektedir. Müvekkillerimiz, yani su kafes içinde duran masum
köylüler, siyasi hak ve hürriyetlerine taarruz olunan bedbahtlardır. Torosların yamacında 2000
rakımlı bir köyden bu devlete karsı bir isyan çıkamaz. syan, münevverlerden, bizlerden dogar. Esas
davayı müdafaa ederken çok derinlesecek ve bu davanın dogus sebeblerini tafsilen arzedecegiz.
Okudugumuz evrak, adlî kazaya mensub bir sorgu hâkiminin feci bir kararını size sunmaktadır ki, bu
181
During the trial process a new “epic tale” against the oppression was created
around the notions of the “righteous struggle” of the villagers that was waged against
the obstruction of the use of their political rights. During this creation, the name of
the village and the bravery of the residents of the village during the National Struggle
were connected with the incident. The presentation of the words of Ayse Çelik, who
was considered one of the leaders during the events, in the news, is a good example
of that kind of narration of the events:
There are older men and women among the defendants who are the
residents of a village that has passed into history with its bravery during
the National Struggle and who actually participated the National
Struggle. One of them, “Çelik Ayse,” says: “During the National
Struggle I carried ammunition to the soldiers on my back; I matryrized
my mountainous sons in the name of this state. I am giving my
blessings. But it takes to my heart now: They say that Çelik Ayse had
rebelled against the state. Does the man rebel against his father? They
ripped me apart from my baby and brought me here. He has become an
orphan.”306
The attorneys of the defendants objected most to the accusations of
“rebellion”. They asserted that this accusation had been leveled against the villagers
to suppress them and to lend credence to their oppression. They also claimed that this
accusation proved the oppression of state officials in cooperation with the old village
headman. In the following hearings some of the witnesses backed down from their
first statements, in which the events had been defined as rebellion, and they also
kararla su masum adamlar, karınlarındaki ve bagırlarındaki yavrularile birlikte su kadınlar, aylardan
beri inlemektedirler. Yaratılan bu facia karsısında Türk adaleti yaralanmıstır. Siz, sifalı ellerinizle
onu tedavi edeceksiniz. Bu suçun vasfındaki tebeddülü görerek, mazlumları derhal tahliye etmekle,
onları hürriyetlerine kavusturmakla adalet tezahürünün belki en tabii bir neticesini göstermis
olacaksınız. Böyle bir karar vermeniz için haklı olarak ısrar etmekteyiz. Çünkü baltalanan milli
iradedir; siyasi hürriyettir; hak ve adalettir. Biz, magdurları korumak ve bu hakları yasatmak için
buraya kosa kosa, nefes nefese geldik. Evet, halkın bir isyanı vardır; lâkin bu isyan devlet ve
hükûmete karsı degil, ancak sekiz senedenberi elinde inledikleri eski muhtar Tahir Sahine karsıdır.”
306 Vakit-Yeni Gazete, 6 October 1947. “Millî Mücadelede kahramanlıgı ile adını tarihe geçirmis bir
köyün halkından olan sanıklar arasında o mücadeleye fiilen istirak etmis kadın ve erkek ihtiyarlar
vardır. Bunlardan “Çelik Ayse” söyle demektedir: “Milli Mücadelede askere, sırtımda cephane
tasıdım; dag gibi evlâtlarımı bu devlet ugruna sehit verdim. Helâl olsun. Fakat simdi agrıma gidiyor:
Çelik Ayse devlet âsi oldu diyorlar. nsan babasına isyan eder mi? Yavrumdan koparılıp getirildim.
Öksüz kaldı.”
182
claimed that the judge of interrogation had added some statements contrary to their
will. These developments weakened the accusation of “rebellion”.307 The commander
of the military police station in Arslanköy, corporal Fahri Tuna, claimed during the
trial that the leader of the events had been the DP deputy of Mersin, Saim Ergenekon,
and Muhiddin hodja, and that they were “guilty of making agitation in the name of
Nakshibendi order.” With this accusation he tried to relate the Arslanköy incident to
a previous rebellion in Turkish history.308 This accusation would be disproved with
an official document, and later on the prosecution would not make a point of this.
The defendants also tried to get rid of the rebellion accusations by citing the peculiar
characteristics of the “Turkish Nation”. For example, one of the defence attorneys,
Abdülkadir Kemalî, who was also the father of the well-known novelist Orhan
Kemal, said the following words during the trial:
Mister captain!... The Turk knows only not to rebel against his own
government, if there is a sign of rebellion in this case its agents are not
those people. Mister Captain, who could only give us the best evidence,
said that these defendants were unarmed. How can a rebellion be
imagined without arms.309
After the statements of the defendants, the prosecutor of the case, Nusret
Tunçer was convinced that the evidence was not enough to argue on a rebellion and
asked for the release of the defendants. The words said by the prosecutor during his
307 “Konyada Aslanköylülerin muhakemesi”, Vakit-Yeni Gazete, 14 November 1947.
308 “Aslan Köylüler Davası”, Vakit-Yeni Gazete, 11 December 1947. Gendarmerie commander tries to
relate the DP opposition with the previous rebellions in Turkish history. In this way, the tries to get
the support of the single-party government.
309 “Arslanköy hadisesinin suçluları tahliye edildi”, Yeni Sabah, 10 October 1947. “Yüzbası efendi!...
Türk, yalnız kendi hükûmetine isyan etmegi bilmez, ortada bir isyan vârsa failleri bunlar degildir. En
iyi delili bize verecek olan yüzbası efendi su gördügü sanıkların silâhsız oldugunu söylemistir. Silâhsız
olarak bir isyan nasıl tasavvur edilebilir.” Abdülkadir Kemalî Bey, who was a prominent opponent
since the first years of the Republic, returned back to the country, from where he was sent to exile for
political reasons, in the first days of the DP opposition. He could not participate to the foundation of
the DP due to his illness but instead he became an active attorney of the villagers during this trial.
Meral Demirel, Tam Bir Muhalif Abdülkadir Kemali Bey (
stanbul:
stanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi
Yayınları, 2006), p. 332.
183
demand for release are important to show the meaning of this case. The prosecutor
Tunçer said the following words against to the rebellion claims:
Just after that, the prosecutor Nusret Tunçer began to speak, apart from
mentioning the decree, said that he will only touch article 149, which
was wanted to be imposed in the case, and also pointed to a statement,
which was accepted as a crime factor in the decree, and said: One of the
suspects said that it is not made by God while mentioning that the ballot
box was broken. The judge of interrogation in Mersin accepted these
words as a crime factor. Article 149 explains that the crime of rebellion
can only be made by weapons, gas and bomb. The incident happened
exactly after the execution of the election. For that reason, how could the
political maturity of the people become an element of crime.310
The prosecutor evaluated the behavior of the peasants from within the
framework of political maturity and claimed that the peasants only had protected
their political rights. This statement and the defence of the defendants during the trial
show that the peasants were aware of their political rights and if someone tried to
obstruct the use of these rights they would use even force in order to protect them.
With the seventh and the last hearing on 23 June 1948, the case came to an end. The
final verdict was as follows: “although the formation of any kind of rebellion in the
incident did not exist, the defendants are proven guilty of beating and collective
resistance against the officer on duty. Due to that, the defendants will be charged
with a penalty according to the Turkish Penal Law.”311 As a result, some of the
defendants were punished with partial penalties. As can be understood from the final
verdict, the Arslanköy Incident was a sign of the peasants’ direct intervention to the
politics. When it was necessary to protect their political rights, the peasants did not
310 “Arslanköy hadisesinin suçluları tahliye edildi”, Yeni Sabah, 10 October 1947. “Müteakiben savcı
Nusret Tunçer söz alarak kararnameden sarfınazar edip sadece sanıklar hakkında tatbiki istenen 149
uncu maddeye temas edecegini ve kararnamede suç unsuru sayılan bir söze isaret edecegini söyledi ve
dedi ki: Bir maznun oy sandıgının kırık oldugunu isaret ederken Allah yapısı degil ya demistir. Mersin
sorgu hakimligi bu sözleri bir suç unsuru saymıstır. 149 uncu madde isyan suçunun silahla, gazla ve
bomba ile yapılabilecegini tasrih etmistir. Hadise tamamen yapılmıs bu seçimden sonra vukua
gelmistir. Bu bakımdan halkın gösterdigi rüsdü siyasî nasıl olur da bir suç unsuru sayılabilir.”
311 “Arslanköy davası karara baglandı”, Vatan, 24 June 1948. “hâdisede isyan suçunun tesekkül
unsurları görülmemis ve ancak vazife esnasında topluca mukavemet ve dövmek mahiyeti
görüldügünden sanıkların Türk ceza kanununa göre cezalandırılması uygun görülmüstür”
184
remain passive but the active components of politics from that time on. Although
some loyal supporters of the single-party regime tried to present the incidents as
rebellion, with this case, the people’s freedom of the use of their political rights were
guaranteed by the rule of law.
With this conclusion of this case, the rule of law became an important
element in defining political activities. In every phase of the case the defendants and
their attorneys expressed their respect and trust in the judges and the prosecutors of
the state. For example, when the decision on the release of the arrested defendants
was declared, the head of the DP Mersin branch Fahri said the following:
The release decision of the noble Turkish judges, who kept to the path of
justice and truth in concerning the innocent and blameless peasants of
Aslanköy, left all of the people of
çel in eternal excitement of
happiness. I present the gratitude and respect of the Democrats of
çel to
the mature Turkish press, which embraced this trial in the name of truth
and freedom.312
Similar to that, a columnist of Yeni Sabah, Ulunay, addressed the judges of
the trial after the decision of release and celebrated the law as being the guarantee of
protecting the political rights against oppressive governments:
With this decision, you hanged the history-making hook of law on the
noble flag of calm and grave struggle of revolution, which will lead the
country to real democracy. Good for you! Thank you! O, you fair
judges, who do not have any other concern in their heart other than god
in order to deliver the justice! May God give you the scale of justice in
your hands in the Day of Judgment, too. As you continue to be the
protector of truth in this land, the cruelty will always be condemned to
be fired and chased by the lightning whip of the justice. The owner of
the rights did not return destitute and empty-handed before you. Your
healing hands, which relieve the aggrieved, opened the gates of freedom
heaven to them. You suddenly became the most honorable figures of the
revolution of freedom; your name and picture are engraved to the chest
of history and history-making nation. You not only manifested the
Turkish justice with your decision, but also gave the most valuable
freedom lesson to the world of humanity. By seeing, understanding and
312 “Aslanköy sanıkları serbes bırakıldı”, Aksam, 10 October 1947. “Masum ve suçsuz Aslanköylüler
hakkında adalet ve haktan sasmıyan asil Türk hâkimlerinin tahliye kararı bütün çel halkını sonsuz
sevinç heyecanı içinde bırakmıstır. Bu dâvaya hak ve hürriyet ugrunda sarılan olgun Türk basınına
çel Demokratlarının sükran ve saygılarını sunarım.”
185
telling the behavior of the right owner villager, which was called a
crime, as a “Political Maturity,” you wrote the greatest motto of the Law
of humanity on the horizon of the country which will enlighten with the
sun of freedom! The Turk you have freed from cruelty is waiting at the
front of the gate of freedom Heaven like the bird released from its
cage!313
Especially the groups that supported the DP attached great importance to the
concepts of the rule of law and the superiority of the law. This was mostly due to the
DP’s political strategy of struggling against the single-party power with these tools.
Füsun Üstel, who analyzed the change in the mentality of citizenship in the school
text books on civics, defines the above mentioned change in the use of rule of law
from a different level:
The transition to multi-party life brought the redefinition of the citizen as
being the actor of the “democratic” system in the Civic text books. In
this redefinition process the transition from a paternalist, justice giving,
protective but at the same time controlling state to the concept of the rule
of law has an important place. As the sign of this transition, the
emphasis on the expression “to maintain the rights of the citizens is the
duty of the state too” shows that the duty-based representation of the
citizen before the state changes through the right-owner citizen and the
responsibilities of the state in this sphere.314
The transition to the multi-party system necessitated the transformation of the
old single-party political foundations and understanding. The basic elements in this
313 Ulunay, “Hâkimlere”, Yeni Sabah, 11 October 1947. “Bu kararınızla memleketi hakiki demokrasiye
kavusturacak olan inkılâbın sakin ve vakarlı mücadelesinin serefli bayragına tarihe mal olan bir
adalet çengeli taktınız. Varolun! Sagolun! Ey adaleti tevzi için yüreginde haktan gayri endisesi
olmıyan âdil hâkimler! Allah Mahser gününde de adalet terazisini Sizin ellerinize versin. Sizler, bu
toprakta hakkın koruyucusu oldukça zulüm, adaletin simsek kırbacı önünde daima kovulmaga,
kovalanmaga mahkûmdur. Hak sahibi, huzurunuzdan boynu bükük, eli bos dönmedi. Mazlumların
yarasını saran sifa verici elleriniz onlara hürriyet cennetinin kapılarını açtı. Hürriyet inkılâbının bir
anda en mübeccel simaları oldunuz; isminiz, resmîniz tarihin ve tarihi yapan milletin sinesine
hakkedildi. Verdiginiz kararla yalnız Türk adaletini tecelli ettirmis olmadınız; insanlık dünyasına en
kıymetli bir hürriyet dersi verdiniz: Hak sahibi köylünün suç diye adlandırılan hareketinin bir “Rüsdü
Siyasî” oldugunu görmek, anlamak ve anlatmakla memleketin hürriyet günesi ile nurlanacak
ufuklarına insanlık Mecellesinin en büyük düsturunu yazdınız! Zülumden azad eylediginiz Türk,
kafesten kurtulan kus gibi hürriyet Cennetinin kapısında sizi bekliyor!”
314 Füsun Üstel, “Makbul Vatandas”ın Pesinde-II. Mesrutiyet’ten Bugüne Vatandaslık Egitimi
(
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2004), pp. 265-266. “Çok partili hayata geçis, Yurttaslık Bilgisi
kitaplarında “demokratik” düzenin aktörü yurttasın yeniden tanımlanmasını gerektirmistir. Bu
yeniden tanımlama içinde paternalist, adalet dagıtan, koruyan ama bir o kadar da denetleyen
devletten, hukuk devleti kavramına geçis önemli bir yer tutmaktadır. Bu geçisin ifadesi olan
“Yurttaslara ait hakları saglaması da devletin ödevidir” vurgusu, yurttasın devlet karsısındaki görev
eksenli temsilinin giderek haklar tasıyıcısı yurttasa ve devletin bu alandaki sorumluluguna dogru
kaydıgını gösterir.”
186
new understanding were to abolish the old single-party domination in the state and
the creation of the political rights sphere in the guarantee of the rule of law. It would
not have been possible for the DP to become a major political force able to take the
power, if making politics were not defined and guaranteed as a widespread and
common right. This right could be realized and gained with the disintegration of the
single-party political foundations.
In order to achieve “true democracy”, the establishment of the concept of the
rule of law was necessary. In addition, the unique dominance of powers other than
the law had to be abolished. Ian Morley defines this process as follows:
In order for a democracy to exist, criteria must be met. These include, by
way of example, freedom of speech, human rights, the right to elect a
government through free and just elections, the freedom of assembly,
freedom from discrimination and, finally, the rule of law. Given these
elements, it may be said that democracy is a means not only to promote
social good and freedoms but also is a method to limit tyranny. That is,
democracy is a means to limit the abuse of power as well as provide for
fair government.315
As a part of the democratic process, the rule of law had to be established and
this principle also was accepted as the leading element in democracy because it
protected the continuation of the whole process. As in the words of Pietro Costa, “the
rule of law, in other words, appears as a means to achieve a specific aim: it is
expected to direct us about how to intervene (through ‘law’) on ‘power’ so as to
strengthen individuals’ positions.”316
This principle, which can be defined as the basic tool to protect the political
rights of the individuals, was used by the DP during its oppositional years and
especially had an important place in the development of the political consciousness
of the peasants. During the Second World War period, the military police was the
315 Ian Morley, "Democracy," in Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right; Volume 1: The Left,
ed. Rodney P. Carlisle (Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2005), p. 123.
316 Pietro Costa, "The Rule of Law: A Historical Introduction," in The Rule of Law-History, Theory
and Criticism, ed. Pietro Costa and Danilo Zolo (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007), p. 74.
187
symbol of the oppressive government in the peasants’ minds. The widespread
complaints about the gendarmerie interventions to the voting process during the 1946
elections created a general understanding that the things had not changed after the
transition to the multi-party system. However, with the political opposition
movement which was popularized by the DP, a different understanding, such as the
state cannot intervene to any people’s use of their political rights, began to be
established. The visible side of this change would be the lawsuits which were
brought by groups of people about state oppression, bringing these lawsuits to the
attention of the general public by the DP.
The period in which the DP was in opposition and the Arslanköy Incident
happened can also be called “the period of the lawsuits.” With the rising of the DP
opposition these cases became the main area of interest in the public. These cases
brought out discussions about and the questioning of the single-party establishments
and understandings, which had not been open to questioning and even discussion
before. Together with the Arslanköy Case, most of the lawsuits, which were followed
by the public with great interest, passed through similar phases during this period.
For example, as one of the best known incidents during the period, it is possible to
observe the same process in the Senirkent case. The Senirkent incident was reported
in Vatan as follows:
The lawsuit, which has passed into Judiciary history as the “Senirkent
case”, has been concluded by the Antalya criminal court. This important
case, which had 13 victims and 11 suspects, ended with the conviction
of all of the accused ones by various degrees. It was asserted in the case
that the suspects had brought the victim villagers to the police station on
the pretext of drunkenness, beat them mercilessly, restricted their
freedom and due to that the suspects abused their office.317
317 “Senirkent davası sona erdi”, Vatan, 24 May 1947. “Senirkent davası” diye Adliye tarihine geçen
dava, Antalya asliye ceza mahkemesince sona erdirilmistir. Ve 13 magduru, 11 de maznunu bulunan
bu mühim dava, bütün muhakeme edilenlerin derece derece mahkûmiyetlerile neticelenmistir. Açılan
davada; magdur köylülerin sarhosluk bahanesile getirildikleri, kıyasıya dövüldükleri, hürriyetlerin
188
The drunken villagers were also members of the DP and this gave the case
political content. As was asserted by the attorneys of the case, the victims were
treated inhumanely by the gendarmerie.318 The main claims in this case were the
irresponsible and arbitrary behaviors of the state officials. These legal processes
brought not only the interrogation of the responsible ones but also that of the whole
state system. For this reason the discussions during the trials were more important
then the results of the cases. As a result, actually it was not the people who were on
trial, but the “mentality of the government”. As can be seen in the discourse of the
attorneys of this case, similar to the Arslanköy case, the main goal was to maintain
the control of the arbitrary state officials by law. This arbitrary mentality of the
government was described by one of the attorneys of the Senirkent case, Sefik Seren,
as follows:
One day when simply sitting in the kul oglu coffeehouse, the suspects
Mehmet Deveci and Fehmi Kırbaç came and wanted to take him to the
station. Although the victim asked for the reason, he could not get a
convincing reply and asked if they would take him arbitrarily. I feel
ashamed when repeating this great and thought provoking reply of those
two privates of the law, who should not drop out of the law. Yes,
arbitrarily.. The victim was brought arbitrarily to the station by dragging
him and he was at first brought into the presence of the arbitrarily
bringing privates’ arbitrarily ordering stager sergeant Sadık Ertan and
prepared for the beating with some patting and after that he was left to
tahdit edildigi ve bu suretle suçlar isliyen maznunların vazifelerini suiistimal ettikleri ileri
sürülüyordu.”
318 The lawsuit will be opened after the publication of the letter of the victim villagers in Tasvir. In
this letter the villagers are exposing the full names of the gendarmerie privates and giving a detailed
description of their inhumane treatment. For example: “Another example of torture and insult, which
disgust ourselves from our humanity, is that they brought us to drink water from the basin like animals
with making the gendarmerie privates ride on our back like animals by putting a bridle on our mouths
or without bridle. … Another incogitable punishment of them is to force to wear our hats after
urinating and defecating into them and even to force us to drink what is inside the hats.” Sefik Seren,
Senirkent Faciası (
stanbul: Çeltüt Matbaası, 1947), p. 6. “Agızlarımıza gem vurularak veya gemsiz
olarak hayvanlar gibi üstümüze bindirilen jandarma erlerile çesme yalaklarından hayvanlar gibi su
imiye götürülmemiz bizi insanlıgımızdan bıktıracak hakaret ve iskencelerin diger bir örnegidir. …
Sapkalarımızı basımızdan çıkarıp içini ufak ve büyük pisliklerle doldurduktan sonra sapkayı basa
giymiye mecbur etmek ve hattâ sapka içindekilerini içirmek te akla gelmiyen cezalardan birisidir.”
189
the blood-dripping whip of the arbitrary station’s arbitrary director Halil
Altınay.319
The superiority of law constantly came into question in these cases as being
the only means of protection for the individual against the cruelty of the state
officials. In this manner, it was not “ordinary” people who were being sued in these
cases, but mostly the people who represented the state and had been known as
hitherto untouchable ones in the eyes of the peasants.
Another case example ends with a similar outcome, although it was in
between the people in high posts of the state. The Hayrabolu Case in which the
Hayrabolu gendarmerie commander senior captain Ali Ertan was sued for insulting
Celal Bayar and Fevzi Çakmak during the 1946 elections period,320 caused a similar
effect. This case was closed with the conviction of the gendarmerie captain to two
months ten days imprisonment and 900 liras to pay for mental anguish.321 This
conviction of the gendarmerie captain symbolized in the peasants’ mind that every
officials of the state could be sued and punished. Mehmet Nuri Alpay explains the
meaning of the gendarmerie on the peasants’ eye during this period and the place of
the Arslanköy Case in the formation of this understanding, as follows:
Do not underestimate the gendarmerie; whatever the place of yesterday’s
police was in the cities and towns, the gendarmerie corporal or the
captain was more than that in the villages. Even today we come across
with some of the traces of that mentality. His official uniform is
accounted as a sign of immunity for himself, but for the people it is a
sign of a privilege of practicing every kind of act such as cursing,
beating and imprisonment. … Sometimes, it is said that the villagers
have come against the police, attacked the police station in a village or
319 Ibid., p. 31. “Birgün kul oglu kahvesinde kendi halinde otururken sanıklardan Mehmet Deveci ile
Fehmi Kırbaç gelerek kendisini karakola götürmek istemisler magdur sebebini sormus ise de ikna
edici bir cevap alamadıgından keyfi mi götüreceksiniz diye sormustur. Kanundan ayrılmaması icap
eden iki kanun erinin verdigi su muazzam ve düsündürücü cevabı tekrarlarken bir hicab duyuyorum.
Evet keyfi.. Magdur itiraf veçhile keyfi olarak karakola sürüye sürüye götürülmüs ve orada evvalâ
keyfi götürücü erlerin keyfi emirci gedikli çavusu Sadık Ertanın huzuruna çıkarılarak ilk oksama
tokatlarile dayak yemeye hazırlanmıs ve sonra da keyfî karakolun keyfî idarecisi Halil Altınayın
kırbacından kan damlayan ellerine terk edilmistir.”
320 “Hayrebolu Davası”, Vatan, 27 May 1947.
321 “Hayrebolu Davası karara baglandı”, Vatan, 3 June 1947.
190
town. Whereas, those events are mostly a fishy business. The people
show great respect to the police as they do to honest and mature state
officers. But if sometimes the police officers move with an inevitable
desire gained from the love of tyranny and bring down the self-esteem of
the people with a provocative manner, as happened in Arslanköy, then
when the knifes lean upon their neck they start to give reaction to them
and after that they raise hell by using the law and regulations and by
giving different meanings to the events.322
Alpay briefly says that the peasants obeyed the rule of the state as far as
possible, but also their obedience was not for good. Of course, the practices of the
state and its officers had an effect on this rebellious kind of behavior of the peasants.
Especially as a result of the political and economic practices in the Second World
War period the hatred of the peasants for to the state increased and they began to
express this hatred in different ways. During this period this hatred spilled out with
the incidents of Arslanköy and such. The way that this hatred was shown, became a
political attitude and rights demanding issue with the effect of the DP opposition and
its use of the law as a political struggle tool. The insistence on the superiority of law
by the DP and the peasants gained political content during this period and soon
changed the political perception of the peasants.
The rule of law and the superiority of law had important places in the political
propaganda activities of the DP. For example, during a DP meeting in Seyhan, the
speaker stressed the importance of the struggle against the lawless practices of the
government as follows:
322 Mehmet Nuri Alpay, Köy Davamız ve Köyün çyüzü (Ankara: Örnek Matbaası, 1952), pp. 9-10.
“Jandarma deyip geçmeyiniz; sehir ve kasabada dünün polisi ne ise köyde de çok daha fazlasiyle
jandarma onbasısı veya subayı öyle idi. Bugün bile hâlâ o zihniyetin döküntülerine rastlıyoruz. Onun
resmî üniforması kendisi için dokunulmaz, fakat halk üzerinde küfür, dayak ve hapis gibi her türlü
muameleyi yapmak için imtiyaz alâmeti sayılır. … Bir köyde, bir kasabada bazen köylü zabıtaya karsı
gelmis, karakola hücum etmis denilir. Halbuki o isin içinde çok defa bir kurt yenigi vardı. Halk dürüst
ve olgun devlet memuruna oldugu gibi zabıtaya da son derece saygı gösterir. Fakat bazen tehakküm
sevdasının verdigi kaçınılmaz bir arzu ile zabıta memuru harekete geçer ve tahrik edici bir tavırla
halkın izzeti nefsini kırarsa tıpkı Arslanköyde oldugu gibi ve bıçak gırtlaga dayanmak kabilinden
onlarda da bir tepki baslar ve artık kanun ve mevzuat alet edilerek ve hâdiseye de baska mâhiyet
verilerek kıyametler koparılır.”
191
We all know their tactics and how the vice Prime minister, who yells
Law, Law, understands and organizes the law. From now on, it will not
be possible to make the people accept the unjust and lawless practices
that were held against the masses. … They pretend not to understand our
goal. We will not condone the injustices and we will not wait any longer
to raise our voices.323
As can be seen, the law and rights were the main discourse of the DP during
this period. In this framework, it is proper to assert that these discourses had a direct
impact on the formation of the rights demanding political attitude of the peasants. As
in the words of Behice Boran, quoted above, mostly as a result of this political and
juridical struggle the government in power was released from being an institution
that was obeyed and transformed into a position that the peasants began to question,
criticize and sometimes, as it happened in Arslanköy, resist against.
The Arslanköy incident appears in most of the DP propaganda even after the
party came to power. How the Arslanköy incident appears in the discourse of the DP
before and after it came to power is noteworthy. The difference between two periods
reveals the change in the political perception of the DP. With the help of a few
examples from the speeches of some prominent DP members the extent of this
change will be seen clearly. Just as the trials began, Celal Bayar said the following
on the Arslanköy incident during a meeting in
stanbul:
Most of you know the incident of Arslanlar village. In this village the
Gendarmerie Commander asked villager, whom he met outside of the
village while going to the town to bring the election documents that
certified the winning of the democrats, the party which had the elections.
The villager said that the Democrats had won; hereon the commander
said that this election had not happened we would do it again and sent
the villager back. The residents of the village who had gathered
accordingly say that we would not make a new election as it should be.
As a result, the District Manager gives the order. The Gendarmerie
323 Seyhan l merkezinde, 21.07.1949 günü Demokratların Ünal Sineması’nda yaptıkları toplantı, bu
toplantıda konusanlar ve konusulanlar. 21/7/1949, BCA, 30.01/44.257.10. “Kanun, Kanun diye
bagıran Basbakan yardımcısının, kanunu ne sekilde anladıgını ve tertipledigini ve taktiklerini hepimiz
biliyoruz. Artık kütlelere karsı haksız ve yolsuz muameleleri kabul ettirmek bundan sonra hiçbir
sekilde mümkün olamıyacaktır. … Maksadımızı anlamamazlıktan gelmektedirler. Haksızlıklara daha
fazla göz yumulmıyacak ve sesimizi çıkarmak için daha fazla beklemiyecegiz.”
192
Commander gave the fire order. The villagers were dispersed. The
incidents were transferred to the court. Many of our attorney friends
followed this issue. A second example: in the villages of Afyon, I had
made a poor citizen remove their socks, who had been beaten. I saw lots
of bruises and blains under his foot. As a result, the Government is not
getting these things done. We have to accept that the existence of a lot of
senseless people in the government administration have caused these
incidents.324
Here, Bayar especially tried to exclude the government from these incidents.
In order make a total critique of the state authority, he stressed that these incidents
were the work of some “senseless” people, who behaved in the name of the
government on their own initiative. It is possible to see that this discourse
differentiated during the years that the DP was in power, especially during the
election times and when the DP began to be criticized harshly. The DP used the
Arslanköy incident to defend itself against the criticisms of the RPP. This time the
DP was accused of making oppression by using the state power. Against the
accusations that the DP had created a “partisan” administration, Adnan Menderes
said the following during a speech in Mersin:
The partisan administration is the government of the people who fired
bullets on Turkish citizens and women in Arslanköy, who brought the
democrat citizens to police station and got the gendarmerie to sit on their
backs and bridled on our mouths while making them blow down the
ground, who had made all the people of a village in Çubuk run the
gauntlet by the gendarmerie and district governor one night and who
sent the district governor that practiced this to America for three years as
a reward. The residuals of a tyranny, that is responsible for all of these,
324 Demokrat Parti'nin stanbul'da tertip ettigi toplantılarla ilgili çisleri Bakanlıgı'na verilen bilgiler,
6/4/1948, BCA, 30.01/66.408.6. “Arslanlar köyü hadisesini çoklarınız bilirsiniz. Bu köyde
demokratların kazandıgına dair seçim evrakını nahiyeye götüren köylüyü köy dısında karsılayan
Jandarma Komutanı köylüden hangi partinin kazandıgını soruyor. Köylüde Demokratların diye
söylemesi üzerine bu seçim olmadı. Yeniden yapacagız diyerek köylüyü geri çeviriyorlar. Toplanan
köylünün haklı olarak tekrar seçim yapamayız demeleri üzerine de Nahiye Müdürü emir veriyor.
Jandarma Komutanı ates açtırıyor. Köylü dagılıyor. Hadise mahkemeye intikal etmistir. Bir çok vekil
arkadaslarımız, bu isi takip etmektedirler. kinci bir misâl; Kütahya ve Afyon köylerinde dövülen
zavallı bir vatandasın çorabını çıkarttırdım. Ayagında sis ve yara gördüm. Vakıa bunu Hükümet
yaptırmıyor. Hükümet idaresinde bir çok suursuz insanlar bulunması, bu hadiseler sebebiyet verdigini
kabul etmek lazımdır.”
193
dare to become plaintiffs now by slandering our administration by
saying partisan without shame.325
In a similar speech, which was made by the Minister of Internal Affairs of the
period, Namık Gedik, he replies to the accusations of the RPP opposition on the
political and administrative oppression that is said to have been done by the DP with
the examples of Arslanköy and Senirkent incidents:
In the period, when the political oppression was practiced harshly,
Senirkent was not left alone, Arslanköy and such incidents followed
each other, but in spite of all kind of oppression they could not find a
chance to change the results as they wished. Although they were
continually repeating the change of a city’s status by law as being an
example of political oppression during our period, is it possible to erase
the most disastrous examples of political oppression and cruelty of their
times from the mind and memories of this nation? Who were responsible
for the Senirkent disaster? Were they the ones who mediated the practice
of cruelty? Or were they the ones who encouraged and represented this
mentality? How could those who were in charge during that period and
were the mediators of the government, dare to mention political and
administrative oppression in the squares, even if he is in a responsible
position in the opposition party where he has been elected and even if he
is wearing the armor of parliamentarian immunity?326
During the DP government, the Arslanköy incident was used as a tool to
establish the political legitimacy of the DP. In this way, the DP tried to present its
political attitude during the Arslanköy incidents as a proof of its political perspective.
They tried to assert that they could not apply such political and administrative
325 Ayın Tarihi, no: 239, 1-31 October 1953, p. 82. “Partizan idare, Arslanköy'de Türk vatandaslarına
ve kadınlarına kursun sıkan, Senirkent'te de demokrat vatandasları karakola getirerek dörtayak yere
yatırıp gem vuran ve sırtına jandarmayı bindiren, Çubuk'ta ise bir aksam bütün bir köyün halkım
kaymakama ve jandarmaya sıra dayagından geçirten ve bunu yapan kaymakamı da mükâfat olmak
üzere üç sene için Amerika'ya gönderen insanların idaresidir. Bütün bunların mesulü olan müstebit
artıkları, simdi de sıkılmadan karsımıza çıkın idaremize partizanlık iftirasında bulunarak davacı
olmaga yeltenmektedirler.”
326 Ayın Tarihi, no: 261, 1-31 August 1955, p. 97. “Siyasî baskının siddetle tatbik edilmis oldugu
bu devirde Senirkent yalnız bırakılmamıs, Arslanköy ve benzeri hâdiseler birbirini tevali etmis ve
fakat bütün baskılara ragmen neticenin arzu ettikleri sekilde degistirilmesine imkân bulunamamıstı.
ktidarımız zamanında, bir vilâyetin kanunla degistirilen hüviyeti siyasî bir baskı numunesi olarak her
yerde tekrarlana dururken siyasî baskı ve zulmün zamanlarına ait en fecî misallerini, bu milletin
hafızasından ve hâtırasından silmek mümkün müdür? Senirkent faciasının mes'ulleri kimdi? Zulmü
tatbike vasıta olanlar mı? Yoksa bu zihniyeti temsil ve tesvik edenler mi? O devirde idarede vazifeli
olup, iktidarın vasıtalıgını yapanlardan birisi bugün intisap etmis bulundugu muhalefet partisinin
mes'ul kademesinde ve mebuslugun tesrii masuniyet zırhına bürünmüs olsa dahi meydanlarda siyasî
ve idarî baskıdan bahsetmeye nasıl cesaret edebiliyor?”
194
oppression methods due to their political attitude during the incidents. At the same
time, they accused the RPP opposition of hypocrisy. Briefly it can be asserted that
the DP discourse on the Arslanköy incident during its government was used as a
political tool against the opposition.
The Arslanköy Case is remembered frequently even today. Although the
content of remembrance of the case mostly differs from its actual meaning, this case
remains an important subject to mention, especially for the people who are on the
right wing of the politics.327
The Arslanköy incident and case offer some important hints about the
formation of the political consciousness of the peasants during the period that the DP
was in opposition. In the Arslanköy incident, it is possible to assert that the peasants
tried to change their lives by trying to change the local power that they accused of
being responsible for their local problems. By using the suitable political atmosphere
created with the DP opposition, they presented a political behavior of electing
someone they desired to the place of another that they did not want. Although this
political behavior can be accepted as an ordinary kind of politics today, it was
perceived as a tool for change and active political struggle in 1947 for the villagers of
Arslanköy. The peasants tried to gain respect for their political preferences and will
by refusing to deliver the ballot box to the gendarmerie and as a result they achieved
that. In this manner the peasants were directly involved in politics as active political
agents.
327 Especially the conservative cycles in Turkey still apply to the Arslanköy and Senirkent incidents as
a tool to remember the oppression during the single-party period. See Mustafa Armagan, "Seçim
Sonuçlarını Açıklıyorum," Zaman Pazar 22 July 2007, p. 6; Dr. Tahsin Tola, Available August 2009:
http://www.risale-inur.org/10.htm, 22 January 2009. Another kind of remebrance of the events is to
stress the role of the women in the Arslanköy incidents. In an article in Sabah the Arslanköy incident
is defined as “the first village women movement”. Meliha Okur, “Mezar Kazıcılarının 30 Milyarlık
Otomobilleri!” Available August 2009:
http://arsiv.sabah.com.tr/2007/07/03/haber,B7832F2270CA4E44971808CBB0137100.html 22
January 2009.
195
On the juridical side of this incident, the mentality of the rule of law was the
main discussion point and developed the rights-demanding approach of the peasants.
The rule of law, as a sphere of political struggle, had an important place during this
period by eliminating the unquestionable power of the single-party government. As a
result of the trial process it was no longer the superiority of the governments, but the
rule of the law which was stressed. The political power, which had been expected to
be obeyed only by the people in the previous times, came under question during this
period. The Arslanköy incident and trial had an important role in the creation of this
questioning process. The perception that the governments could be changed by
elections and this was a “right” guaranteed by the “law” became common among the
public with the pursuance of the Arslanköy case by the public opinion. The case,
referred to even today as an example of the oppressive practices of the single-party
regime, has an important place in Turkish history for understanding the active
participation of the peasants in politics and development of their political
consciousness.
Another consequence of the Arslanköy Case was to show the transformative
force of the peasants in politics. The peasants, who constituted the majority of the
population, proved that if they moved with the directions of a certain political
consciousness they had the power to directly affect politics. This transformative
power was realized by not only by the peasants themselves, but also by the central
forces of the politics, who realized that if they wanted to be effective in politics they
had to gain the support of the peasants.
This section analyzed the relation of peasants to politics through a discussion
of the Arslanköy Case. In the next section how this relation of the peasants to politics
changed when the DP was in power will be examined.
196
The Peasants and Politics during the DP Government
The process of the DP’s coming to power was achieved mostly with the
support of the peasants. During in opposition years, the DP had been subjected two
basic problems: To gain the majority of the votes in order to obtain power and to
achieve that to obtain the political participation of the majority of the masses on a
desired level. The participation of the peasants in politics could only be achieved by
persuading them that they could change their living conditions by using political
tools. As was shown in the previous section, in this period, the peasants accepted
politics as a way of changing their living conditions and became part of politics by
using it. One of the main factors that helped the DP come to power was the peasants’
belief in the DP as a mediator of politics that would change their living conditions. In
this section, focus will be given on how the relation of peasants to politics continued
during the DP government. Together with analyzing the ways that the peasants
established their relations with politics during this period, the meaning of the
differentiation in defining the peasants’ role in politics by the political power will be
examined.
During the first years of the transition to the multi-party system, there was a
dynamic political atmosphere shaped by the existence of the DP opposition. The
DP’s accession to power, at least on the peasants’ front, slowed this dynamic
political sphere. It can be observed that the peasants did not prefer direct
confrontation with the administrations of the political power, which had been
encountered during the years the DP was in opposition. Instead of this “peasant
activism”, the effect of the DP’s accession to power was seen in the change of the
197
political discourse on the role of the peasantry in politics. The previous periods’
discourse on the peasants was based mostly on the ideologically created “peasants
are the masters of the nation” motto, which defined the peasants as an imagined
entity. After the DP’s accession to power, this discourse changed into a definition of
peasantry in which the peasants “actually” existed and “actually” owned the political
power. For example, during the hearings on the Village Law in the National
Assembly, Kayseri deputy Mehmet Özdemir said the following:
Some of our friends have stated some wrong expressions while trying to
define the peasants in law, which can created an ambiguous situation.
Our peasants, Thank God, are neither blind, nor deaf. Besides it is wrong
to see and recognize the peasants as an unknown enigma anymore.
Because the Turkish peasants, who created the revolution of May 14,
gained the great honor of it, are inside of this Assembly in person. In this
respect, it is wrong to describe the peasants as another thing, show them
as an unknown enigma. As I said before, the peasants are in this
Assembly in person.328
This discourse was stated not only with the concern of an ideological
legitimacy in high politics, during this period, the peasants also started to
consubstantiate themselves with politics. During this period the peasants were
conscious that they held the power of political transformation in their hands. In some
of the popular sociological studies, which are appear in the early village literature
genre, it is possible to understand that the peasants saw themselves as the key to the
transformation. For example, Yalçın Daglar presented this perception of the peasants
with their own words, as follows:
A peasant in Göçbeyli said: -Sir, the government official is our servant.
If he does not charge his duty and make us crawl in town and city for
days, we do not love them too… One of the Democrat villagers in
Kocaömerli who was talking on the village headman elections that will
328 TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, 15.5.1953, B: 83, O: 1, p. 268. “Bâzı arkadaslar bu kürsüden köylüyü
kanunu tasvire çalısırlarken iltibasa mahal verece derecede yanlıs ifadelerde bulundular. Köylümüz
Hamdolsun ne kördür, ne sagırdır. Bununla beraber köylüyü artık meçhul muamma olarak görmek ve
tanımak hatalıdır. Çünkü, 14 Mayıs inkılâbını yaratan, onun büyük serefini ihraz eden Türk köylüsü
bizzat bu Meclisin içerisindedir. Bu itibarla köylüyü baska bir sekilde tasvir etmek meçhul muamma
olarak göstermek hatalıdır. Arzettigim gibi, köylü bizzat bu Meclisin içerisindedir.”
198
be held in the following day, says: What happened when we became
Democrat? We brought the Democrats to power; they are not keeping
their word, too… What is the use of it if I cannot cut any trees that I
need from the mountain? If they continue like that I will enter the Nation
Party and give my vote to it in the next elections…329
From then on, the relation of the peasants to politics can be defined as a
relation of transformation. The peasants knew that they could change the existing
situation and they had the power to achieve that. Although this attitude gained
strength after the DP’s accession to power, it can be seen before the DP power and
independent from its affection. A prominent Turkish journalist and writer, Nadir
Nadi, expressed this change in peasant behavior as follows:
The Esteemed Chairman, who walked every inch of the country before
the 14th May elections, heard the following words from an old citizen in
a village that he had stopped by: -We don’t know how will you work
and what will you do. But we will give our votes to your party. If we
don’t like you, we may change your place. It is a known fact that it is
easy to rip off the young sapling. The national reality that is being
revealed with these basic words is incandescently bright. A Turkish
peasant presented us a reality in a few words with all of its nakedness,
which our important writers, famous elders could not tell through hours
of effort.330
After the DP’s accession to power, the peasants that had supported the DP
showed some behaviors which resulted with political fights. The people that had
supported the DP taunted the remaining RPP supporters, which mostly led to
fighting. This kind of behavior can be defined as the “vengeance” of the DP
supporters from the old regime. These incidents mostly resulted in the decomposition
329 Daglar, Köylerimizden, p. 101. “Göçbeyli’de bir köylü: - Efendi, memur bizim hizmetçimizdir. O
vazifesini yapmaz, bizleri bucakta, ilçede günlerce süründürürse, biz de onları sevmeyiz… dedi.
Kocaömerli’de ertesi günkü muhtar seçimlerini görüsmekte olan Demokrat köylülerden biri:
Demokrat olduk da ne olduk? Demokratları iktidara getirdik, onlar da sözlerini yerine
getirmiyorlar… Ben, dagdan, ihtiyacım olan agacı kesmedikten sonra, bunların ne faydası olacak?
Böyle giderlerse gelecek seçimde Millet Partisine girecegim ve ona reyimi verecegim… diyordu.”
330 Ayın Tarihi, no: 199, 1-30 June 1950, p. 90. “14 Mayıs seçimlerinden önce karıs karıs yurdu
dolanan Sayın Baskan, ugradıgı bir köyde ihtiyar bir vatandastan su sözleri duymustur: —Sizin nasıl
çalısacagınızı neler yapacagınızı bilmiyoruz. Fakat reyimizi partinize verecegiz. Begenmezsek dört yıl
sonra sizi degistiririz. Malûm ya, taze fidanı sökmek kolaydır. Bu basit sözlerin açıga vurdugu millî
realite göz kamastıracak derecede parlaktır. Degme yazarlarımızın, ünlü büyüklerimizin saatler
harcıyarak anlatamıyacakları bir gerçegi bir Türk köylüsü bir kaç cümle içinde bütün çıplaklıgı ile
önümüze serivermistir.”
199
of the villages’ social structure, which had, in fact, begun to loosen.331 On this
subject
brahim Yasa says that “the politics in the village will result in the unsettling
of the solidarity tradition in the villages, which have also begun to be weakened”.332
With these words he referred to the transforming or abolishing effects of politics on
the existing social structures. If we define politics as being the arena of contesting
thoughts and perceptions, it is natural to come across this kind of political struggle.
In order to create more “peaceful” political atmosphere, a different kind of
“democracy culture” must be developed. When closed political structures get
acquainted with politics the corruption of the existing system may be accepted as
natural. The political activation in the Turkish countryside, in which politics had not
been very apparent and important in the previous periods, taken together with the
economic transformation, changed the existing structure and mentality.
Within this framework the structural transformation during this period needs
to be considered together with the effects created by the politics. As a result, the
331 In the lawsuit petitions of the RPP supporter peasants, which contain the fighting and affronts of
this kind, the “heavy” language that the DP supporter peasants had used after the DP’s accession to
power can clearly be seen. One of these petitions is as follows: “The content of the crime: When
Ahmet Güresçi was sitting in the coffeehouse, he saw that Ömer Avcı enters from the coffeehouse
with wearing the six arrows badge on his collar and asks him to come nearby, and says: I slapped in
your face in the previous days and you have courted me, you are poor and upright kid. Do not wear
and walk with this six arrows badge on your collar, throw it out. And (by returning to the people
sitting in the coffeehouse) look at me my friends when you saw someone who supports the people’s
party beat him with a club. (…) his wife and mother, even kill him, we are the power now, come to us.
We will save you. We will turn your headman’s feet upside down too, we will (…) his mother. The
communist whoremonger Rascal
smet
nönü, who is the chief general Secretary of the people’s party,
(…) his wife and mother too.’ To say such insulting words.” “Suçun mahiyeti: Ahmet Güresçi kahvede
otururken, yakasında altı oklu rozet bulunan Ömer Avcının kapudan kahveye girdigin görüp yanına
çagırarak: Ben sana geçenlerde tokat atmıstım sen de beni mahkemeye vermistin sen fakir ve namuslu
bir çocukmussun. Sen yakanı bu altı oklu rozeti takıp gezme onu çıkar. Ve (kahvede oturan halka
dönerek) bakın arkadaslar halk partili kimseyi gördünüz mü verin odunu. Karısının, anasını (…..)
hatta öldürün biz iktidardayız, bize gelin. Biz siz kurtarırız. Muhtarınızın da bacakları assaga gelecek
onun da anasını (…..) halk partisinin genel Baskanı sefi olan Namussuz smet nönü kominist
kârhaneci onun da karısını anasını (….) gibi hakaretamiz sözler sarfetmek.”Balıkesir Mebuslarının
Teftis Raporlarının Genel Sekreterlige Sunuldugu, 19.9.1950, BCA 490.01/624.52.1. This kind of
words, of which the peasants would hesitate to say during the single-party period, although include
some insulting sayings, show that the peasants are related with the politics so directly than before and
they are not trying to hide their political perceptions anymore.
332
brahim Yasa, Sindel Köyü'nün Toplumsal ve Ekonomik Yapısı (Ankara: TODA
E Yayınları,
1960), p. 90. “köyde siyaset köy toplulugunun zaten zayıflamakta olan dayanısma gelenegini daha da
sarsmakla sonuçlanıyor”
200
politics not only changed the political perception of the peasants, but also effected
the material conditions in which the peasants lived and reshaped their living space.
The spatial transformation that the politics created in the village will be shown in the
section in which the development of the village coffeehouses is going to be analyzed
below. But it may be asserted that the entrance of politics to the villages not only
changed the general characteristics of the high politics but also affected the general
structure of the villages. This transformative effect of politics must be reconsidered
when trying to understand the 1945-1960 period in general.
In the first years of the DP government, the peasants became richer due to the
developments in economy, especially the increases in agricultural production and
prices. Different from the previous periods, the peasants were able to sell their
products for higher prices as a result of a boom in world agricultural prices. These
developments would also increase the peasants’ support and confidence in the DP
government. It is possible to see a direct reflection of these developments in the
words of the peasants of the period as follows:
“How could not I be a member of the DP? It brought water to our
village, built a fountain. It took away the gendarmerie and tax collector
from over our heads; they left us not without credit. They also built
bridges for our roads”333
“Previously we were bartering for coffee with eggs, now we can drink
our tea in the morning with biscuits.”334
“They are saying that life is expensive. In their time, our money was not
enough to buy shoes that were 150 piasters, we were wearing clothes
made from sugar sacks. But now we are buying fabric clothes and smoke
Gelincik cigarettes. We wear European made boots on our feet, and tour
with motor cars.”335
333 Cenap Ozankan, “Köylüler Arasında Bir Yolculuk”, Cumhuriyet, 27 April 1954. “Nasıl DP’li
olmayayım? Köyümüze su getirdi çesme yaptı. Basımıza jandarmayı, tahsildarı aldı, krediyi de eksik
etmiyorlar. Yollarımıza da köprü yaptılar.”
334 Mazhar Kunt, “Trakya Köylüsü Borçsuz ve Hayatından Memnun”, Cumhuriyet, 27 April 1954.
“Evvelce yumurtaya karsılık kahve içerdik, simdi sabahleyin çayımızı bisküvi ile içiyoruz.”
335 Mazhar Kunt, “Tekirdag Demokratları CHP’ye Hücum Ediyor”, Cumhuriyet, 20 April 1954.
“Hayatın pahalı oldugunu söylüyorlar. Onlar zamanında 150 kurusluk pabucu almaya paramız
yetmiyordu, seker çuvalından elbise giyiyorduk. Simdi ise kumastan elbise alıyoruz ve Gelincik
sigarası içiyoruz: Ayaklarımızda Avrupa malı çizmeler var, motörlerle geziyoruz.”
201
Naturally it was not the same in every region of the country, especially in the
regions where the increase in agricultural prices did not directly affect the peasants’
income due to the seizure of the surplus by the agas and sheiks, who held the
economic and politics hegemony of the region in their hands. In these regions the
extent of the politics had a direct relation to the local hegemonic powers’ attitudes. In
these regions, the peasants could not benefit from the system for their economic
development because their relations to the political system occurred on different
level. For example, the following statements of the peasants, which were made
during the elections in 1954, show the difference plainly:
“I have to follow the way of the aga, because the aga gives me the
land and animals. But I want to say that the DP promised to reduce the
price of cigarettes and cloth, but it has not. The villager will not become
rich only by lifting the animal tax. If money entered my pocket, I would
not be reluctant to pay the tax. There is no difference in our livings when
compared to the RPP period.”336
“Everything has become worse than before. Only the gendarmerie of
the DP is absent. If it existed, everything would be worse than the old
People's Party... The Democrat Party would be nothing for us, if the sheik
would stand alone and not support the DP. It does not matter if the
Democrat Party brings here its Adnan Menderes. But there is no
solution; there stands the sheik again on the DP side... The DP members
of Agrı rely on the protection of their sheik; they are neither working
nor doing anything else. To win in the elections is a sure thing for
them. The DP members are not moving even their fingers for now.”337
In the section in which the Arslanköy Case was discussed how the peasants
used the concepts of the rule of law and the superiority of law as a part of a political
transformation and defined these concepts in the framework of a “rights demanding”
336 Cenap Ozankan, “Diyarbakır Halkı Arasında Bir Anket,” Cumhuriyet, 2 April 1954. “Ben aganın
gittigi yoldan yürümeye mecburum. Çünkü araziyi de, hayvanı da bana aga veriyor. Ama sunu da
söyleyeyim ki, DP sigarayı, bezi ucuzlatacagını vaat ettigi halde yapmadı. Hayvan vergisini
kaldırmakla köylü zengin olmaz. Cebime para girerse ben vergiyi ödemekten çekinmem.
Yasayısımızda CHP zamanından fark yoktur.”
337 Yasar Kemal, “Doguda Seçmenler Ne Düsünüyor?” Cumhuriyet, 18 April 1954. “Her sey
eskisinden kötü oldu. DP’nin bir candarması eksik. O da olsa eski Halk Partisinden bin beter olur...
Demirgırat Parti dedigin bizim karsımızda hiçtiir. Seyh söyle bir kenara dursun, Demirkırat Parti
isterse Adnan Menderes’ini getirsin vız gelir. Ne çare karsımızda gene seyh var... Agrı DP’lileri
sırtlarını seyhlerine dayamıslar ne çalısıyorlar ne bir sey. Seçimde kazanmak onlar için çantada
keklik. DP’liler burada parmaklarını bile oynatmıyorlar simdilik.”
202
perception was examined. The relation of the peasants to politics developed in this
rights demanding framework during the DP’s opposition years. Politics, for the
peasants, was defined as getting what they had the right to do, above all else. This
perception has a content that can be widened from the right to speak to getting their
share from the economic development. The peasants demanded the use of their
political rights freely during the period until 1950. After 1950, they did not give up
demanding this, only the content of their demands changed. During the DP period, the
peasants developed a kind of behavior demanding many things that they thought they
had the right to demand from the government in power. The DP gave an important
place to the peasants in its discourse every time, as the primal force of their political
success. In response to that, the peasants pressured the DP government constantly to
get the DP meet their needs. The peasants were aware of their transforming power and
due to that they were able to threaten the government with this power. The peasants
clearly stated that they could use this power to overthrow the government as they had
while giving their support, as seen in the examples above. During the period in which
the economic conditions of the peasants improved, the relation of the peasants with
the DP government continued at a normal level and there was mutual satisfaction
between them.
The results of the 1954 elections, in which the DP received greater support
than it had in the 1950 elections, also manifests this mutual satisfaction. However,
after the 1954 elections, due to the general breakdown in economic conditions and the
decrease in world agricultural prices, the imported input in agriculture decreased and
as a result the general income of the peasants decreased to lower than the first period
of the DP power. These effects of the economic crisis would lead the DP government
to take some protection measures and the government would back down from some of
203
the practices which had been in favor of the broad masses. The reapplication of the
National Protection Law, which had been widely used during the Second World War
period, affected the consumption patterns of the peasants, which had changed in the
first half of the DP power due to the enrichment of the peasants. As a result, the
peasants raised their objections to these changing conditions and demanded the
privileges that they thought they had acquired in return to their “support of the
government.” The peasants expressed these demands through the use of a kind of
political language, a typical example of which can be seen in a petition written to the
Premiership of Goca village of Zonguldak:
The Democrat Party took its first steps in the 1946 elections in the
famous Goca village, which is connected to Center of Zonguldak. Our
villages stood up against to the oppressions for the development of our
Democrat Party. Our requests have not been taken in consideration
although these people have shown their respect and love of our Party.338
As can be seen in this petition, the peasants behaved according to the principle
of “reciprocity” in their relation to the government in power. They sought the material
equivalent of their political support. The peasants were aware that the people in
government had obtained this power as a result of a political struggle in which the
peasants had played a key role. They knew that the party in power was the creation of
this struggle; because of this they did not hesitate to raise their own demands and push
the government to give them what they felt they deserved. In this period, the peasants
were promoted to a “reciprocal” position and began to “demand” everything they
thought they deserved as being their rights from the government. In this manner, the
peasants saw themselves not as outsiders to politics, but as direct agents of it. The
338 Zonguldak'ın Goca köyünün ihtiyaçları. 24/8/1956, BCA, 30.01/117.740.3. “Demokrat Parti 1946
seçimlerine ilk adımlarını Zonguldak’ın Merkez’e baglı meshur Goca köyünde atmıstır. Köylerimiz
baskıyı dinlemiyerek Demokrat Partimizin kalkınması için gögüs germislerdir. Bunların Partimize
gösterdikleri saygı ve sevgilerine ragmen arzularımıza hiç alaka gösterilmemistir.”
204
general “questioning” and “rights demanding” peasantry attitude can also be observed
here, which was a dominant understanding all through the 1945-1960 period.
The peasants, while defining themselves as political elements that had
“resisted against the oppression” and brought the DP to the power, began to see
themselves as above all of the groups in Turkey. During the single-party period, the
peasants had thought that the “city dwellers” were favored by the government. During
its opposition years the peasants had seen that the DP was mostly on their side.
Because of that, they thought that this difference between the villagers and city
dwellers would be lost as a manifestation of the difference between the DP and the
RPP governments. However, when the economic difficulties began to affect the
political preferences of the DP, this perspective would change. Especially in the
distribution of sugar the government determined different ratios for the villages and
cities. So, the peasants began to question the meaning of this decision. Two petitions
can be presented as examples of this questioning as follows:
Our dear Prime Minister Adnan Menderes. During the 1954 elections
many posters hung in the coffeehouses, village rooms and public streets
which said that the Democrat Party was the party of the villager, there
was no difference between the villagers and the townsmen, the
Democrat Party was at the service of the villager, but now 500 grams of
sugar per head for a week is given to the townspeople, 200 grams of
sugar per house for a month is given to us, the villagers. In addition, in
the coffeehouses, the keeper of the shop, serves black coffee when he is
unable to find any sugar from the black market. 200 grams of sugar per
house for a month cannot meet the foodstuff; in addition to this it is clear
that it will not be sufficient to brew coffee. We, the villagers, request
that you [not] deprive us of this kind of foodstuff. We send our endless
greetings and shake your hands.339
Although this situation has been told to the related offices a number of
times, they have pretended not to hear. Some of them say that this is the
condition of those that gave their votes to the DP. Did you ask us while
339 Dügrek köyünden Adil Yıldırım ve arkadaslarının köylüye dagıtılan sekerin yetersiz olduguna dair
sikayetleri. 16/2/1955, BCA, 30.01/112.707.13. “Sayın basbakanımız adnan menderes. 1954
seçimlerinde demokrat parti köylü partisidir köylü ile sehirli arasında fark yoktur demokrat parti
köylünün hizmetindedir diye kahvelere köy odalarına umumi caddelere afisler yapıstırılmısdı. Fakat
simdi ise sehir halkına nüfus basına haftada 500 gram seker verilmekte biz köylülere ise ayda hane
basına 200 gram seker verilmektedir.”
205
giving your votes and even some taunting words such as do the Villagers
eat sugar. These rumors are told by the people. Are the villagers and
townsmen not equal in their Citizenship rights? Poor villagers are giving
2.5-3 liras of travel fee from their 10-12 hours far villages to get 1 kilo
of sugar. The townsmen are selling sugar ration cards for 70 piaster, due
to having plenty of sugar. As a result we are buying 1 kilo of sugar for
515 piaster. We became obliged to report this situation to you our elders
in order to prevent this misconduct.340
When the content of the demands is not considered, it is possible to see that
their demanding style became more open and clear during this period. The peasants
saw themselves as being an important component of the politics and due to that they
could use a more “demanding” and “questioning” language towards the government
which they had hesitated even to come across in the previous periods.
This transformation in the peasants’ attitudes changed the general political
discourse on peasants. Although the peasants had had an important place in the
ideological foundation of the state discourse, they had not been actually visible in the
previous period. During the period in question the peasants became visible in every
side of the social structure and this was mostly due to their intervention to the
political sphere.
This visibility of the peasants changed the ideological imagination during this
period. During the single-party period the peasants had been defined in relation to the
populist peasantist ideology.341 After the Second World War period, this romanticist
peasantist approach was replaced by another understanding, that was adaptable to the
political and economic developments of the 1946-1960 period. The transition from
340 Afyon'un Osmaniye köyünden Salih Demirbas'ın seker dagıtımında belediyenin yolsuzlugu
olduguna dair mektubu. 22/2/1955, BCA, 30.01/112.707.15. “Bu vaziyet alakadar eden makamlara
defalarca söylendigi halde duymazlıktan geldikleri, bazıları da D.P.ye Rey verenlerin hali iste böyle
olur Rey atarken bizemi sordunuz ve daha ileri giderek Köylüler seker yirmi gibi alaylı sözler
söylüyorlar. Halkın agzında bu sayialar dolasmaktadır. Sehirli ile Köylüler Vatandaslık hakkında
müsavi degilmidir? Zavallı Köylüler 1 Kilo seker için 10-12 saatlık Köyünden 2,5-3 lira yol parası
veriyor. Sehirlilerde Seker bol oldugundan 70 Kurusa seker karnesi satıyorlar. Böylece 1 Kilo sekeri
515 Kurusa almıs oluyoruz. Bu kötü idarenin önüne geçilmesi için siz büyüklerimize vaziyeti
bildirmek mecburiyetinde kaldık.”
341 See Karaömerlioglu, Orada Bir Köy Var Uzakta.
206
single to multi-party system and the change in the economic policies towards a more
outward-oriented and agriculture based production were the basic factors that
affected the ideological definition of the peasants in this period. At the same time,
the romanticist peasantist approach was associated with the totalitarian mentality of
the Second World War period, which would be difficult to sustain in the ideological
regeneration of the post-War period.
During the single-party period, efforts were made to hold the peasants under
control due to their potential to create social disorder. With the depeasantization
process the peasants were able to move to the cities, which deepened the class
differentiations in the cities. Due to that, the single-party politics sought to keep the
peasants in their villages and to educate and develop them where they lived. This
perspective was still dominant at the beginning of this period and was accepted by
the majority of groups that made up the Assembly. It is possible to pursue this
continuity on the ideological perspective in the Assembly proceedings. For example,
during the proceedings on the Law for the Distribution of Land, the Erzincan deputy,
Sükrü Sökmensüer, stated the dominant general understanding on the peasantry as
follows:
In between our villages, which always have been the source of the clean
Turkish blood that makes the majority of our population, there are many
villages which groan under the ache and pain of landlessness and their
injury is deep. Our great and revolutionary duty is to find and smear the
healing ointment onto the injury of our citizens. To get them enough
land and to have them possess their own homes are the ointment itself.
By binding the landless people to the land we will increase the
protection of this land on the one side and on the other side we will
increase the homes that will give birth to much more children. So we
will lay the strongest foundation for the more populated and secure
future for what we long.342
342 TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, 17.5.1945, B: 56, O: 1, pp. 146–147. “Nüfusumuzun büyük çoklugu olan
temiz Türk kanına daima kaynaklık eden köylerimiz arasında topraksızlıgın sızıları ve acıları arasında
hala inim inim inliyenler pek çoktur ve yaraları derindir. Büyük ve inkilâpçı ödevimiz bu
vatandasların yaralarına onayıcı merhemi bulup sürmektir. Onları yeter topraga ve kendine ait bir
yuvaya sahip kılmak merhemin ta kendisidir. Topraksızları topraga baglamakla bu vatanın
207
In order to maintain security in the general public, it is thought that the
peasants should stay in their villages and be improved there. Efforts were made to
strengthen the necessity of keeping the peasants in their villages by giving the
examples of the opposite conditions. The Kütahya deputy, Besim Atalay, described
the situation of the peasants that had migrated to the cities as follows:
I know a village in Eskisehir. It is not Sunnite. There was a famine
seven, eight years ago, they dispersed, and came here, too. They live
near Samanpazarı, wake up in the morning. They, all women and
children, scratch like the chicken at the back of the Harbiye School. We
have to do whatever we can in order to endear being peasant to the
peasants to make sure the peasants do not get rid of their peasantry.343
The DP opposition also accepted this dominant ideological discourse of the
peasant definition. Although the DP members were ideologically close to this
understanding, they always tried to stress that the “development of the peasantry”
should be accepted as the primary factor in defining the peasants. The Eskisehir
deputy, Hasan Polatkan, said the following during the budget discussions of the
Ministry of Agriculture:
The peasants are the majority in our population. Due to this, we should
seek the foundation of the Turkish Nation in village. Our peasants, who
are devoted to their lands with great love and took up arms by leaving
their ploughs when the country was in danger, work hard day and night,
they give some of their products as tax when necessary as has had
happened during the passed war years, and some of their products to the
Government for a price lower than the market. Different from the cities
they pay village tax, they cannot escape from drudgery which is forced
in the name of imece (collective work). As a result, they can only live
from hand to mouth with dry bread. Here today, we are going to discuss
the Budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, the administration that will
look after this group and help their development. But it will be proper to
reveal the small amount of money that has been left for the Ministry of
koruyucularını bir taraftan çogaltacagız ve bir taraftan da çok çocuk yapacak yuvaları artırarak
özledigimiz çok nüfuslu ve emniyetli bir istikbale en saglam temeli atmıs olacagız.”
343 TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, 1.6.1945, B: 67, O: 2, p. 46. “Eskisehir’de bir köy tanırım. Sünni degildir.
Bundan yedi sekiz sene evvel bir kıtlık olmustu, dagılmıslar, buralara da gelmislerdir. Samanpazarı
civarlarında otururlar, Sabahleyin kalkarlar. Harbiye Okulunun arkasında kadın, çolukçocuk tavuk
gibi eselenirler. Hiçbir veçhile köylüyü köylülükten vazgeçirmemek için, köylüye köylülügünü
sevdirmek için elimizden gelen gayreti yapmalıyız.”
208
Agriculture from the general budget that exceeds one billion 136 million
liras. In a country in which the 81 percent of its population is peasant, if
the money that is left for the Ministry of Agriculture is less than the
money that is left for the General Directorate of Security, this is a real
disappointing point.344
As was related in the previous chapters, the overall change in the economic
policies transformed the rural structures during the 1945-1960 period. The dominant
economic policy was shaped by the outward-oriented agriculture-based development
understanding in this period. The abandonment of the previous period’s inwardoriented
industry-based economic approach brought the disintegration of the rural
structures. Due to that, the “keep the peasants in their villages” approach of the
single-party regime was not be proper for the newly chosen economic development
of the post-War period. While the rural structure was transforming, it would be hard
to keep the peasants in their villages and obstruct their migration to the cities. In
order to obstruct the migration of the peasants, some severe political measurements
had to be taken. The DP government could not apply such political tools to the
peasants, because he did not dare to risk losing their support. Is is obvious that such
measurements would end the support of the peasants, who were a necessity for the
DP to continue its power.
The DP used the “developing peasantry” discourse during the period instead
of the populist peasantist discourse of the single-party period. This discourse were
also used against the RPP opposition often for criticizing the practices of the single-
344 TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, 27.12.1946, B: 25, O: 1, p. 610. “Nüfusumuzun büyük bir çogunlugunu
teskil eden zümre çiftçidir. Onun için Türk Milletinin temelini köyde aramak lâzımdır. Topragına
büyük bir sevgi ile baglı olan, vatan tehlikeye düstügü zaman sapanını bırakarak silâha sarılan
köylülerimiz gece gündüz çalısırlar, geçirilen harb yıllarında oldugu gibi mahsullerinden bir kısmını
icabında vergi seklinde, bir kısmını da piyasa fiyatından daha ucuz bir bedelli Hükümete verirler,
sehirlerden farklı olarak köy salması öderler, imece namı altında angaryeden kurtulamazlar. Sonunda
da yalnız kuru ekmekle karınlarını doyururlar. ste bu zümre ile ilgilenecek ve onun kalkınmasına
yardım edecek bir teskilâtın, Tarım Bakanlıgının Bütçesi bugün huzurunuza gelmis bulunuyor. Fakat
Umumi yekûnu bir milyar 136 milyon lirayı geçen bir bütçede Tarım Bakanlıgına ayrılan paranın
azlıgını tebarüz ettirmek yerinde olur. Nüfusunun yüzde 81 i çiftçi olan bir memlekette Tarım
Bakanlıgına ayrılan para, Emniyet Umum Müdürlügüne ayrılan paradan daha az olacak olursa bu,
hakikaten üzülmege deger bir noktadır.”
209
party period. This discourse was also used as propaganda material for gaining the
support of the peasants when the DP was in power. A typical example of this
discourse can be seen in the speech of Sadettin Karacabey, the deputy of Bursa,
made during the budget discussions in 1956:
My friends; I have spent three-fourths of my life in the village. In the
previous times, we had to choose between the villages, the ones that we
could eat its bread, the ones that we could sleep in its bed. But now,
thanks to God, no matter which village you go, there is no need to
choose, they are in good condition to give you food and bread to eat and
a clean bed to sleep on. My friends by telling these we are not saying
that the Turkish peasants are incredibly improved or gained every kind
of material facilities and are living in wealth and happiness. We do not
make such a claim. But our claim is this: Most of the Turkish peasants
who were walking barefoot yesterday are wearing shoes today. (From
the left side, the voices of, all of them, all of them) Yesterday, two
people were coming together to buy a köylü (peasant) cigarette, but
today any peasants can buy cigarettes at will. We no longer see the
Turkish peasant woman and children waiting with egg baskets on their
back. My friends, from time to time they say that the cost of living in
this country has gotten higher. The price of butter, cheese and eggs and
other goods that the peasants sell are increased. My friends from this
time on, they will be a bit higher. Because in the past, 18 million
peasants were working for the welfare of the ordinary citizen. Today
they sell some of their production and eat some of them. They became
the consumers of the product they sell. In this manner there will be no
free butter, egg, as it was in the past.345
As can be seen in this speech, the peasants were defined with an
understanding that accepted welfare as the most important factor. The increasing
importance of welfare and development was related to the newly adopted economic
345 TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi, 27.2.1956, I: 46, C:3, p. 1029. “Arkadaslar; ben ömrünün dörtte üçünü
köyde geçirmis bir insanım. Evvelce köylerde gezerek hangi köyün ekmegi, yemegi yenir, hangilerinin
yatagında yatılır diye seçme yapmak mecburiyetini duyardık. Simdi ise Allaha sükür hangi köye
gitseniz tefrik yapmaya lüzum yok, size yiyecek ekmek ve yemek ve yatacak temiz bir yatak verecek
durumdadırlar. Arkadaslar bunları anlatmakla biz demiyoruz ki, Türk çiftçisi fevkalâde terakki etmis,
bütün maddi imkânları temin etmis; bugün refah ve saadet içindedir. Böyle bir iddiamız yoktur. Yalnız
iddiamız sudur: Dün birçok bölgelerde yalınayak olan Türk köylüsünün çogu bugün ayakkabı giyiyor.
(Soldan, hepsi, hepsi sesleri) Dün iki kisi bir araya gelip ancak bir köylü sigarası alırken bugün
istiyen köylümüz istedigi kadar sigara alabiliyor. Dün arkasında yumurta küfesiyle bekliyen Türk
köylü kadınını ve çocugunu bugün artık görmüyoruz. Arkadaslar, zaman zaman diyorlar ki, bu
memlekette hayat pahalılasmıstır. Çiftçinin sattıgı yag, peynir ve yumurta ve diger maddelerin
fiyatları yükselmistir. Arkadaslar bundan sonra biraz yüksek olacaktır. Çünkü 18 milyon köylü,
muayyen vatandasın refahı için çalısıyordu. Bugün istihsalinin bir kısmını satıyor, bir kısmını yiyor.
Kendi istihsal ettigi malın müstehliki olmustur. Bu itibarla artık eskisi gibi bedava yag, yumurta
yoktur.”
210
perception of the government. When the National Assembly Proceedings are
explored, it is easy to see the change in the ideological discourse of the government.
According to that, the romanticist peasantist ideology, which also could be seen in
the first years of the period in question, was soon transformed into the developmentbased
perception as such. After that time, the understanding to keep the peasants in
their villages and to have them develop their cultural and economic living conditions
in their own world would be changed to “wealthy” peasants who were integrated
with the country as a whole. The “greatness” of the peasants would be measured not
by their “cultural” values, but by the improvement degree of their “material
conditions”. Ahmet Tokus, the DP Antalya deputy, defined the improved “living
conditions” of the peasants during the 1957 budget proceedings as follows:
I wonder, what is the meaning of improving the living conditions? I
wonder, do the peasants eat better than before? They are eating better,
they are clothed better. In the old times, not only the poor ones, but also
the rich ones in the village only wore their shoes while going to the city
and when they left the city they took the shoes off and held them in their
hands. But now there is no peasant that does not have shoes. The
peasants have radio, too; the peasants eat both American and Turkish
wheat. … There are some villages that own radio receivers; some of
them sometimes go to the city by jeep to the cinema. If our friend
Mustafa Ekinci excuses me, our peasants do not live in miserable
condition. This is injustice and its time has passed already. If you desire
the living standards of the American peasantry, that does not exist even
for the city dwellers of Europe. However, our future is clear, our Turkey
is the candidate to be a second America and it will be. 346
In defining the peasants, the most effective and dominant discourse was
created with the concept of “rural/peasant development” during the DP years in
power. The romanticist peasantist approach was abandoned not as a conscious
346 TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi, 27.2.1957, I: 48, C:2, pp. 1048–1049. “Hayat standardını yükseltmek acaba
ne demektir? Acaba köylü daha iyi yemiyor mu? Daha iyi yiyor, daha iyi giyiyor. Eskiden degil
fakirler, bir köyün zenginleri dahi sehre giderken ayakkabılarını giyer, sehirden çıkınca ayaklarından
onları çıkarırlar, ellerine alırlardı. Simdi ayakkabısız köylü yoktur. Köylünün radyosu vardır, köylü
Amerikan bugdayını da Türk bugdayını da yemektedir. … Öyle köyler vardır ki, radyosu vardır; bâzen
jipine binerek sehre sinemaya bile gelenler mevcuttur. Mustafa Ekinci arkadasımız beni mâzur
görsünler köylümüzün acınacak durumu yoktur. Bu haksızlıktır ve bu zaman da çoktan geçmistir. Arzu
ettiginiz Amerikan köylüsü hayat seviyesi ise bu Avrupa’nın sehirlisinde bile yoktur. Mamafih
istikbalimiz açıktır, Türkiye’miz ikinci bir Amerika olmaya namzettir ve olacaktır.”
211
political preference of the DP, but due to the preferred economic policies that were
adopted during this period. The ideological attitudes of the old times were not very in
the period when the migration to the cities increased. Every kind of political and
cultural thought began to flow into the villages and the peasants had direct relations
with the world outside of their villages. Due to that, the most important factor in
leaving the romanticist peasantist approach was not the change in the political
preferences of the politicians, but that it was no longer functional for the new era. As
will be shown when analyzing the relation of the peasants to anti-communist
thoughts in the following sections, the peasants continued to be defined with a
discourse similar to that of the romanticist peasantist approach. But the function of
the peasants in the state’s ideological foundation changed.
Kemal Karpat writes that the peasants expressed their belief that the city
dwellers had lived comfortably on the backs of the peasants as a result of the
economic preferences of the government during the previous twenty years; from that
time on, they wanted to live in comfort. As the reflection of this attitude, the peasants
became more interested in politics and they did not hesitate to express their thoughts
on the current political problems.347 Their economic development provided them
with a more independent political movement capacity. In this way, the development
gave way to an increase in the level of interest of the peasants in politics.
As is shown in this section, the peasants created more direct relations with the
government during the years that the DP was in power. In the creation of this
relation, the economic development of the peasants had a direct effect. More
important than that, the “rights-demanding” perception that the peasants had gained
during the opposition years of the DP continued in this period as well. They
347 Karpat, "Social Effects," pp. 97, 99.
212
developed a new political approach based on demanding their reciprocal rights and
the peasants even forced the government to remunerate in return, as their right for
supporting the DP government. As has been shown by the examples above, the
peasants were aware of their power, which had brought the DP to government or, in
other words, which was capable of changing even the governments. Different from
the previous periods, the peasants were promoted to a level in which they could raise
their demands loudly by using this force. As their voice became that much louder,
they had to be accepted as an undeniable “reality.”
At the center of the politics, the ideological romanticist peasantist approach
was replaced with the discourse of a “developing peasantry,” which removed the
peasants from the position of being only an ideological construction and manifested
them as the basic element in the economic development. Against the opposition of
the RPP, the DP showed that the lives of the peasants were improved during their
government, and stressed the importance of the peasants in the economy. This newly
created economic discourse brought the peasants up to a more “concrete” level,
which they had never experienced before. In this way, they moved away from being
an ideologically imagined entity and were defined as more tangible, concrete, visible
and a “real” element that had direct effects on the whole social sphere.
In the next section how political activity was spatially organized in the
villages will be discussed by analyzing the role of the coffeehouses. Thus, after
analyzing the overall transforming effect of the peasants on politics, how the politics
transformed the villages will be seen.
213
The Village Coffeehouse as a Political Space
With the transition to the multi-party system villages became acquainted with
politics. This changed not only the relations with the political center, but also the
spatial organization in the villages. The most repeated complaint at the end of the DP
period and after the coup was the separation of the coffeehouses and even the
mosques between rival parties as a result of the spread of politics in the villages. The
National Unity Committee (NUC) publishes a series of brochures after the 27 May
1960 coup to create legitimacy for itself to the public and to explain the pretexts of
the coup to the people. The first of these brochures was Köy Kahvesinde 27 Mayıs
(27 May in the Village Coffeehouse).348 This brochure presents the political pretexts
of the coup to the villagers. This publication proves that the peasants were accepted
as important components of the political process and they needed to be persuaded
and won over in the new political conditions.
This spatial differentiation in the villages that occurred after the entrance of
politics to the villages was the main discourse in criticizing the DP period as a whole
in later years. As for the ideological view that had realized the coup, the political
practices of the DP had brought “enmity” to the village, which was accepted as an
“indivisible entity”. Although this discourse is applicable to the period after the coup,
it must be noted that this change in the villages did not occur only as a result of the
348 M.B.K. 27 Mayıs
nkılabını Yayma ve Tanıtma Komisyonu, Köy Kahvesinde 27 Mayıs (Ankara:
DS
Matbaası, 1961). The titles of other books that were published in this series were as follows: Hak
ve vazife yolunda köylülerimizle basbasa [Together With Our Peasants On the Way of the Rights and
Duty]; Köylülerimiz ve anayasa [Our Peasants and the Constitution]; Anayasa yarenligi [Friendly
Chat on the Constitution]; Anayasa konusunda köylü kardeslerle sohbet [Conversation with peasant
friends on the Constitution]; Okullarda 27 Mayıs [27 May at the Schools]; Yeni anayasamızın hukuki
esasları [Juridical Principals of our new Constitution]; Türk basınında 27 Mayıs [27 May in the
Turkish Press]; Çalısma konuları yönünden yeni anayasa [New Constitution on the Labor Issues]. As
can be seen from the titles, these brochures mostly dealt with giving information to the peasants on the
new changing conditions of politics. It is apparent that, the NUC accepted and was aware of the power
of the peasants that was created and acknowledged in the 1945-1960 period and tried to affect on the
political perception of the peasants.
214
DP’s political practices. It may be accepted as a “natural” result of the politics in the
villages. The separation of the coffeehouses between the people supporting different
political perspectives represents the political manifestation of the people’s political
choices. In short, this situation may be defined as politics in itself. For example, the
separation of the mosques between the RPP and DP supporters can also be
understood as the manifestation of the DP supporters’ protest against the policies of
the RPP period on religious practices. The DP supporters may have protested against
the RPP supporters by separating “their” places from that of the “others.” The report
of RPP Bursa inspector and Kars deputy Serafettin Karacan, dated 8 January 1949, is
an example of the “protest” character of this spatial differentiation:
It has been heard that in some villages the democrat villagers can
develop some hostile attitudes, which would never fit to the
requirements of citizenship, against our party members, such as not
allowing ours to enter their coffeehouses, pasturing their animals
separately from the general herd of the village, etc. It has been heard that
they practice some regretful behaviors, which also make us painfully
think on the future of the country. Is it possible for a real patriot not to
feel sorrow about this lamentable scene of a Turkish village in which its
people sit in different coffeehouses, its animals pasture in two different
herds with the protection of the shepherds of their own party. The
democrats who heard our grieving, instead of trying to find solutions to
this degenerate flow of partisanship, which gave birth to enmity between
the citizens, almost seemed to be pleased by this situation and did not
hesitate to say that “You are responsible for this too. You sow the wind,
praise be that you are reaping the whirlwind.”349
349 Bursa Mebusları'nın teftis raporlarının bürolara gönderildigi. 21/9/1950, BCA, 490.01/633.87.1.
“Bazı köylerde, demokrat olmus köylülerin, partililerimize karsı, yurtdaslık icaplarına aslâ
yakısmıyacak hasmâne durumlar aldıkları, meselâ bizimkileri kahvehanelerine sokmamak,
hayvanlarını köyün umumî sürüsünden ayırarak ayrı otlatmak… ilâh. gibi esef edilecek ve hattâ
memleketin âtisi bakımından acı acı düsündürecek hareketlere tevessül ettikleri isitilmektedir. Halkı
ayrı kahvehanelerde oturan, hayvanları kendi partilerinden çobanların muhafazasında iki sürü
halinde otlayan bir Türk köyünün bu yürekler acısı manzarası karsısında hakikî bir yurtseverin elem
duymaması mümkün degildir. Bu ıztırabımızı duyan demokratlar, particiligin yurtdaslar arasında
düsmanlık doguran bu mütereddi akısına bizimle beraber çare arayacakları yerde bu durumdan âdetâ
memnun görünerek (Bunun da mes’ulu sizsiniz. Rüzgâr ektiniz, sükredin ki yine rüzgâr biçiyorsunuz.)
demekten geri kalmıyorlar.”
215
As the coffeehouses can be defined as being places of this kind of protesting,
during this period they developed mostly as alternative political places in which the
opposition organized itself.
Süheyl Ünver points to this political segregation in the development of the
village coffeehouses by saying that “many written or oral sources are accumulated on
the coffeehouses in which old class differences in Anatolia became like Party
differences.”350 He, however, does not exactly define these sources. Although the
statement on the separation of the coffeehouses is repeated frequently, it is not
possible to find much evidence on the political functions of the coffeehouses in this
period. In this section, the coffeehouses will be presented as political spaces in the
village in relation to the DP’s political approach to organize in the villages. In order
to understand the meaning of the coffeehouses in the villages some local sources will
be analyzed and how the political meaning of the coffeehouses is defined in these
sources will be shown. However before all of this, some preliminary information on
the development of coffeehouses is necessary.
Coffeehouses, as social gathering centers, soon after the foundation of its first
examples in the Ottoman Empire,351 spread to Europe and then the rest of the world
from the Ottoman Empire .352 The main reason for the rapid spread of the
coffeehouses lay in the characteristics of these places. Coffeehouses are an
alternative to any other public place in which especially men can gather easily and
talk. First of all, coffeehouses were different from any state owned public places as
350 Süheyl Ünver, "Türkiye'de Kahve ve Kahvehaneler," Türk Etnografya Dergisi, no. 5 (1962), p. 81.
“kahvehanelerimizin de Anadolu’daki eski sınıf farklarını Parti ayrılıkları haline getirdigine dair
yazılı ve sözlü birçok sermaye birikmistir”
351 It is told that the first coffehouse was opened in
stanbul/Tahtakale in the years between 1553–
1554 by two people named as Hakem from Aleppo and Sems from Damascus. Talat Mümtaz Yaman,
"Türkiye'de Kahve ve Kahvehaneler," Karacadag (Diyarbakır Halkevi Mecmuası) 5, no. 53
(September 1945), p. 671; Ünver, "Türkiye'de," p. 44.
352 The first examples of the coffeehouse in Europe were seen in Venice and Marseille in 1645, nearly
a hundred years later than in the Ottoman Empire. Ulla Heise, Kahve ve Kahvehane (
stanbul: Dost
Kitabevi Yayınları, 2001), p. 111.
216
being private initiatives. As they were not under the direct control of state, the people
who frequent them can behave more freely. Coffeehouses were also different from
other private-owned public places such as taverns and pubs in which people mostly
drink alcoholic beverages. In coffeehouses, people drink hot drinks which were less
expensive and communicate with each other more easily due to being awake. They
were also acceptable places by Islamic standards. As a result, it is asserted that, the
coffeehouses were places that were mostly preferred by the poor sections in the
Islamic societies. In the Ottoman Empire, the alternatives to the coffeehouses were
taverns, bozahane353 and hamam (steam baths). Due to their distinctive character, the
baths were mostly preferred not by men but women as gathering places. The taverns
could not hold the place of the coffeehouses, because of the prohibition on alcohol in
Islamic societies most of the people did not prefer, or hesitated to go to these places
for gathering. Except from these places, the most important place for men was the
mosques, especially during the month of Ramadan and Fridays.354 However, the
religious characteristic of this place did not allow free gatherings and interaction. For
these reasons, coffeehouses were widely accepted in both western and eastern
countries as being places in which people could gather in contentment, communicate
with each other and at the same time drink a beverage that was religiously and
morally proper.
The coffeehouses also were places of social communication and information.
All kinds of people frequented the coffeehouses. Due to this, information from
different sources could be gathered and communication between different people was
facilitated. Especially in the European examples, many local and foreign newspapers
353 Bozahane was a place in which boza, a kind of traditional Turkish beverage made of slightly
fermented millet, was sold.
354 Ralph S. Hattox, Kahve ve Kahvehane-Bir Toplumsal çecegin Yakındogu'daki Kökenleri (
stanbul:
Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1998), pp. 107-111.
217
could be read for free in the big coffeehouses. In 1887, 6500 newspapers were being
published in Germany alone and many of them were made available in
coffeehouses.355 Without the mediation of the coffeehouses most of the people had
no access to these newspapers. Due to lower rates of literacy the effects of the
reading practices in the coffeehouses were different during the Ottoman period. The
delayed development and state-controlled characteristics of the newspaper
publication meant that communication via newspapers was less than in Europe in the
Ottoman period. For of all these reasons, the coffeehouses of the Eastern countries
developed another characteristic. While regional and state-based information was
traded between the people that came to the coffeehouses from the different parts of
the country, literate men read books out loud or the elders of the region told folk tales
and epic stories to all of the people in the coffeehouse. As in the words of Enver Naci
Göksen:
…these people bring their hand-written books on the anonymous
subjects of their times in their pockets and climb to a higher place and
read. This behavior, when the literate people were fewer and printing
was not known, was as important as the radio of today at that time. It is
supposed to be those times that the coffeehouses began to be called
‘kıraathane’ (reading house).356
With the entrance of the radio to the coffeehouses, this communication aspect
of the place grew more intensive. Access to radios was limited to public places due
to expense in the single-party period. Soon after, the radio become an indispensible
appliance of coffeehouses, to much an extent that they were associated with it.
Especially, for the countries in which written media was not that much developed
355 Heise, Kahve ve Kahvehane, p. 149.
356 Enver Naci Göksen, "Kahvehaneler Nasıl Kuruldu ve Ne Oldu?," Yeni Adam 12, no. 460
(21.10.1943), p. 9. “bunlar zamanın anonim konularile yazılmıs el yazması hikaye kitaplarını
ceplerinde kahveye getirirler ve yüksekçe bir yere çıkarak okurlardı. Okur yazarın pek az bulundugu,
matbaasının bilinmedigi devirlerde bu hareket, o zaman, bugünkü radyo kadar önemliydi.
Kahvehanelere ‘kıraathane’ denilmesi bu çaglara rastlansa gerektir.”
218
such as Turkey, the importance of the coffeehouses grew bigger as the place of
communication.
Coffeehouses also developed as places of business and patronage relations.
With the transition to the multi-party system in Turkey, patronage relations between
various economic groups began to be held in the coffeehouses.357 Also, in Europe,
with the development of the coffeehouses business relations began to be executed in
the coffeehouses instead of the taverns and pubs, which had been the favored
business places before the coffeehouses.358
With the increase in the number of the coffeehouses, the increasing levels of
communication and the gathering of the people was watched by the state authorities,
both in Europe and the Ottoman Empire. The coffeehouses began to be prohibited on
pretexts of a similar nature in both regions. The main reason of the prohibition of the
coffeehouses by the state during the Ottoman period was, as Hattox says, “their
potential to transform to a forum, a political ‘club’, in which the people got the news
of and express their complaints and opinions about the state related business; the
ones that had common discontent against the order could organize a common activity
with the help of this potential”.359 Heise, also, states a similar reason for the
prohibition of the coffeehouses in Europe: “The coffeehouses were shut down … due
to the reasons of being ‘the home of the rebellion’ and as being the places in which
the ones that prepared conspiracy met and the ones that threatened the public order
gathered”.360 Some of the emperors that cared about public control, such as
357 Kıray, "Degisen Patronaj," p. 295.
358 Steve Pincus, ""Coffee Politicians Does Create": Coffeehouses and Restoration Political Culture,"
Journal of Modern History 67, no. 4 (Dec., 1995), p. 818.
359 Hattox, Kahve Ve Kahvehane, p. 90. “halkın devletle ilgili haber, görüs ve yakınmalarını açıga
vurdugu bir forum, siyasal bir ‘kulüp’e dönüsme potansiyeli tasıma(larıydı); düzene karsı ortak bir
hosnutsuzlugu olanlar bu potansiyele dayanarak ortak bir eyleme girisebilirlerdi.”
360 Heise, Kahve ce Kahvehane, p. 137. “Kahvehaneler ‘isyan yuvaları’, komplolar düzenleyen
kisilerin bulustukları, kamu düzeninin tehdit eden kisilerin toplandıkları yerler oldukları gerekçesiyle
…. kapanmak zorunda kalmıstır.”
219
Abdülhamit II, tried to bring these places under their control, instead of prohibiting
the coffeehouses. They regularly sent their spies to the coffeehouses to gather
information about the issues talked about inside the places, and about any activities
against their power and later arrested the people.361
The development of the coffeehouses during the single-party period was very
limited. The main reason was that every kind of space other than the private ones
during the single-party period was accepted as being identical with the political space
and as a result was accepted as being within the limits of state’s authority, especially
in the countryside.362 The elites of the Republic considered the public sphere as a tool
for the creation of the new citizen type. They worked to establish new spaces,
especially to shape the rural population, such as People’s Houses and Rooms, and
Village Institutes. Although there were some other free spaces for townsmen in the
cities, most of the places in the countryside were controlled by the local powers,
which had organic relation with the state, which did not allow the chance for the
peasants to gather freely. This lack of places in the countryside would also effect on
the political attitudes of the peasants. These state-controlled spaces were designed as
the places to put into practice the central project of modernization in the countryside
and were seen by the peasants as the symbols or the agents of the modernization
practices. The village headman or aga, who was accepted as the agents of the
modernization in the villages, gained new legitimate spaces with the establishment of
these state-controlled places. The administrators of these places, which were also
founded as the provincial organs of the RPP, would act as the agents of the
modernization practices.363
361 See Cengiz Kırlı, "Kahvehaneler ve Hafiyeler: 19. Yüzyıl Ortalarında Osmanlı’da Sosyal Kontrol,"
Toplum ve Bilim 83 (Kıs 1999/2000).
362 Keyder, Türkiye'de Devlet ve Sınıflar, p. 194.
363 Esat Öz, Tek Parti Yönetimi ve Siyasal Katılım (Ankara: Gündogan Yayınları, 1992), p. 29.
220
The coffeehouses spread throughout the country during the Republican period
with respect to the Ottoman period. The administrators, who had a clear
understanding on the importance of these places in social life, developed some
projects to take these places under their control as they did the other public spaces.
Some of them even recommended the nationalization of the administration of the
coffeehouses.364
The development of the coffeehouses in the villages occurred in the late
Republican period. The economic welfare of the peasants was not enough to support
the existence of such places financially. The financial accumulation of the peasants
was not enough to spend money for a drink outside of their houses, until the change
in the economic circumstances in the post-War period, by which the peasants would
get richer. Until the 1950’s the village coffeehouses were limited in number, but their
numbers increased afterwards. Other places in villages that necessitate an increase in
economic welfare, such as groceries or bakeries, would be established during this
period. Although this development in the villages can be accepted as an important
aspect of the economic transformation, the social and political role of the village
coffeehouses has not been analyzed, except for in one article published in 1970.365
In a survey prepared by the State Institute for Statistics in 1945 that included
all of the villages in Turkey, the number of the villages which had no kind of
gathering place was 53.4 percent of the total number of villages. Coffeehouses,
village rooms and people’s rooms are included in this number. Only 4,447 of the
total 34,063 villages had coffeehouses; this makes the 12.5% of the total number of
364 “Anketlerimiz-Ankara’da Kahvecilik-Kahvelerin Sosyal Yasayısta Büyük Yeri Vardır-Bunlardan
Nasıl Faydalanabiliriz?”, Ulus, 25 Sonkanun 1935. A recent research conducted by Serdar Öztürk
gives a primilimary and detalied analysis of the coffeehouses during the single-party period. The
analysis of Öztürk mostly focuses on the control and inspection process of the coffeehouses by the
single-party power. Serdar Öztürk, Cumhuriyet Türkiyesinde Kahvehane ve ktidar (1930-1945)
(
stanbul: Kırmızı Yayınları, 2006).
365 Brian W. Beeley, "The Turkish Village Coffeehouse as a Social Institution," The Geographical
Review 60, no. 4 (October 1970).
221
villages.366 As can be understood from these statistics, in 1945, the places in which
peasants could gather were few. When the places that were under the control of the
state and local authorities are discarded, the non-existence of gathering places for the
peasants in the villages can be seen clearly. Some of these coffeehouses also may
have been places under the control of the local landlords or village headmen.
Considering this factor, the situation might have been even worse than before.
In 1960, the State Institute for Statistics prepared another village survey for
the purpose of comparison with the 1945 survey. The increase in the number of
gathering places is clear. In 1960, the number of the villages that had no gathering
places decreased to 42.2%. Then, it can be asserted that the increase in the number of
the establishment of new gathering places in the villages was 11.2% during the
previous fifteen years. This increase was mostly due to the development of
coffeehouses in the villages. In 1960, the total number of villages that had a
coffeehouse increased 16.8%, making 29.3% of all villages in the country. At the end
of the period, 10,370 villages of the total 35,121 villages in the country owned at
least one coffeehouse.367
Regional differences were also important in the development of the
coffeehouses in the villages. The main difference was between the eastern provinces,
in which regional power relations were dominant and western provinces, in which
the peasants could behave more freely due to their economic independence. The
eastern aga, as the leader of the provincial power relations, organized all kinds of
communication and establishment of organizations under his control. With respect to
the western villagers, the dominance of the aga in the eastern provinces was very
high and as a result of this situation the center of communication was the “room of
366 1945 Köyler statistigi, (Ankara: D.
.E., 1948), pp. 122-123.
367 Köyler statistigi-1960 Anket Sonuçları, (Ankara: D.
.E., 1963), p. 35.
222
the aga”. The development of the coffeehouses in this kind of village was late due to
this dominance of the provincial powers. The room of the aga could sometimes be
the village room or the village guest room, but most of the time it was the branch of
the party in power. With this room, the agas were able to establish direct relations
with the party in power. As a result of this situation, the agas were able to detect all
of the information that would effect on the peasants.368 It can be asserted that it was
not possible to establish coffeehouses in the eastern part of the country during this
period. In the 1945 survey, the results are also presented on the provincial basis. The
survey distinguishes nine different regions and gives detailed information on the
existence of public places in every region.
The survey results also support the above mentioned difference between the
eastern and western provinces. Accordingly, in 3,948 villages of the sixth region,
which contains cities such as Bingöl, Mus, Bitlis, Van, Hakkari, Siirt, Mardin,
Diyarbakır and Urfa, there are only 32 coffeehouses. This result shows that, the
percentage of the coffeehouses in that region is only 0.8%. When we look for the
results in the third region, which contains cities such as Bursa, Kocaeli,
stanbul,
Tekirdag, Kırklareli and Edirne, there are coffeehouses in 1,272 of the total 2,436
villages, which was the 53% of the villages in that region.369 In the 1960 survey,
there is no such classification. However, when we calculate the results of the same
cities as they existed in the 1946 classification, it is possible to see an increase in the
number of the gathering places of the peasants. While 5% of the cities in the first
region, which contains Ankara, Kırsehir, Yozgat, Çorum, Çankırı, Bolu, Eskisehir,
Bilecik and Kütahya, are listed as having one or more coffeehouse in their villages in
the 1945 survey, the ratio increases to 20.5% in the 1960 survey.
368
smail Besikçi, Dogu Anadolu'nun Düzeni (Sosyo-Ekonomik ve Etnik Temelleri) (
stanbul: E
Yayınları, 1970), p. 327.
369 1945 Köyler statistigi, pp. 80-90.
223
In order to understand the regional differences, a closer analysis of Hakkari
province as an example will be meaningful. When the statistical results of the two
surveys are investigated the limited development in the gathering places can be seen.
In the 1945 survey, Hakkari had only one People’s or Village Room between the 110
villages that were connected to it. When we compare the results with the 1960
survey, there was a coffeehouse in only 5 of 131 villages of Hakkari; in addition to
that only 9 of them had a village room.370 As can be seen from these statistics, while
the number of gathering places increased in the western part of the country during
this period, the eastern provinces could not achieve the same rate of development due
to the obstructions of both the provincial power relations and lack of economic
welfare. The increase in the welfare degree of the peasants did not happen
independently from the previous period’s power relations. The western provinces of
the country had taken the advantage of economic development in the previous
periods too, but the eastern cities had not. The economic development in this period
was carried out between the provincial and central power relations and the peasants
as a direct relation in the western regions. However, the provincial powers, which
were dominant in the eastern regions, seized the surplus created by the economic
development and prevented the peasants from living in different social and economic
conditions than the previous years. This relation type between the provincial powers
and the peasants obstructed the development of the coffeehouses, as free gathering
places, in the villages of the eastern provinces.
The most important fact underlying the effect on the organization of the
coffeehouses as free alternative political places lay in their specific character of
being private enterprises. As mentioned before, these places differed from the other
370 Köyler statistigi-1960, p. 34.
224
kind of political places in Republican history as being founded autonomously from
the state and accepted as private initiatives. During the 27-year long single-party
regime the non-existence of places in which the peasants could gather without the
intervention of the central political elements obstructed the development and the
organization of opposition in the villages. During the transition to the multi-party
system, the opposition made itself a place in especially economically developed
villages and its party branches were first founded in the coffeehouses in these
villages. During the process of the organization of the opposition in the villages,
while the coffeehouses were transformed into party branches in the villages, the new
party branches would be opened also as coffeehouses. The necessity of the common
political space during the development of the political opposition was overcome with
this transformation of the coffeehouses into party branches in the first years of the
opposition movement.
The village coffeehouses also had an important role in redefining the social
order. In the use of the village or guest rooms the strict hierarchical traditions
continued. The younger and more radical people sometimes found them
unacceptable. The coffeehouses solved this problem. The young people also gained a
new place for their gatherings which are freed from the social control of the village
traditions. The political preferences of the young generation of peasants mostly
supported the opposition. For that reason, the development of the coffeehouses in the
villages gave both to the opposition and to the young generation peasants a political
place to gather freely. It may be asserted that in this way the social order in the
villages was reshaped by the coffeehouses with the effect of the political
opposition.371
371 Beeley, "Village Coffeehouse," p. 481.
225
As stated by Kerem Ünüvar, “the aspect that gives birth to public sphere is
the self-legitimatization and self-exposition of the opposition that objects to the
creation of unique and holistic establishments by the privileged few.”372 According
to that, every kind of communication tool that had been controlled by the aga or the
village headmen before and had been gained as a privilege of being in power, was
presented to the others in a limited way. When the opposition did occur, the political
struggle reflected on the historical enmities and class differences. As a result of this
newly created political atmosphere, the previously delimited public places would be
gained back. The opposition would create its own tools to struggle against the old
power relations. This separation of the coffeehouses between the different parties
was a symbolic manifestation of this struggle. In the western villages, the
coffeehouses were used as party branches and helped to the spread of the
oppositional thoughts by creating a communication space in which every kind of
information was gathered. With the effect of the new oppositional media, these
places were the public spheres of active political interaction between the peasants.
This interaction was articulated with the DP’s political training campaigns, by which
the peasants gained political consciousness and information on the voting process.
These coffeehouses and party branches in the villages were used as “party education
schools” for all of the supporters of the opposition. In the previous period, the people
had not been that much involved in politics. Due to that, the DP had to educate the
people, especially the villagers, on how to use their political rights. As a result, it can
be asserted that, one of the important agents that would end the 27-years old singleparty
regime by elections in a mostly peasant society would be the coffeehouses and
372 Kerem Ünüvar, "Osmanlı'da Bir Kamusal Mekan: Kahvehaneler," Dogu Batı 2, no. 5 (November-
December-January, 1998-1999), pp. 189.
226
the consciousness-giving policies of the DP with organizing the opposition in the
coffeehouses by using this alternative political space, a “party-school.”
The political education role of the DP, by which the peasants learned about
and practiced the voting process, was discussed above. During this process, the local
and central administrators of the party defined the most suitable place for this kind of
education as the party ocak (hearth) organizations. These branches could be founded
in every small district or neighborhood. With these branches the people that
supported a certain political perspective could participate more actively in politics. In
addition, as communication centers, these branches were used as the consciousnessgiving
places for the parties during the period.
hsan Yurdoglu, one of the most
important local leaders of the DP, defines how the ocak (hearth) organizations will
be used in the local politics as follows:
THE OCAKS ARE THE CRADLES AND THE WATCHMEN OF
DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM... It means nothing if the most
ideal general committee or the provincial administrative committee do
not depend on the strength, existence, emotion and dynamic actions of
the ocaks in the democratic system. The ocaks resemble the boiler
room of a ship. If a ship cannot produce steam, even the most powerful
command or conducting committee cannot get that ship to float. For
that case, we had to intensify our center of heaviness- on the ocaks and
in the revival of these places. The people should come continually to
these places, like believers going to the temple.373
As can be understood from these words, according to the policy of the DP,
which can be called “the politics of ocaks,” the most important goal was to establish
a gathering place for its supporters and to make the people adopt the importance of
373 Yurdoglu, C.H.P.'Nin Oyunları, p. 52. “OCAKLAR HÜRRYET VE DEMOKRASNN BESG VE
NÖBETÇSDR… En ideal bir genel kurul, yahut vilayet idare heyeti demokrasi sisteminde ocakların
kuvvetine, varlıgına, heyecanına ve dinamik faaliyetine dayanmazsa hiçten ibarettir. Ocak bir geminin
kazan dairesine benzer. Bir gemi istim tutmazsa, o gemiyi dünyanın en iktidarlı bir kumanda ve sevk
ve idare heyeti dahi yürütemez. Bunun için bütün sıklet merkezimizi ocaklarımızda ve buraların
canlandırılmasında teksif etmeliyiz. Halk buralara mabede giden bir mümin gibi devam etmelidir.”
227
these places. After the creation of such places, the political consciousness that would
be given was considered in detail by the same administrators as follows:
For now our most important step to achieve is to assemble and talk
about the political cases in the hearth, subdistrict and districts and to
increase the intensity of the struggle against the People's Party. Prior
to everything, we should tell the people and the villagers that the
People's Party is the foremost enemy of democracy, the people and
justice; we should tell them that a minority oligarchy that has
usurped human rights and political freedom governs the country with
the assistance of the armed forces, and convince them that they wanted
to use the real masters of the country, the people and the villagers, as
slaves and captives, and a struggle of a matter of life and death is
taking place between them. The scope and the true nature of the case
should be explained to the people and the villagers should be told that
the war going on today is directly their own case.374
This “politics of ocaks,” which was clearly stated in the words above, shows
how the political consciousness was given to the people in the struggle against the
RPP government and what kind of discourse was used during this process. Especially
with the distinctive stress on the peasants struggle against the government, the DP
practices tried to convince the peasants that this struggle was nothing but their
struggle to survive and become free. This discourse can be accepted as the main
starting point in the creation of the political base for the resistance against the RPP
government. The widespread foundation of coffeehouses in the villages can be
evaluated within this framework. The coffeehouses also acted as party branches in
the villages. In this respect, they cannot be thought of apart from the “politics of
ocaks” of the DP. All of the functions that were defined for the party ocaks were also
the functions of the village coffeehouses. In most of the villages, the party
organizations were held in the coffeehouses or the coffeehouses were all kinds of
374 Ibid., pp. 46-47. “Simdilik en ehemmiyetli tedbirimiz ocaklarda, bucak ve ilçelerde toplanarak
siyasi davaları görüsmek ve Halk Partisine karsı mücadeleyi siddetlendirmektir. Her seyden evvel
halka ve köylüye Halk Partisinin bir numaralı demokrasi, halk ve hak düsmanı oldugunu; insan
haklarını ve siyasi hürriyetleri gasbeden küçük bir zümrenin milleti ve memleketi silahlı kuvvete
dayanarak idare ettigini anlatmak ve memleketin hakiki efendisi olan halk ve köylünün köle ve esir
gibi kullanılmak istendigini ve halk ile zümre arasında ölüm kalım mücadelesi cereyan ettigini onlara
telkin etmek lazımdır. Halka ve köylüye davanın sümulü ve mahiyeti izah edilmeli, bugünkü savasın
dogrudan dogruya kendilerine ait bir dava oldugu anlatılmalıdır.”
228
party branches in the villages. Within this framework, the development of the
coffeehouses in the villages, as alternative political spaces, functioned as a tool to
develop the political consciousness of the peasants, by which the DP rose to the
power.
In the newspaper Demokrat Afyon, which was published to support the DP in
Afyon province, some of the articles mention this kind of use of the coffeehouses. In
this newspaper, articles written under the title of “The Council in the Coffeehouse,”
all of the kinds of propaganda techniques that Yurdoglu mentions were used. In the
political dialogues under this title, the discussions were held in order to give the
citizens a consciousness on the voting process. Some of the discussions that took part
under that title can be summarized as follows: To persuade the people not to believe
RPP propaganda such as “if you do not give your vote to us, uneasy days are waiting
for you,” spreading the conscious reply: “there is now law and justice that will
obstruct these lawless efforts” and free the mind of the DP supporter peasants from
the fear of the hegemonic power of the RPP government;375 to make the people not
demand the practices of the RPP, such as giving money to the ones that would vote
for the RPP during the elections, by saying that to accept that kind of money was
dishonest, impudent and cheated the people of their rights;376 to reveal the situation
of the people, which was the result of the oppression of the government to the people
supporting the opposition, by saying that the DP members had been exposed to
pressure and beatings from the police and gendarmerie;377 to attract the attention of
the people by telling the unlawful actions of the prominent RPP members of the
region;378 and to assert that the deputies were living in good conditions and only
375 “Kahvede Konsey,” Demokrat Afyon, 2 April 1947.
376 “Kahvede Konsey,” Demokrat Afyon, 2 April 1947-7 May 1947.
377 “Kahvede Konsey,” Demokrat Afyon, 7 May 1947-1 October 1947.
378 “Kahvede Konsey,” Demokrat Afyon, 5 November 1947.
229
thought of themselves, while the people lived in poverty, by criticizing the increase
in salary that the deputies voted to themselves.379
All of these titles give us some hint about what topics were discussed in the
village coffeehouses. In the end, all of these statements were part of the propaganda
discourse of a provincial oppositional newspaper. However, the important point here
is that the consciousness-giving campaigns that the DP carried out through its ocak
branches continued similarly at the local level and this discourse was mostly
expressed within the framework of the village coffeehouse form.
Another consciousness-giving practice that is seen in that newspaper appears
under the title of “Fireside Chats.” In these articles, someone outside of the village
visits a village coffeehouse and talks with the people gathered around the fireplace.
They mostly talk on the elections and practices of “democracy.” The importance of
the elections of ocak and district party branches was stressed by saying “Yes Tahir
Aga. Democracy begins with you.”380 As can be understood, this discourse is
coherent with the general policy of the party and in this way a general understanding
of being an active agent of politics was given to the peasants. The main goal of the
discourse was to give the political knowledge of the gaining of government power to
the peasants, who had never been involved with politics before. A typical example of
this discourse is: “The Democrats will not win the elections. The sovereignty of the
people will win.”381
After the 27 May coup, the ocak organizations of the political parties were
prohibited. After that time, there were no such organizations in the villages and
neighborhoods. This decision of prohibition can be evaluated as the result of being
379 “Kahvede Konsey,” Demokrat Afyon, 31 December 1947.
380 “Ocakbası Sohbetleri,” Demokrat Afyon, 2 April 1947. “Evet Tahir Aga. Demokrasi sizden baslar”
381 “Ocakbası Sohbetleri,” Demokrat Afyon, 7 January 1948. “Seçimi Demokrat kazanmayacak.
Ahalinin hakimiyeti kazanacak.”
230
anxious about the politicization of the peasants during this period. This prohibition
was supported by the RPP administration, which had failed to organize in the
villages during these years, and by the widespread post-coup discourse, which said
that politics had separated even the coffeehouses of the peasants in the villages. This
prohibition also shows how politics was perceived by some political circles. The
general understanding of defining politics as an elite-based business and asserting
that politics can only bring disorder to the villages or among the uneducated ones
would create this discourse on the village coffeehouses. This political perception also
defines the village as a unified and undistinguishable body. The entrance of politics
to this “glorified” body could only bring chaos and disorder. However, as was stated
above, the disorder that the politics had created in the villages was not as a result of
the entrance of politics to the countryside. The multi-party politics only accelerated
the visibility of the previously created but hidden social and economic problems and
relations that existed in the rural structures. The multi-party politics made them only
more visible and disturbing.
The non-availability of the existing place and tools of the government in
power necessitated the creation of new places and to allow the political opposition to
spread its political perspective to the masses. The most important one of these places
was development of the coffeehouses in the villages in relation with the ocak policy
of the DP. The coffeehouses were one of the most important places for political
practices in the period under discussion. Efforts were made to prohibit them or take
them under control at different times, and this shows the importance of the political
functions of these places. In the 1945-1960 period, the coffeehouses would be spread
throughout the country with the effect of economic development and the increase in
the welfare of the peasants. This increase in the number of coffeehouses would give
231
the DP opposition a new political place in which to organize in and to spread its
political thoughts. As a result, the center of the politics in the villages moved to an
alternative place, by removing itself from the state-controlled spaces. The regions in
which the coffeehouses were most developed and greatest in number were also the
regions where the opposition was strong.
With the development in broadcasting tools and with the widespread access to
the radio and newspapers, politics would also pass through a spatial change during
this period. As a result, the politics in the countryside would not only effect the
consciousness of the peasants, but also the spatial organization of the villages. The
development of the coffeehouses in the villages was the most basic and the most
grumbled sign of this situation.
In the next section, the newspapers that the peasants most frequently read
during the period in question will be analyzed, as important tools that shaped their
political consciousness. The importance of anti-communism, which was the most
obtrusive factor in these newspapers, in the development of the political
consciousness of the peasants will be shown.
The Peasants and Anti-Communism
Anti-communism was the most widespread component of the politics in the
post-War period, both in Turkey and the world. Although anti-communism had
existed before the Second World War in Turkey, the difference of this period’s anticommunist
tendencies would be their execution as a component of politics. The anticommunism
in this period would be accepted as a state policy and new tools would
be developed to practice that kind of policy. The general characteristics of the anti232
communist practices in all non-Soviet countries can be defined as systematically
taking under control all kinds of practices and thoughts that could give way to
communism and not only prohibit and control such practices and thoughts but also to
create a kind of political atmosphere in which all of the individuals should behave as
the spies of the state to inform on all kinds of “suspected” communist practices.
The anti-communist discourse mostly coincides with the application sphere of
the modernization theory in the articulation of the nationalist discourse. In this way,
while the “national pride” discourse was articulated with the modernization theory
through nationalism in the newly founded nation-states, every kind of possible
danger that could threaten the national unity was to be defeated through nationalism.
For that reason, the communist practices that were seen in that kind of countries, of
course in Turkey too, would mostly be intertwined with nationalism.
Anti-communism mostly fed the fears and anxieties of the society. The spread
of this thought to all countries was possible only by directing the people to an “other”
as the enemy. To encourage the acceptance of anti-communism by the general
public, it was necessary to make the people believe that they were living in a
“dangerous period.” The “danger” had to be proven in order to make the people
voluntarily waive some of their rights and freedom. A threat that concerns most of
the people in a society could only be realized when this threat attacked the “life
style” of the majority of the people. In all kinds of anti-communist discourse, no
matter how it is defined, the main component of the discourse is to prove this attack
on the “life style.” An assault on the foundations of the existing social and political
order, which can be defined on the axis of welfare, status and power relations, would
create discomfort and a kind of anxiety about an insecure future.382
382 Corey Robin, Fear: The History of a Political Idea (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press,
2004), p. 19.
233
Anti-communist thought mostly leaned on the existence of a kind of
“conspiracy” against the existing social and political order. Conspiratorial thought
mostly leaned on the assumption that if a structure, which was accepted as “good” in
substance, moved in a “bad” direction, the reason behind this had to be a “badness”
which did not want the “good” to be realized. The words of David Halberstam are
meaningful to understanding the period in question. According to him, during the
Cold War period, the dominant foreign policy stance of the United States could be
stated with the saying, “if events in the world were not as we wanted them, then
something conspiratorial had happened.”383 According to this conspiratorial anticommunist
understanding that was mostly dominant in the foreign policy discourse
of the Cold War period, some people or groups of people who are supported by and
directly took their order from some “foreign forces” attempted to weaken the state by
operating against the goodness of the nation and the state. Anti-communism also was
used as a tool to make people support some practices, especially in the foreign
policy, that they would never have supported voluntarily under normal conditions.
For example, the legitimatization tool of the Korea and Vietnam Wars was the anticommunist
discourse. In this matter, anti-communism was a directive factor that used
the protective needs of the people by making them believe that they were living in an
unsecure world and it was also used both in domestic and foreign policy making.
Communism, in the anti-communist discourse, was defined as a scapegoat that was
the source of every kind of problem, and with this definition anti-communism
became an ideological legitimatization tool.384
The anti-communist discourse seeks the support a of strong state and also
popular support and cooperation. To control and pay attention to all social and
383 David Halberstam, The Fifties (New York: Villard Books, 1993), p. 53.
384 David S. Painter, The Cold War: An International History, The Making of the Contemporary
World (London; New York: Routledge, 1999), p. 19.
234
political structures was the work not only of the state and security services but all the
“duty” of all citizens “who love their country and nation;” this is the essence of the
functioning of the anti-communist policies. In fact, within this framework, anticommunism
can be defined as maintaining the auto-control of the society in order to
create a counteraction against the factors that are defined as “harmless” to society.
Anti-communism became a politics of maintaining social control and holding
people in between the limits determined by the state authorities by limiting the
political activities in society. In addition to that, anti-communist practices created a
new group of people who are willing to cooperate with the practitioners of these
policies. These people, who actually were not so respected in their society, would act
as the voluntary spies of the state authorities to reveal the “hidden agenda” of the
“enemies.” Anti-communism became a means of money making for the people that
were willing to benefit from political patronage. The main factor which created the
tragic-comic incidents that occurred during the years in which anti-communism was
dominant would be the effect of this conspiratorial mentality. Naom Chomsky and
Edward S. Herman define this effect of anti-communism as follows:
It should be noted that when anti-Communist fervor is aroused, the
demand for serious evidence in support of claims of “communist”
abuses is suspended, and charlatans can thrive as evidential sources.
Defectors, informers, and assorted other opportunists move to center
stage as “experts,” and they remain there even after exposure as highly
unreliable, if not downright liars. Pascal Delwit and Jean-Michel
Devaele point out that in France, too, the ideologues of anticommunism
“can do and say anything”.385
In fact, according to the practitioners of anti-communism, “the enemy” bears
similar characteristics, as is said by Chomsky and Herman. The enemies of the state
and the nation “can do and say anything” for them, too. In addition to that “the
enemies of the nation” is not clearly defined by these people. They are always
385 Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the
Mass Media (New York: Pantheon Books, 2002), p. 30.
235
defined as known, but always remain in suspense. One of the main characteristics of
the anti-communist practices is this ambiguous definition of the enemies of the state.
By leaving this definition ambiguous, everyone can be seen as suspicious and this
will justify the necessity of taking the whole society under strict control. In this
framework, anti-communism was used as a tool to mobilize society against to the
Soviet Union and communism by creating an ideological front during the Cold War
years. In the following paragraphs, the instrumental redefinition of the peasantry as
an important part of the anti-communist practices will be examined.
After the Second World War, in the newly founded nation-states, which the
modernization theory called “underdeveloped countries,” the main problem was to
control the peasantry’s development and behavior with the transformation of the
rural structure after the modernization process.386 As will be shown in this section,
one of the most important tools of this controlling and inspection process was the
anti-communist discourse and its practices. After the Chinese Revolution in 1949, the
threat that the peasants could create in an “underdeveloped country” became clear.
Not only the working classes but also the peasants came to be seen as part of this
revolutionary process, which grew in strength after the Chinese Revolution. This
result also necessitated the tight control and inspection of the peasantry in the
underdeveloped capitalist society. During this inspection process, the peasants would
be taught to avoid from communism by using some pedagogical tools. The most
important one of these pedagogical tools was press.
During the post-War period, the press in Turkey was more active than it had
been in previous periods, with a great increase in the number of newspapers. In
addition to the newspapers and magazines at the national level, there was a great leap
386 For details on the modernization theory see Chapter One.
236
forward in provincial publishing. Frederick Frey calls this period a “communication
revolution” for Turkey in his study on the relation of the peasants to mass media. 387
According to Frey’s calculations the total number of daily newspapers published in
the 1945-1960 period quadrupled with respect to the previous periods. Other kinds of
publication also doubled during this period.388 As can be seen in Nilgün Gürkan’s
study, while the number of publications increased, the discussions in the newspapers
intensified and discussion topics became varied.389 With the increase in the peasants’
purchasing power, the peasants began to access these sources more intensely and
easily. The peasants became more aware of the country’s problems and the political
discussions and this awareness strengthened their ties with the society in which they
lived. As
brahim Yasa says, “the most important effect of the information and
transportation to politics can clearly be seen in the development of pressure groups.
People who have common interests and due to that have common behavior and
reactions in a society constitute the pressure groups.”390 The peasants followed the
same path. With the effect of the widespread media tools, they became aware of their
political existence and power, and in the end they began to put pressure on the
politics, as told above in detail. In short, the media became an effective tool in the
creation of the self-consciousness of the peasants.
Gavin Brockett mentions the importance of the provincial media in the
creation of a national identity in his research that covers the provincial press in
Turkey between 1945-1954. Apart from an elitist perception of the creation of the
national identity, he asserts that a new widespread and maturing public opinion was
387 Frederick W. Frey, The Mass Media and Rural Development in Turkey (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Center for International Studies, 1966), p. 170.
388 Ibid., p. 169.
389 Nilgün Gürkan, Türkiye'de Demokrasiye Geçiste Basın (1945-1950) (
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları,
1998).
390 Yasa, Türkiye'nin Toplumsal Yapısı ve Temel Sorunları, p. 88. “siyasal yönden haberlesme ve
ulastırmanın en büyük etkisi, baskı gruplarında açıkça görülmektedir. Bir toplumda ortak çıkarları ve
bu nedenle ortak davranısları ve tepkileri olan insanlar bir çıkar grubu haline gelirler.”
237
created with the help of the provincial press and this newly created public watched
not only the creation of the new national identity, but also contributed to its
creation.391 To reach that conclusion, Brockett analyzed more than fifty different
provincial newspapers. However, some of the sources, which are important mostly
for the present study not included in his study. The importance of these missing
sources is that these newspapers were the ones read by the peasants most.
Peasants did not read every kind of newspaper during those times. They
preferred the most loved ones in between the other alternative media sources.

brahim Yasa, in his monographic study on Sindel village, which is close to
Bergama, states that the peasants preferred and read some distinguished newspapers
instead of reading other sources. These newspapers were mostly published for the
peasant audiences.392 The most preferred ones were Karagöz,393 Köroglu,394
391 Gavin D. Brockett, "Betwixt and Between: Turkish Print Culture and the Emergence of a National
Identity 1945-1954" (PhD., University of Chicago, 2003), pp. 31, 78.
392 Yasa, Sindel, p. 88.
brahim Yasa also repeats this assertion in his study on Hasanoglan village, as
follows: “The mostly read newspapers in the coffeehouses are Köroglu and Keloglan:” “Kahvelerde
sık sık okunan Köroglu ve Keloglan gibi gazetelerdir.”
brahim Yasa, Hasanoglan Köyü'nün çtimaî-
ktisadî Yapısı (Ankara: TODA
E Yayınları, 1955), p. 48. It is possible to confirm this information
with the documents found in the State Archives. For example, in a document titled “CHP Aydın li
Parti Teskilâtının I.I.1949 tarihinden 30.VI.1949 tarihine kadarki durumu gösterir birinci Altı Aylık
Çalısma Raporu” (Six-Months Period Working Report on the Aydın Party Branch of the RPP,
covering the dates between I.I.1949/30.VI.1949), there is a question in page 25 asking for the names
of the newspapers published in the region and the names of the mostly read ones. The answer is as
follows: “The humorous newspapers such as Karagöz, Köroglu, are the most preferred newspapers
nowadays. Other humorous newspapers, which are published in this category, could not substitute
these two newspapers.” “Karagöz, Köroglu gibi mizah gazeteleri elyevm köylünün tuttugu
gazetelerdir. Bu kategoride çıkan bir çok mizah gazeteleri bu iki gazetenin yerini tutamamıslardır.”
Aydın Mebuslarının teftis raporlarının 2.Büro'ya gönderildigi. 20/9/1950, BCA, 490.01/623.45.1. It is
very hard to get the circulation numbers of the newspapers of the period. These numbers can only be
acquired from the Chamber of Commerce offices. An example on the designation of the circulation
numbers can be found in the Assembly Proceedings. Bülent Ecevit, a parliamentarian and a journalist
of the period, directs a parliamentarian question to the Prime Minister on 16 January 1958 on the
circulation numbers of the newspapers as follows: “I, with your mediation, request with my respect
the written declaration of the Prime Minister the average monthly circulations of the daily newspapers
and political and humorous magazines in Ankara,
stanbul and
zmir, for the year 1957.” “Ankara,
stanbul ve zmir’deki gündelik gazetelerle siyasi ve mizahi dergilerin 1957 yılındaki aylık satıs
ortalamalarını Basvekilin yazılı olarak bildirmesi hususunda tavassutunuzu saygılarımla rica
ederim.” This question was answered on 24 February 1958 as follows: “According to the Trade Law,
these numbers are related with the professional and commercial private of each enterprise, these
numbers should be kept in the Ministry folder unless the related enterprise permits them to be
released.” “Bu rakamlar, Ticaret Kanununa göre her müessesenin meslekî ve ticarî mahremiyetine
238
Karadayı,395 Kelkahya.396 The publishing formats of these newspapers were similar
to each other. Their size was that of half of a daily newspaper and printed in big font
sizes. Caricatures and photos were published more often than in the average
newspaper.
The most important aspect of these newspapers was their names. All of these
newspapers defined themselves as “people’s newspaper.” “People” was preferred
here in the place of “peasant.” Although they mostly were preferred by peasants, the
taallûk ettiginden alâkalı müessesenin müsaadesi alınmadıkça bu bilgiler Bakanlık dosyasında
mahfuzdur.” TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi, 24.2.1958,
: 45, C: 4, pp. 564–565.
393 Under the title of this newspaper the content is described as: “Publishes every Monday and
Thursday. The oldest humorous political People’s Newspaper.” “Pazartesi ve Persembe günleri çıkar.
Türkiye’nin en eski siyasi mizahi Halk Gazetesi” The establishment date of the newspapers is written
as 10 August 1908. According to the research of Erol Üyepazarcı, the exact date of the establishment
of Karagöz is unknown. Although it is true that it is the oldest of this kind of newspapers. The
newspaper policy was mostly in line with the government in power. Although it supported the
government in power, its establishment and management is independent from the center of the
politics. After an economic crisis in 26 January 1935, the newspaper is sold to the RPP. Although the
RPP handed over the publishing rights of the newspaper to Sedat Simavi for a while, Simavi left the
newspaper after 14 May 1950. After that time, the newspaper would be a propaganda tool of the RPP
opposition and its main audience would mostly be the peasants. For a detailed investigation on
Köroglu, see Erol Üyepazarcı, "Uzun Soluklu Bir Halk Gazetesi Karagöz ve Kurucusu Ali Fuad Bey,"
Müteferrika, no. 19 (Yaz 2001).
394 Under the title of the newspaper the content is described as: “The most read newspaper of Turkey.
Publishes every Wednesday and Saturday. Political independent people’s newspaper.” “Türkiye’nin en
çok okunan gazetesidir. Çarsamba ve Cumartesi günleri çıkar. Siyasi müstakil halk gazetesi”This one
was founded by Burhan Cahit Morkaya, a well-known auteur of the period, after Morkaya’s leaving
from Karagöz and have a similar format with Karagöz. During all of the issues used in this research
the editorial office of the newspaper was directed by “Vâlâ Nureddin”. After the DP’s accession to
power, this newspaper would be the official propaganda tool of the DP in order to reach the peasant
audience.
395 Kara Dayı was published as “Independent political People’s Newspaper” “Tarafsız siyasi Halk
Gazetesi”. The paper was owned by Fethi Özsoy an F. S. Yersel. The editorial office was directed by
Mustafa Yersel. This newspaper uses the most closer language to the peasants. As being an example
to the usage of “peasant language”, the newspaper tells its reason to be published in its first issue as
follows: “Greetings to Karadayıs: KARADAYI is the newspaper of the brave and proud ones, who do
not prostrate himself before any force but God, who disown any effendi other than his nation.
KARADAYI gets its voice from the people and its light from the truth; addicted to rightness, enemy to
crookedness. The main goal to be in this arena of press is for being duty to the country. O, you
bluffing Karadayıs of the Turkish country! Greetings to all of you from us!” “Karadayılara Selam:
KARADAYI Tanrıdan baska hiçbir kuvvetin önünde egilmiyen, milletinden baska hiçbir efendi
tanımıyan, yüregi pek, kafası dik babayigitlerin gazetesidir. KARADAYI, sesini halktan, ısıgını
hakikatten alır, dogruluga tutkun, egrilige düsmandır. Basın meydanına çıkısının tek amacı da yurda
hizmettir. Ey Türk ülkesinin tok sözlü Karadayıları! Bizden cümlenize selâm!” No: 1, 27 March 1948.
396 The content of this newspaper is described under its title as “Political, humorous, Neutral,
Nationalist Newspaper-Weekly” “Siyasî, mizahî, Tarafsız, Milliyetçi Gazete-Haftalık”. After the 57th
issue, it would be the official peasant newspaper of the Nation’s Party and change its title to Milletin
Sesi [The Voice of the Nation]. Its owner and general director was Rıza Koskun and Danis Remzi
Korok was the director of the editorial office.
239
poor and uneducated people in the cities also preferred these newspapers.397 Due to
that, the font sizes of these newspapers were bigger and more easily readable with
respect to other kinds of newspapers. The language had a more humorous style, as all
of them used this word to define themselves. In this manner, they might have thought
that they could attract the attention of the majority of people. Each one of them took
its name from a humorous historical or fictional character. These characters also
wrote in the newspapers and mostly criticize or commented on the daily political
happenings in a vulgar tongue.
This humorous approach, which was the main characteristics of these
“people’s newspapers,” could be investigated from the first appearance of this kind
of publication in Turkish history. In the research of Erol Üyepazarcı on Karagöz
newspaper, he states that the first publisher of Karagöz, Ali Fuad Bey used this kind
of language as early as 1908. He also says that this kind of approach to newspaper
publishing was first used in Hayal (Dream) magazine, which was published by
Teodor Kasap. The language used in Karagöz by Ali Fuad Bey was inspired from
Kasap’s Hayal.398
In these kinds of newspapers, the news and comments were mostly presented
in the form of poems. These poems were mostly in folkloric literature forms and the
critiques and comments are given in a humorous and satiric language. Religious
matters and histories of the prophets were other topics that appeared in these
newspapers. In addition to all of these, the most important aspect of these
397 Communist Party of Turkey (TKP-Türkiye Komünist Partisi) would also try to use this kind of
newspapers as a propaganda tool. During the last months of the RPP government, the TKP would
publish another “political humorous newspaper” named Nuhun Gemisi (Noah’s Ark). Every kind of
publishing stereotypes that were used in other newspapers can be seen in this newspaper, too. It had a
title character named Nuh (Noah) and a humorous motto as “Nuh der Peygamber demez”, a Turkish
idiom that corresponds to “dig one’s heel in” in English, but also a humorous saying meaning that
Nuh can say everything even the things that the Peygamber (prophet) cannot say. Nuhun Gemisi was
published only 31 issues. The first issue was published on 2 November 1949 and the last issue was
soon after the DP’s accession to power, on 31 May 1950.
398 Üyepazarcı, "Karagöz," p. 31.
240
newspapers was that all of these newspapers were used intensely as anti-communist
propaganda tools.
In all of these newspapers anti-communism was presented in various degrees,
which differed according to the changing relations between the Soviet Union and
Turkey. The anti-communist discourse appeared not in broad discussions and
descriptions on the topic, but mostly in poems and caricatures, as the general
characteristics of these papers. How the anti-communist discourse functioned in
these papers will be discussed below.
Figure 1. Caricature from Kara Dayı Figure 2. Caricature from Köroglu
As a general preference, the first pages of these newspapers featured halfpage
caricatures. In these caricatures the most current political issues were presented
and the main characters, after which the papers took their names, appeared in these
caricatures and commented on that political issue. For example, in a headline
caricature in Köroglu, a girl representing the “East” hugged a Turkish soldier and
241
asked for his protection from the communism threat. The “World”, cheering behind
the girl, has already given this duty to “Mehmetçik” (the synonym for the Turkish
plain soldier) and due to that trusts his power.399 Just under this caricature Minister of
National Education states that they will not hesitate to spend money on the education
of the peasants in teaching them to distinguish between the truth and wrong, in order
to protect the peasants from the communism threat.400
Yet another example can be given from the Kara Dayı (Black Uncle)
newspaper. In this caricature, “Kara Dayı” talks to plain soldier, who is protecting
the borders from the “communism snake” that is trying to swallow up the whole
world.401 In all of these newspapers, communism is defined through the metaphors of
Soviet expansionism and the “defence of the fatherland”, as can be seen in the
examples. In most of these definitions, communism is defined as an “enemy” against
which all of the citizens have to be mobilized against for the protection of the
country. The power that will eliminate this enemy is defined as the army, which is
the savior of the “Turkish nation”, and the Mehmetçik as the symbolic representation
of the army. With this newly gained mission, the plain soldier also represents the
need of the world for the power of the Turkish nation and Turkey for protection from
the communist threat.
This discourse and the definition of the communism were mostly created with
the help of the notions of nation and nationalism. The most used motives in the
creation of the anti-communism in people’s newspapers was the “national pride” and
being the “protector” of the nations in the world. The male peasants usually got
acquainted with the world outside of their own living space during their military
service. Most of the peasants recounted their military service stories with honor. Also
399 Köroglu, 11 January 1950.
400 “Köylünün Hakkını Yiyemeyiz”, Köroglu, 11 January 1950.
401 Kara Dayı, 31 March 1948.
242
their military service was one of the places for the peasants to acquire the
“integrating” national identity. The Mehmetçik motif, which took place in the
communism propaganda materials, had a special meaning with which the peasants
could identify themselves. Due to that the Mehmetçik motif was repeated frequently
in these newspapers. Richard D. Robinson, who was a sociologist during the 1950s
and 1960s and prepared many studies on the transformation of the peasantry in
Turkey, wrote a series of letters to The Institute for Current World Affairs, and
spared one of them to the relation of peasants with military service and its relation
with anti-communism. In his letter titled as “Communism in the Villages,” Robinson
says the following on the relation of peasants with communism and nationalism:
First what does communism mean to the villager? The answer to that
one is simple and definite. It means domination by Russia, destruction of
family organization, denial of his religion, and confiscation of land titles.
I believe these points to be well implanted in the village mind during the
compulsory military service through which all able-bodied villagers
must pass. (…) €But what really does nationalism mean to the villager?
The glib answer would be “defense of the fatherland”. I can say
“fatherland” here rather than “village” because the peasant does, in fact,
identify himself as a “Turk”. His term of military service has done that
for him. But for what positive ideals would he fight? To protect his
traditional way of life? But the villager is far from complacent right now
with his lot. An ever-widening vista of the world – via radio, cinema,
newspaper, improved transport, and village school– it is making the
villager more and more aware of the shortcomings of his own
surroundings. It is my guess that if the active fear of foreign domination
were eliminated, the concept of nationalism as an active force would
rapidly fall by the wayside in the villages.402
In this framework, a kind of anti-communism shaped by the “defence of the
fatherland” was defined as the unique element that would maintain national unity
among the peasants. In this way, anti-communism would undertake the ideological
function of maintaining the social unity among the various groups in society by
means of nationalism. As can be seen in Robinson’s words, this function could
402 Richard D. Robinson, "38-Communism in the Villages (September 25, 1949)," in Letters from
Turkey (Robert College: Reprinted for the Peace Corp by Permission of The Institute for Current
World Affairs, 1965).
243
mostly be achieved mostly by the means of compulsory military service. As a result,
military service would have the role of uniting the concepts of homeland defence,
nationalism and anti-communism together.
Another concept that is underlined in Robinson’s definitions is to protect the
“way of life” of the peasants. In this instance, when defined through materialism and
atheism, communism would be understood as a threat to the world of the peasants,
which was shaped by strict conservative and religious rules. As Brockett says, “by
fighting in the Korean War Turks were playing a crucial role defending the Islamic
world against not only imperialism but also atheism.”403 During the Korean War, the
peasants were fighting also to protect their way of living and by doing that so to
protect Islam, as being the Mehmetçik. Against the destructive force coming from the
outside world, the Muslim-Turkish peasant image, which protected the values of the
“East,” would be strengthened and in a way would become the overwhelming way of
the peasants’ defining themselves.
As can be understood from the caricatures given above the communism that
was presented to the peasants was like a snake trying to infiltrate to the country by
devious means. In this way they wanted to show that the communists inside the
country were supported by other “enemy” states. These accusations were used
frequently in the anti-communist discourse. The practitioners of the anti-communist
discourse asserted that the communists were fed by other countries both financially
and ideologically and were part of an international organization that sought to ruin
the country.404
403 Brockett, "Betwixt and Between", p. 396.
404 In most of the anti-communist discourse communism is defined as an “alien ideology”. The reply
to this assertion is mostly given as if nationalism or democracy is also not an alien ideology fort the
Turkish society. Fuad Köprülü answers this comparison in his example of anti-communist discourse,
as follows: “Some small or big communist groups, which are still connected to the Third International
in Moscow, are trying to operate hidden or openly for the success of this second front. In Turkey,
244
In spite of all of these negative propaganda on communism, these newspapers
warned their audiences that not every kind of rights demanding practices could be
defined as communism. Especially, together with the general characteristics of the
period in question, the rights demanding practices of the people were distinguished
from communism. For example, in a poem titled “Our Workers Cannot Be
Communist,” which was written by “Köroglu,” both the rights demanding and
becoming aware of the communist propaganda were recommended to the workers.
One should be neither bottle holder nor disciple of communism./
However not everyone who asks for his rights can be labeled as
“Communist!” / How can it be: Oppress this and that with charging them
for being “Communist!” / We will not get lost in confusion, we do not
want any play. / Let the black sheep, white sheep become apparent!405
These newspapers also undertook a pedagogical role in both cultural and
political matters. In addition to teaching the peasant an intensely anti-communist
discourse, they also taught them how to use and demand their rights, as can be seen
in the poem above. Another example of this pedagogical function of these
newspapers can be given from Karagöz newspaper. In the caricature given below,
again connected with the same organization, the existence of hidden and small operation centers are
know by everyone. This is what is meant by the expressions of ‘alien’ and ‘rooted outside’. … The
only target of this sinister propaganda, which hides in order to hunt pure and innocent people under
various masks changing time to space sometimes as the follower of the sharia, sometimes as being
reformer, sometimes as being the lover of freedom, sometimes as being nationalist and even as racist,
is to demolish this country from inside and thus to create a ground for the invasion desires of
Muscovite imperialism.” “Moskova’da Üçüncü Enternasyonale hâlâ baglı kalan küçük büyük
komünist grupları bu ikinci cephenin muvaffakıyeti için gizli veya açık faaliyetlerde bulunmaktadırlar.
Türkiye’de de yine aynı teskilâta baglı gizli ve küçük faaliyet merkezleri bulundugu herkesin
malûmudur. ste “kökü dısarıda” ve “yabancı” tâbirleri ile kastedilen mâna bundan ibarettir. … Sâf
ve mâsum insanları kandırıp avlamak hususunda, zemin ve zamana göre, türlü türlü maskeler altında
gizlenen, kâh seriatçı, kâh inkılâpçı, kâh hürriyet âsıkı, kâh milliyetçi ve hattâ ırkçı görünen bu mesum
propagandanın tek hedefi, bir memleketi içinden yıkmak ve böylece Moskof emperyalizminin istilâ
emellerine bir zemin hazırlamaktır.” Fuad Köprülü, Demokrasi Yolunda, ed. T. Halasi-Kun (The
Hague: Mouton & Co., 1964), pp. 248, 690.
405 Köroglu, 8 February 1950. “Bolseviklige olmamalı ne yardakçı, ne çömez. / Lakin her hak arayana
“Komünist!” de denmez. / Bu nasıl is: Sunu bunu “Komünisttir!” deyip ez. / Gürültüye gelemeyiz,
istemeyiz biz oyun. / Belli olsun apasikar kara koyun, ak koyun!”
245
“Karagöz” sits with the peasants in the village coffeehouse and discusses and
criticizes current political matters with them in humorous dialogs.406
Figure 3. Caricature from Karagöz
As can also be seen from this caricature, the publishing policy of these
newspapers was mostly to create a political perception in the peasants according to
their political perspective. Thus, they used the language and cultural perception
patterns of the peasants, but did not try to change or affect this private sphere. Due to
that, these journals were the most preferred and read news sources for the peasants.
Although these newspapers used a kind of “folksy” language, they were
always in a student-teacher relation with their audience. While making the peasants
aware of the political development in the country, at the same time they had the duty
of “modernizing” and saving the peasants from their bad habits. From within this
framework this approach in the newspapers coincided with the general approach of
the intellectuals of the period to the ordinary people. Levent Cantek analysis the
406 Karagöz, 22 June 1953.
246
developments in the everyday life during this period in his research and he defines
the intellectuals of this kind as the member of a “supervisory generation”:
The method that the supervisory generation follows in every discussion
is to define (criticize) every fact that they oppose to as corrupted,
dangerous and alien and to transform this to a discourse, which closes
down on itself and accepted as indisputable. It is accepted that the truth
lies at the base of this discourse and due to that the narrator (bureaucratjournalist-
auteur) talks with a higher language that transmits the
truths.407
The representatives of this generation asserted that they owned the key of the
“truth” and everything other than what they said was accepted as made up or a
deception or mostly created as a result of gaining a political benefit. In a way these
elites used the language of “modernization” and, as can be seen in the modernization
theory, too, they had a world of judgment created only through the dualities of good
and evil. Fuad Köprülü, who can be accepted as a the member of this “supervisory
generation,” said the following:
The Turkish nation, who appreciates the benefit of the country today
better than the ones that want the unnecessary tutelage of himself, has
become mature enough to not pay attention to every kind of propaganda
that will not fit to this benefit and he will meet them with disgust. The
Turkish characteristics, which are always objective and realistic, have
reached at to the level of using all of its political rights consciously after
at least a half century long political education and many experiences. No
matter which mask they wear, we will sure be an eyewitness to the
befooling of the ones that will try to deceive him.408
This pedagogical language also could be presented in a depreciatory and
humiliating language style during the struggle against communism. This depreciatory
407 Levent Cantek, Cumhuriyetin Bülug Çagı-Gündelik Yasama Dair Tartısmalar (1945-1950)
(
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2008), p. 28. “Denetleyici kusagın hemen her tartısmada izledigi
yöntem, karsısına aldıgı (elestirdigi) olguyu yozlasmıs, tehlikeli, yabancı saymak ve bunu kendi
üzerine kapanan, tartısılmaz bir söyleme dönüstürmektir. Bu söylemin temelinde hakikat oldugu için
anlatıcı (bürokrat-gazeteci-yazar) dogruları aktaran bir üst dille konusur.”
408 Köprülü, Demokrasi Yolunda, p. 71. “Bugün memleketin menfaatini, kendisine fuzuli vasilik etmek
istiyenlerden çok iyi takdir eden Türk milleti, bu menfaate uymıyan her türlü propagandalara kulak
vermiyecek ve onları nefretle karsılayacak kadar olgunlasmıstır. Daima objektif ve realist olan Türk
karakteri, en az yarım asırlık bir siyasi terbiyeden ve birçok tecrübeden sonra bütün siyasi haklarını
suurla kullanacak bir seviyeye gelmis bulunuyor. Onu, her ne maske altında olursa olsun aldatmaga
çalısacakların nasıl aldanacaklarına elbette sahit olacagız.”
247
language was chosen specially in some instances. In this way communism would not
be a political preference for the peasants to embrace. Also due to the fear of being
humiliated the peasants would not be curious about its real meaning, because, the
possibility of being a communist was not only defined as a dangerous attempt, but
also as “idiocy.” In these people’s newspapers the examples of this kind of humorous
and humiliating language can be seen. For example, the news of the arrested
communists in Istanbul was given in Kara Dayı as follows:
Some perverts and idiots in Istanbul, whose number reaches 53, tried to
establish a communist party clandestinely. These ones got arrested while
trying to start the business. They immediately were sent to the court.
Their first trial was held on the 30rd of March. We do not know what
was said and told inside, because the trial was held close to the press.
The ones that want to plant the seeds of separation to the country would
of course be slapped by the justice.409
Adjectives such as “pervert” and “idiot” might be the most interesting ones
that used in defining communists. These adjectives definitely were used to present
the communists as clumsy, sinister and perverted. As a result, communism would go
from being a political approach, which the peasants could take as an example for
themselves, and to being a humiliation and disdainful object. It is possible to define
this style of narration as “emasculation by making ludicrous.” It may be asserted that,
this kind of approach lies under the similar use of narration in all of the people’s
newspapers under analysis here. The portrayal of the events to the peasants and the
average people with this more humorous and depreciatory language depreciated the
portrayed event in the eyes of the target audience and in a way lessened the possible
political effect of the alternative approaches. In this way, the communist political
409 “Komünist Partisi Kuracaklarmıs”, Kara Dayı, 7 April 1948. Emphasises are mine. “stanbulda
sayısı elli üçü bulan bazı sapık ve salaklar el altından bir komonist partisi kurmaya kalkmıslar.
Bunlar daha ise baslamak isterlerken yakayı ele verdiler. Hemen mahkemeye gönderildiler. Martın
30nda, ilk durusmaları yapıldı. Durusma kapalı geçtiginden neler soruldu, ne cevaplar verildi
bilmiyoruz. Memlekette ayrılık tohumu ekmek isteyenler elbette adaletin tokadını yiyeceklerdir.”
248
preferences were politically “emasculated” and would not be taken into “serious”
consideration by the peasants.
As Chomsky and Herman noted above, anti-communist practices create some
opportunist people and these people use the suitable political atmosphere to their
own benefit most of the time. Some similar examples can be seen in the peasants’
relation with politics during the period in question. Communism would be used as an
accusatory tool by some people to solve their private problems. Mihri Belli, a wellknown
communist, says the following words on this kind of use of communism in
between the peasants:
It became a tradition to sneak the people as being communist by the ones
who bore enmity to the others under the sway of intense propaganda that
presented communism as being a Russian spy. On one day or another we
might see the news of this sort in the newspapers: “In the x village that is
tied to such sub-district of such district of such city, a peasant named
Ahmet came to the village coffeehouse and, hitting the table, yelled ‘I
am communist! Long live Stalin!’ The Peasant Ahmet, who was sneaked
by the village headman, was arrested and the investigation was begun”.
By the time the Peasant Ahmet (if he can) told the real reason of the
sneak was the land fight between the village headman and himself, he
stayed in jail for month and years. Sometimes, although the real reason
that lay behind the sneak is understood, the officials, who had become
afraid of their own shadows in the hysterical atmosphere that had been
created, could not dare to release the victim.410
Finally it can be asserted that during this period the peasantry was redefined
by anti-communism. As can be seen in the words of Köprülü, quoted above,
comparisons between communism and national characteristics were made frequently.
410 Mihri Belli, Mihri Belli'nin Anıları-nsanlar Tanıdım 2 (
stanbul: Dogan Kitap, 1999), p. 57.
“Komünizmi Rus casuslugu olarak gösteren yogun propagandanın etkisinde insanların hasım
bildikleri kimseleri komünist diye ihbar etmeleri artık âdet olmustu. Gün geçmez gazetelerde suna
benzer haberlere rastlar olmustuk: “Falan vilayetin, filan ilçesinin filanca bucagına baglı x köyünde
Ahmet adındaki köylü içkili olarak köy kahvesine gelmis ve masayı yumruklayarak ‘Ben komünistim.
Yasasın Stalin’ diye bagırmaya baslamıstır. Köy muhtarı tarafından ihbar edilen Köylü Ahmet
tutuklanarak hakkında kavusturma açılmıstır.” Köylü Ahmet ihbarın asıl nedeninin kendisi ile muhtar
arasında tarla kavgası oldugunu anlatana kadar (o da anlatabilirse) aylar yıllar hapiste yatıyordu.
Bazen de ihbarın asıl nedeni anlasıldıgı halde, estirilen o histeri havası içinde gölgesinden korkar
hale gelmis olan yetkililerin magduru salmaya cesaret edemedikleri oluyordu.” A similar incident is
found in one of the documents found in the State Archives during the research. However it could not
become possible to reach at the details of the incident. Siirt’te bazı makamlara (Yasasın Komünizm,
Kahrolsun Cumhuriyet) gibi gönderilen mektuplar hakkında takibat, 17/9/1948, BCA, 30.01/66.410.1.
249
The anti-communist discourse mostly leaned on the “natural characteristics” of the
people, nation or some distinguished groups as being the proof of not being
supporters of communism. A similar discourse was made up in defining the peasants
of the period, too. Richard D. Robinson tries to define the peasants and their relation
with communism by leaning on the peasants’ so-called “natural” characteristics.
Except for religion, nationalism and the anti-Russian attitudes of the peasants, which
were also defined in the letter of Robinson given above, Robinson tells the reasons
for the Turkish peasants for not being communist as follows:
The Anatolian villager is an individualist. I have found the Anatolian to
be very much inclined against cooperative enterprise. He wants to be on
his own. … The Anatolian villager is a capitalist. … The Anatolian
villager is a cynic. … The Anatolian villager is afraid. … A communist
protagonist would find it hard sledding to convince a villager as to the
advantages of any type of centralized control, however temporary it
might be pictured. The villager has learned to fear those who would do
too much for him. …The Anatolian villager is suspicious.411
The anti-communist discourse was developed as an important consciousnessgiving
element for the peasants during the period in question. When especially the
newspapers which were mostly read by the peasants are examined it will not be
wrong to assert that anti-communism was the main ideological mobilizer for this
group. During this period, when the peasants became an active political element, they
had to be protected from the “poisonous” effects of communism. The anticommunist
practices during this period were designed in various forms differing
according to the characteristics of the target groups. Here, when the relation of
peasants with politics increased, it was used as a controlling mechanism. While the
peasants were gaining a kind of political consciousness, which were mostly framed
by the use and the protection of their rights, the practitioners of anti-communism
tried to control this development and tried to keep the peasants from going to the
411 Robinson, "Communism."
250
“extremes”. Although anti-communism was the dominant ideological perspective
during the period in question, when the people’s newspapers are being analyzed, it
becomes possible to assert that anti-communism was also presented as being an
component of democratic development. Thus, during the peasants’ participation in
the democratic processes, their “level” of participation would be in control. While
trying to determine if the peasants by nature were inclined to communism, some
pedagogical practices were introduced in order to prevent any kind of possible
tendencies towards communism. By doing that, some “destructive” influences which
could be created with the peasants’ participation in politics would be balanced by
using anti-communist practices. Thus it can be asserted that while the peasants were
becoming an active component of politics during this period, their limits were also
being defined by various mechanisms. Anti-communist practices can be accepted as
having been one of them.
This chapter discussed the development of the relation of the peasants to
politics through various examples and practices. When the common themes in this
process are repeated it will be easier to see the overall development of this
relationship. First of all, it can be asserted that the relation of the peasants to the state
passed through a kind of educational process during this period. This educational
process had a broad content, which included an emphasis on political rights in the
DP’s propaganda practices and also the anti-communist practices as can be seen in
the people’s newspapers of the period. Although they had an important place in the
political discourse of the previous periods, the peasants actually had not been an
active element in politics. Due to that, this educational process was necessary for the
adaptation of the peasants to the new political atmosphere.
251
This educational process was realized not only with the propaganda practices
and publications, but also as a result of the peasants’ own experiences that took place
while creating their relation to politics. The peasants, as can be seen in the Arslanköy
Case, began to learn how to access politics by themselves. As the peasants’ effect on
politics and became an increasingly active component of it, they also began to
understand the connection between politics and their living conditions. Within this
framework, politics would be a process that was being learned by the peasants
through their own experiences.
The peasants became aware of their rights during this period. This may be
accepted as the most important development of the period for them. The peasant
would also put into practice the relation of politics to the law again by their own
experiences and, with the help of this, they would develop a political behavior on the
way of protecting their political rights. The “rights-demanding” approach would be
developed during this period and would be a settled understanding in all kind of
relations of the peasants in all phases of politics. As a result of the DP’s propaganda
activities realized during its oppositional years, this “rights-demanding” approach
would be developed and would continue during its power years, too. From that time
on, the peasants would no longer be the passive recipients of politics, but a
questioning, demanding and active component of politics.
The most effective element in the creation of this process was the increasing
awareness of the peasants of their own political power, which also continued after
the DP’s accession to power. In becoming aware that they could even change the
government in power, the relation of the peasants to politics changed. In the previous
periods the peasants had tried to stay away the state business as far as possible.
However, during this period they would directly got in touch with the state and
252
government. This kind of relationship reveals some hints about defining the peasants
as not passive elements, which is mostly repeated in the research on this period, but
mostly as a “demanding” and compelling component in politics. This relation of
peasants with the state and the government brought the peasants’ increasing interest
in the political and economic problems of the country. As a result, the peasants began
to identify themselves with politics.
While these developments had direct effects on the peasants’ political
consciousness, there were some changes as a result in the center of politics. The
peasants were defined in ways different from the ideological definitions of previous
times. The peasants were not be only an “imagined” entity in the ideological
discourse of the state, but mostly a “real” element in politics. The increase in the
visibility of the peasants by showing their power and their effect on politics made
them a power, which the transition to multi-party politics required. This visibility
changed the discourse into one that accepted the peasants as a party in political
struggle. Within this framework, this activity of the peasants changed the way
politics was practiced.
It would be better to define this process as being not the direct creation of the
peasants, but mostly as a mutual interaction. It would not be appropriate to define the
peasants as being the direct “agents” in political development during this period.
However, this does not obstruct the definition the peasants as of having been an
active component of politics. During this period, the peasants effected and changed
the scope of the political system’s relation with the masses. The increase in the
political visibility of the peasants raised the value of the peasants. As a result, the
peasants reached a new consciousness level, in which they learned about making
politics by experiencing it and began to demand their rights from politics. This
253
consciousness level maybe was not as high as it was “desired” as it is stated in some
of the research dealing with the period in question. As was shown above, the
peasants developed a new political consciousness which would help them acquire an
important place in politics for themselves.
254
CHAPTER V
THE MAKING OF THE “VILLAGE LITERATURE”
The peasant is a creature that grows and dies like grass.412
Sülman Aga was sleeping. He had no knowledge on the power of his
hands. He was peaceful as he was going to awake to happy worlds,
his face was shining… The ants were walking on the top of his
hands… They were there like the priceless treasures of the human
power… If I wanted to describe my village to someone, I would
show these dirty, scratched hands… I experienced altogether the
aches of their lands, the burn of their hearts, their desperation, their
bandy range when I looked at them… Doesn’t our future depend on
the value we give to them? I was burning with the desire to cradle
and kiss these hands gently…413
[Kemal Tahir] A man who loves me well, who loves me extremely
well, who extremely depends on me, who would not hesitate to give
his life for me if necessary and who faces many pressures for me.
Even though he is a native of Çorum and he is extremely curious
about reading novels, he does not understand a thing about the novel
I wrote about Çorum. Do you know what he does not understand?
He does not understand why am I writing such simple things.414
Kemal Karpat, like every intellectual that tries to analyze the social values
and transformation of society, says that “literature should be the first strong source
for anyone who is going to write the social history of Turkey.”415 He especially
emphasizes the importance of literature in the analysis of the 1945-1960 period.
Literary works and discussions on literature can also be said to be a space for the
412 Resat Enis, Toprak Kokusu (
stanbul: Örgün Yayınevi, 2002), p. 8. “Ot gibi biten, ot gibi ölen bir
mahlûktur köylü.”
413 M. Basaran, Aç Harmanı-Çarıgımı Yitirdigim Tarla (
stanbul: Varlık Yayınevi, 1973), p. 77.
“Sülman Aga uyuyordu. Ellerinin gücünden haberi yoktu. Mutlu dünyalara uyanacakmıs gibi rahattı,
pırıltılıydı yüzü... Karıncalar geziniyordu ellerinin üstünde.. nsan gücünün essiz gömüleri gibiydiler
orada... Birine köyümü anlatmak istesem, bu kirli, çentikli elleri gösterirdim... Toprakların agrısını,
yüreklerin yanıklıgını, çaresizlikleri, yumruklasmıs öfkeleri birden yasıyordum onlara baktıkça...
Onlara verecegimiz degere baglı degil miydi gelecegimiz? Sokulmak, usulca bu elleri öpmek istegiyle
yanıyordum...”
414 Fakir Baykurt et al., Bes Romancı Köy Romanı Üzerinde Tartısıyor (
stanbul: Düsün Yayınevi,
1960), p. 68. “[Kemal Tahir] Beni çok seven, beni son derece seven, bana son derece baglı olan,
icabında benim için hayatını feda etmekten çekinmeyen ve türlü kuvvetleri göze alan adam. Çorum’un
yerlisi oldugu halde ve son derece de roman okumaga meraklı oldugu halde, Çorum hakkında
yazdıgım romandan hiçbir sey anlamıyor. Neyi anlamıyor bilir misiniz? Seyi anlamıyor. Bu kadar
basit seyleri niye yazıyorsun?”
415 Kemal H. Karpat, Çagdas Türk Edebiyatında Sosyal Konular (
stanbul: Varlık Yayınevi, 1962), p.
10. “Türkiye’nin sosyal tarihini yazacak olanların ilk saglam kaynagı süphesiz ki edebiyat olacaktır.”
255
intellectuals in which they define or criticize the socio-political developments of their
times. As every political and economic transformation in a society creates its own
literature, the literary works and discussions try to affect the direction of these
developments. The men of letters or the authors and their works, in order to have an
influence on the readers, have an important function in society as effective tools in
the creation of social perception and consciousness. Within this framework, it would
not be wrong to say that literature, society and politics have mutual effects each
other. While the political and economic developments of the period affect the
development of the literature, the literary works also have the potential to affect
them. This affect of literature on political developments has been seen in many
societies at various times. Especially during crises and transition periods, both of
which could result in similar consequences, the duty of being a social stimulant for
the social perceptions and feelings is undertaken most of the time by literature, and
the authors become the representatives of a particular mission in this way. At similar
historical turning points, men of letters, mostly due to being the major elements in
the intellectual perception of society, have used literature as a tool to spread their
political and social thoughts to the wider society. Within this framework, literature
can be described as an efficient tool for intellectual thinking and practices.
Due to that, when especially Turkish literature is taken into consideration,
literary texts mostly have been used as tools for spreading ideas to society in
literature form shaped according to the ideological perceptions of the authors.
Accordingly, many important authors in Turkish intellectual history have been
literature writers, or during their lifetimes most of them have felt the “necessity” to
write or deal with literature. This peculiarity in Turkish intellectual history also
256
shows how important it is to analyze literary in detail during social history research
on Turkey.
Literature is not “just” literature. The footprints of the Ottoman-Turkish
modernization adventure can be traced by studying only the literature texts of the
period. During the Ottoman and Republican periods, and even today, writers and
literature have been important elements of the political and social movements in
Turkey. In this respect, mostly, literature can be described as the “relatively free
space of oppositional thoughts and movements.” Therefore, literature is a space in
which one can trace both the opposition of the intellectuals and the suppression and
hegemonic endeavors of the state that are practiced against the intellectuals and to
the literature space in general. The political attitudes and the “precisions” of the state
can be understood with the investigation of the many literature discussions that took
place during the Ottoman and Republican periods.
The “village literature” genre, which is the main subject of this chapter, will
be analyzed here not only as a literary happening, but also through its effects on the
social, cultural and political spheres of the period in question. As the main question
of this thesis, the creation of the “reality” of the peasants in the literary texts and in
the perception of society through the literary texts will be analyzed. It will be
asserted in this chapter that, as was shown in the other chapters accordingly, the
peasants became more “real” and “visible” as a result of the dominancy of this
peculiar literary genre during the period. With the dominancy of the village literature
genre, the peasants were redefined in the perception of the wider society.
257
Defining the Village Literature
First, a conceptual problematic must be solved: Which literary texts can be
accepted in the village literature genre? This is not an easy question to answer.
Novels, the main subjects of which are the village and peasantry, had been written
since the first examples of novel were seen in Turkey. For many literature historians,
the first example of village literature is accepted as Kara Bibik (Black Bibik), which
was written in 1890 by Nabizade Nazım.416 Kara Bibik was actually a 35-40 page
long story in which the most stereotyped subjects of the village literature, such as the
poverty and the ignorance of the peasants, the exploitation of the peasants by the
landlords, were treated.417 However, when the discussions during the making of the
village literature genre especially in the 1950-1960 period are taken into
consideration, rather than Kara Bibik, the novel Küçük Pasa (Young Pasha), which
was written in 1910 by Ebubekir Hazım Tepeyran and simplified and translated to
Latin letters in 1946, was accepted as the first example of the village literature
genre.418 After these pioneering novels any kind of literary texts which used peasants
or villages as subjects were considered to be in the village literature genre.
416 Ramazan Kaplan, Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Romanında Köy (Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlıgı
Yayınları, 1988), p. 5; Fethi Naci, 100 Soruda Türkiye'de Roman ve Toplumsal Degisme (
stanbul:
Gerçek Yayınevi, 1981), p. 264; A. Ömer Türkes, "Tasra
ktidarı!," Toplum ve Bilim, no. 88, Bahar
(2001): p. 201. Kara Bibik is recently published together with its original Ottoman text: Nâbîzâde
Nâzım, Karabibik, trans. M. Fatih Andı (
stanbul: 3F Yayınevi, 2006).
417 Karaömerlioglu, Orada Bir Köy Var Uzakta, p. 152.
418 Baykurt et al., Bes Romancı, pp. 56-57. In a panel discussion held with the mainstream
representatives of the village literature genre of the 1950s (Yasar Kemal, Kemal Tahir, Orhan Kemal,
Mahmut Makal, Fakir Baykurt and Talip Apaydın) the participants tried to maintain the historical
roots of the genre. Yasar Kemal did not participate the discussion as a last minute delay and the
discussions were published later. During the discussions, it can be observed that, these writers wanted
to pinpoint the historical origin of this literary genre. Although the historical references they gave
during the discussion did not have a relation to their literary content and form, they had a
legitimatizing historical origin for their existence. In fact, the words that Fakir Baykurt said to Kemal
Tahir, “We are looking for a beginning, Mr. Kemal!” can be evaluated as a clear confession of their
need of origin. (p. 65) Mahmut Makal gave the following information in his memoirs on this
gathering: “In the summer of 1959 in the Lozan Kulüp in Kadıköy a panel discussion was held. The
weekly Pazar Postası journal, which was published by Cemil Sait Barlas, had prepared this
258
There are two different definitions for the village literature. Mainly when
someone mentions “village literature” they are referring to a literature movement,
which started with Mahmut Makal in 1950 and advanced from the mid-1960s and
later nearly disappeared after the mid-1970s. The second definition roughly refers to
any kind of literature text, in which the subject lives in the countryside. These kinds
of texts do not make a literary genre; they only used the village and peasants as
background in their stories. The examples of this kind start with Kara Bibik and can
also be found in the literary texts of the 2000s. Due to this conceptual confusion,
Taner Timur asks the questions, “Is it possible to speak of a special literary genre
called ‘village literature’? Or is it one of the conceptual delusions that is peculiar to
us?”419
Timur tries to answer these questions by giving examples and defining village
literature in international terms. Especially with relating the appearance of the genre
in France and Russia to the troubled economic and politic events in those countries,
he asserts that village novels developed under the pains of the transition from
feudalism to capitalism. According to Timur, the village literature genre (Roman
rustique-Bauernroman) was created during the 1830s and its first representatives
were the Swedish author Gotthelf, the German author Auerbach and the French
author George Sand.420 Although examples of this literature genre in Turkey for most
discussion. Kemal Tahir, Talip Apaydın, Fakir Baykurt, Orhan Kemal and I participated this
discussion, which started at mid-afternoon and ended towards morning. The discussions that were
being taped, were published as a book named “Bes Romancı Tartısıyor” (Five Novelists are
Discussing) by Aziz Nesin.” “1959 yazında Kadiköy’deki Lozan Kulüp’te bir açık oturum
düzenlenmisti. Cemil Sait Barlas’ın çıkardıgı haftalık “Pazar Postası” dergisi düzenlemisti bu
toplantıyı. kindin baslayıp sabaha karsı biten bu açık oturuma: Kemal Tahir, Talip Apaydın, Fakir
Baykurt, Orhan Kemal ve ben katılmıstık. Banda alınan konusmaları sonradan Aziz Nesin ‘Bes
Romancı Tartısıyor’ adıyla kitap olarak çıkardı.” Mahmut Makal, Anımsı Acımsı, 3 ed. (Ankara:
Güldikeni Yayınları, 1996), p. 8.
419 Taner Timur, Osmanlı-Türk Romanında Tarih, Toplum ve Kimlik, 2 ed. (Ankara:
mge Kitabevi,
2002), p. 99. “gerçekten ‘köy romanı’ diye bir roman türünden söz etmek olası mıdır? Yoksa bu bize
özgü kavramsal yanılgılardan biri midir?”
420 Ibid., p. 100.
259
of the time do not mach up with the representatives from the other countries, in
general the Turkish examples were written in the classic literature patterns. Instead of
defining the village novelists in Turkey as representatives of this international genre,
it is more proper to define them as novelists that were using classical novel
techniques through relevant choice of subject. Nevertheless, the Turkish examples
share many things with the international representatives of this genre.421
In novels and stories in which the village is used as a subject, the ideological
perception and the attitudes towards the Turkish villages create a distinctive
difference in the presentation of the subjects. Nevertheless, the historians of literature
try to round up the most frequently used themes in Turkish village literature. For
example, Enver Okur describes the most used themes as follows:
The party struggle, power struggle, empty promises that discourage
society and election investments during the multi-party period, the
people who became bandits due to the aga cruelty, the effects of
machinery on agriculture, the peasants’ passion for machines, the
unemployment brought with the machinery in agriculture, the
oppressions of the aga and gendarmerie on the peasants, the migration to
districts and cities due to poverty, the inadequacies of land, the lawless
seizure of the lands, the conflicts of water, the peasants’ dream of being
rich, poverty and ignorance, the relations of peasant-intellectual.422
Taner Timur, on the other hand, classifies the village novel according to its
scope and calls attention to the differentiation between the examples of village
literature genre. According to his classification, the most often seen example of the
421 In his same study, Taner Timur gives examples from Balzac’s novel “The Peasants.” Although he
does not show a direct relation, some of the characteristics in this novel are mostly repeated in the
Turkish examples of village literature. For example in Balzac’s novel, Goubertin, the evil character
who oppresses the peasants is the village headman; Rigou, usurer and moneylender and Soudry is,
gendarmerie. Ibid., pp. 110, 116. These characters can be found in the Turkish examples as they were
presented in Balzac’s novel.
422 Enver Okur, "Çok Partili Demokrasi Dönemi Türk Romanı," Hece (Türk Romanı Özel Sayısı) 6,
no. 65/66/67 (May/June/July 2002), p. 72. “Çok partili dönemin parti çekismeleri, iktidar
mücadeleleri, toplumu hayal kırıklıgına ugratan bos vaatler, seçim yatırımları, aga zulmüyle eskıya
olmus insanlar, makinalı tarımın köylüyü etkilemesi, köylünün makine tutkusu, makinalı tarımın
getirdigi issizlik, köylü üzerinde aga ve jandarma baskıları, yoksulluk nedeniyle kasaba ve sehirlere
göç, toprak yetersizlikleri, topragın haksızca gasp edilmesi, su çatısmaları, köylünün zengin olma
hayali, yokluk ve cehalet, köylü-aydın iliskileri”
260
genre is “dealing with a particular village and making its sociography by remaining
in the borders of that village.”423 This definition mostly refers to a kind of village
literature which started and became widespread with Bizim Köy (Our Village) (1950)
by Mahmut Makal. Makal’s work can be defined neither as a literary text nor as a
sociological study. Due to this mixed up characteristic, his works defined in various
ways. Although in the following pages it will be analyzed in detail, it can be stated
here in short that works such as Bizim Köy can mostly be defined as “popular village
sociology” more than a literary works. However, almost all of the themes that existed
in Makal’s works can be found in many village literature texts of the period.
Second, Timur defines the rest of the village literature texts as “historical
village novels.”424 Although this second classification remains somewhat artificial,
for distinguishing the rest of the village novels from the first examples, this
definition can be used as a differentiating factor in order to understand the genre in
general. Actually, the majority of the village novels use historical backgrounds in
their story settings. However, while this historical background refers to a very near
history in the first group, in the second group the events in the novels usually pass in
previous eras. In this sense, in the village novels of Kemal Tahir or in nce Memed
(Memed My Hawk) (1955) of Yasar Kemal, the village was defined in a different
time setting than the first group of the village literature texts. In short, the village
literature texts which can be accepted in this second group actually can be moved
into the category of the historical novel genre. However, in most of these novels, the
historical events took place in the village or in the countryside.
Within this framework, it is possible to define two different sub-divisions that
cover the village literature genre which mostly deal with similar themes but
423 Timur, Osmanlı-Türk Romanında, p. 153. “belli bir köyü alıp onun çerçevesinde kalmak ve onun
sosyografisini yapmak”
424 Ibid., p. 154.
261
differentiate according to their form and content. This differentiation also puts
forward the differentiation among two different groups, which in fact made up the
village literature canon during the period in question. This differentiation was mainly
between the “three Kemals” (Yasar Kemal, Orhan Kemal and Kemal Tahir) and the
“three peasantists” (Mahmut Makal, Fakir Baykurt and Talip Apaydın).425
As last words in defining the scope of the village literature genre, even
though the genre has an international context, not every novel that mentions villages
and peasants can be accepted in the village literature genre. The making of the
village literature genre in Turkey occurred during the 1950s and gained the power to
affect both the ideological and political spheres that ha exceeded the 1950s.
Nevertheless, every novel that has village content can give us information on the
“reality” of the countryside, depending on the ideological and cultural positioning of
the writer. For that reason, the village novels give us the clues about the villages and
peasants which could not be gained otherwise.
Within this framework the village literature will be analyzed here in two
different dimensions. First, the historical information that can be gathered from these
literary texts will be shown. The material and cultural structure of the villages as they
were presented in these texts will be analyzed. Second, the making of the so-called
“village-literature” during the 1950s will be examined. The discussions during the
making of the genre and the reasons for and the consequences of the creation of the
genre will be evaluated accordingly. The second section will discuss the sociopolitical
and conjuncture related reasons in the making of this literary genre, the new
forms of perception and consciousness about the “reality” of the village and the
peasants.
425 Levent Cantek, "Köy Manzaraları: Romantizm ve Gerçekçilik Düalizmleri," Toplum ve Bilim, no.
88, Spring (2001), p. 197.
262
History in the Village Literature
Although the relation of history and literature is a very problematical area,
historians can use the historical facts that are presented in the literary text. Even
though the historical meaning of literary texts is different for historians of literature,
literature can be useful for historians in two ways. The first one of them, as Erol
Köroglu says, “literature helps the historian by presenting friendly materials which
cannot be gathered from the archive documents.”426 Authors sometimes are able to
transmit the information of some historical facts which cannot be accessed by
historians through documents or other kinds of sources. This information can be facts
widely known by the people during the time when the literary texts were written.
However, this kind of fact mostly cannot be gathered by historians because of their
limited tools and the lack of keeping the records of the facts. Especially the living
conditions, habits, political thoughts and practices of the ordinary people, whose
deficiency is felt for social historians today are mostly treated in literary texts.
Such historical information in literary texts, although it is not directly used by
historians, presents some clues about some unknown or less known historical facts.
In an area in which limited historical information is available, such as the conditions
of the peasantry in Turkey, the guidance of the literary texts becomes more
important. As will be observed in this section, the information on the social and
political conditions of the peasants that existed in the village literature texts has a
great importance in order to understand the social history of the peasants during the
1945-1960 period.
426 Erol Köroglu, "Edebiyatla Tarihin Flörtü," Milliyet Sanat June 2006, p. 86. “edebiyat, belgelerin
temin edemedigi sıcak malzemeyi sunarak tarihçiye yardım eder”
263
The second functional use of literature texts for the historians is related to the
historical meaning of the literary texts themselves. As Köroglu says “literature is
historical both through the writing conditions during its production and the reception
conditions during its consumption.”427 The conditions of the making of village
literature and the meaning of the development of this genre through the relation of
the writers, publishers, intellectuals, readers and state will be discussed in detail in
the following section. As stated above, all literary texts have a historical meaning at
the same time and these texts also enlighten the political, economic and social
development of the period in which they were written. Within this framework, the
development of the village literature genre through the 1950s and its political
meanings also help us to understand how the peasants were perceived by the
intellectuals and the state during the period in question.
In this section more emphasis will be given to the historical information that
can be gathered from the literary texts. In this way the information on the peasantry
that can be found in the literary texts will be presented.
Among the authors in Turkey, Kemal Tahir was the one that commented the
most on the historical development of the peasantry and the place of the peasantry in
the development of the Turkish state. However, he mostly used the village and the
peasantry as a background to reveal his assertions on the historical development of
Turkey in his novels. Although he was a very good novelist¸ he did not care about his
writing ability and mostly tried to prove the ideological assertions in his works. As
Fethi Naci says, in his novels “Kemal Tahir uses not the expressions that are peculiar
to literature, but the expressions of the social sciences.”428 In order to explain the
political and economic development of the Ottoman and Turkish societies, he
427 Ibid. “Edebiyat, üretimi sırasındaki yazılma kosulları ve tüketimi sırasındaki alımlanma kosulları
üzerinden tarihseldir”
428 Fethi Naci, 60 Türk Romanı (
stanbul: Oglak Yayınları, 1998), p. 236.
264
mentions the Asiatic Mode of Production. His characters sometimes discuss this
problem. In order to prove his assertions he wrote with a historical background that
reached from Central Asia to Turkey. Within this framework, Kemal Tahir did not
write his novels as literary author, but mostly as a historian-social scientist.429
Kemal Tahir wrote most of his village novels during the 1950s. He wrote two
series of them. In the first series there are two books, called Sagır Dere (Deaf River)
(1955) and Körduman (Blind Smoke) (1957). The other village novel series includes
Yediçınar Yaylası (Yediçınar Plain) (1958), Köyün Kamburu (The Hunchback of the
Village) (1959) and Büyük Mal (Big Cattle) published in 1970. In all of these books
Kemal Tahir focused on the lives of the peasants living in Çorum-Çankırı region
during a particular time period. Rauf Mutluay summarizes the main subjects that
appear in the village novels of Kemal Tahir as follows:
In almost all of his village-town novels he shows the people who live
around Çorum-Çankırı region and did not experience occupation or
participate in the National Struggle sincerely. He searches for the origins
of the problem of squirarchy, explains the sexual addictions that are
dominant among the village people, presents the confusion of values that
come from the past of this small structure, which would have ended one
day anyway, asserts that banditry survives and is begrudged by which
forces and he breaks apart from the writers that evaluate our society with
romantic measurements.430
Tahir mostly tried to present the worst sides of the peasants. As Fethi Naci
says, Tahir is the novelist of lovelessness.431 He actually did not like the peasants and
429 Orhan Pamuk opposes to this view and says that the informative interventions in Kemal Tahir’s
novels cannot be defined as irrelevant; the “information” in Tahir’s novels takes part in the events as a
character in the novel. Orhan Pamuk, "Kemal Tahir'in Devleti ve Dili," in Berna Moran'a Armagan-
Türk Edebiyatına Elestirel Bir Bakıs, ed. Nazan Aksoy and Bülent Aksoy (
stanbul:
letisim
Yayınları, 2008), p. 132.
430 Rauf Mutluay, 100 Soruda Çagdas Türk Edebiyatı (1908-1972) (
stanbul: Gerçek Yayınevi, 1973),
p. 396. “Köy-kasaba romanlarının hemen hepsinde Çorum-Çankırı dolaylarının isgal görmemis, Milli
Mücadeleye de candan katılmamıs insanlarını göstermis; agalık sorununun tarihsel köklerini
arastırmıs, köy insanlarına egemen olan cinsel düskünlükleri açıklamıs, bir gün nasılsa degisecek
olan bu küçük yapının bütün geçmisten süzülüp gelen degerler kargasasını sergilemis, eskiyalık
kurumunun hangi güçlerce esirgenirse yasadıgını öne sürmüs, toplumumuzu romantik ölçülerle
degerlendiren yazarlardan ayrılmıstır.”
431 Naci, 60 Türk, p. 234.
265
saw them as a group of people who needed to be disappeared during modern times.
He always tried to show the unchanging essence of the peasants, which was
sordidness and malevolence, against a changing historical background. Especially in
his village trilogy, which starts with Yediçınar Yaylası, he solely tried to show that
from the period of Abdülhamit II to the foundation of the Republic the relations of
the peasants to each other were nothing but relations based on self-interest. All of the
peasants in the novels are only trying to do something behind someone else’s back.
The peasants always try to sidle up to the strongest, whom has previously been
known by the whole community as a bad person.432
Different from Tahir, Yasar Kemal is more literary. Even though nce Memed
has a historical background, it is not possible to define Yasar Kemal as a historical
novel writer. History, in his novels, was identical to the time of the peasants whose
stories he wanted to tell. That is to say, he did not exceed his main characters and did
not try to make such great historical analysis. His main characters only existed in a
particular time period of Ottoman-Turkish history.
Yasar Kemal produced his best known and important examples of village
literature during this period. Even though he published only two novels during this
period, the first volume of nce Memed, which is novel that comes to mind first when
the village literature is mentioned, published in 1955. Towards the end of the period
he published Ortadirek (The Wind from the Plain), in 1960, which is the first book of
the trilogy named Dagın Öte Yüzü (The Other Side of the Mountain). The following
books of this series are Yer Demir Gök Bakır (Iron Earth, Copper Sky) (1963) and
432 Kemal Tahir’s novel Köyün Kamburu is one the typical example of this approach. In this book he
tells the story of the worst liked member of the village and how he gains the power with guile, robbery
and murder. After he becomes powerful he also gains the “love” of the other peasants. See Kemal
Tahir, Köyün Kamburu (
stanbul: Düsün Yayınevi, 1959).
266
Ölmez Otu (The Undying Grass) (1969). He mainly told the adventures of the
Çukurova peasants in this trilogy.
The difference between Yasar Kemal and Kemal Tahir can best be
understood with an analysis of their approach to banditry. Kemal Tahir’s novel
Rahmet Yolları Kesti (Rain Blocked the Roads) (1957) and Yasar Kemal’s nce
Memed represent two different sides in defining the role and the emergence of
banditry in Turkish countryside. The “
nce Memed” character that was created by
Yasar Kemal became a symbolic name for peasant resistance in Turkey. According
to Yasar Kemal, bandits were the rebellious voice of the peasant who struggle to
overcome injustice. The peasants are afraid of the bandits as much as they love
them.433 However,
nce Memed will always be remembered as a typical “peasant
rebel,” which became clearer with the publication of the other volume of the novel.
On the other side, as for Kemal Tahir, the bandits and banditry are defined with the
words of André Maurois, which are the beginning words of his novel: “A society that
does not have a strong order of ethics and that cannot coop with its burglars –with
the pressure coming from the feeling of barbarism that remained in its spirit- fells
admiration for its burglars.”434 According to Kemal Tahir, the bandits are the visible
side of the sordidness and opportunism that naturally existed in the peasants. The
peasants, both because they are not developed morally or materially, praise these
433 Yasar Kemal defined the relation of the peasants to bandits as follows: “Koca (Big) Ahmet was an
epos in these mountains. The mothers were consoling their crying babies by saying that Koca Ahmet
is coming. Koca Ahmet was a love as much as he was a fright. Koca Ahmet carried these two feelings
side by side in these mountains for years. If a bandit cannot hold these two together, he cannot live in
the mountains more than a year. Love and fright make the bandit live. Only love alone is weak. Only
fright is grudge.” “Koca Ahmet bu daglarda bir destandı. Analar, aglayan çocuklarını, Koca Ahmet
geliyor diye avuturlardı. Koca Ahmet bir dehset oldugu kadar bir sevgiydi de. Koca Ahmet bu iki
duyguyu yıllar yılı bu daglarda yanyana götürebilmisti. Bunun ikisini bir arada götüremezse bir
eskıya, daglarda bir yıldan fazla yasayamaz. Eskıyayı korkuyla sevgi yasatır. Yalnız sevgi tek basına
zayıftır. Yalnız korkuysa kindir.” Yasar Kemal, nce Memed, 7. ed. (
stanbul: Ararat Yayınevi, 1967),
p. 73.
434 Kemal Tahir, Rahmet Yolları Kesti, 3. ed. (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1975), p. 5. “Ahlak düzeni
saglam olmayan ve soygunculariyle basa çıkamayan bir toplum, -ruhunda arta kalmıs barbarlık
duygusunun da baskısıyle- soyguncularına karsı hayranlık duyar.”
267
“opportunist burglars.” As can be seen here, the thoughts of Kemal Tahir on banditry
were also shaped by his approach to the peasants.
The comparison of Kemal Tahir and Yasar Kemal through their approach to
banditry also reveals their divergence on the approach to peasants. Yasar Kemal,
actually, created a kind of “new village romanticism,” which was suitable to the
period and the changing social perception. This romanticism mainly was based on
not praise of the peasants, but praise of the struggle of the peasants against all kind of
pressures. This perception of Yasar Kemal was adopted easily by the increasing
political struggle of the 1960s. As opposed to that, Kemal Tahir tried to escape from
village romanticism as far as possible according to his political approach. He saw
peasants as a group of people who are needed to be abolished and who were the final
corrupted representatives of pre-modern ethics. In short, the “struggling peasantry”
defined by Yasar Kemal was replaced with the “opportunist peasantry” of Kemal
Tahir.435
In most of the examples of village literature, the events in the novels usually
pass at the same time in which the novels were written. Even though there are some
extreme examples, such as Despot (Tyrant) (1957) of Resat Enis Aygen, in which
there is no distinct time flow and which tries to mention every historical event, this is
a rare example. The historical background in most of the novels that will be analyzed
here does not exceed the 1945-1960 period. Due to that, the information that will be
presented from these novels will be mostly on the period in question and on the
transformation of the peasants during that period.
The poverty of the peasants is probably the most frequently mentioned
subject in the village literature novels. Actually, it would be proper to say that nearly
435 For the comparison of their differing perspectives on banditry see Kemal Tahir and Yasar Kemal,
"Eskiyalık Üstüne," Türkiye Defteri, no. 4 (February 1974).
268
all of the novels in the village literature genre were shaped around this notion.
Although the stress on the poverty of the peasants was common, the way it was
presented in the novels differed according to the political and ideological perspective
of the writers. This variety in presenting the poverty of the peasants was also related
to the discussions on the development or on the emancipation of the peasants from
poverty. Whether they define the main reasons for the poverty of the peasants as
ignorance and lack of education or as the non-resolved class relations in the
countryside with the political practices that were held during the Republican period
differs according to the writers’ perception of the development of the peasants.
The greatest and most effective critique of the poverty of the peasants was
made surely by Mahmut Makal in Bizim Köy. The publication of similar books after
the Bizim Köy made the discourse on peasants’ poverty varied. In Bizim Köy, the
reasons for the poverty of the peasants were defined as ignorance, religious
fundamentalism and the state’s neglect of the peasants from the very beginning. In
order to cure the peasants’ condition, Makal recommended that the awareness of the
peasants needed to be raised through education. The awareness of the peasants could
only be raised through intervention from the outside of the village. For that reason, in
every village literature work, which resembles Bizim Köy and is written in the style
of “notes from the village,” the progressive character in the novels is mostly an
idealist teacher or district governor, who could intervene and change the village
community from the outside. These progressive characters, by making the peasants
feel the “right to use force” that they gained from the state, tried to apply the cure of
the peasants’ “illness of poverty and ignorance” from outside as a consciousnessraising
endeavor.
269
As was discussed in Chapter Three, with the change in the economic
preferences of Turkey, the transformation of the rural structures occurred and the
mechanization of agricultural production was one of the most important factors that
effected this transformation. Although the mechanization of agriculture and the
effects of this development on the peasants are treated with their various
consequences in the village novels of the period in question, they are not described
on a very negative level. Especially in the novels that were written at the end of the
1950s the mechanization of agriculture is presented as a key to the development of
the countryside.
When “village development” is taken into consideration as the main axis in
the village literature, two main facts are blamed for the creation of this
underdevelopment of the villages. One of them was the lack of land and the other
one was the uncultivated tracts of lands. The problem of uncultivated lands, which
meant that the peasants could not cultivate the lands even if they had had enough
lands, was mostly told by Orhan Hançerlioglu in his novel Ekilmemis Topraklar
(Uncultivated Lands) (1954). In this novel he relates the poverty of the peasants to
the lack of manpower, due to the long-lasting wars in Turkish history. When the
male peasants were called for military service the lands could not be cultivated due
to the lack of manpower. As a result, agricultural production fell, even if they had
enough land. The main problem for the writer lay in this lack of manpower in the
agricultural production. The manpower that was needed for agricultural production
was pulled away by the state. Both due to the lack of manpower and lack of
cultivation tools and animals the peasants got stuck in the poverty cycle for years.436
436 For the writer, the state tied the problem of uncultivated lands and the poverty of the peasants to
the laziness of the peasants. He criticizes this view and asserts that the problem was actually created
by the state itself by pulling of the peasants from the agricultural production for various reasons. In
the novel, the district governor tells to the peasants to spare some lands for the new teacher and the
270
Not the landlessness but the inadequate level of cultivation and the problem
of technical backwardness in order to increase the agricultural production are
common subject in the village literature of this period. Landlessness was mostly
treated in the village literature after the 1960s and they mostly told the stories of the
agricultural workers and sharecroppers of the Harran and Çukurova regions. The
problem of uncultivated lands, due to technical deficiencies (such as the lack of or
underdevelopment of animal or man power), would almost not be treated in the
village literature of the following period. Instead of this, the continuing poverty of
the peasants and the theme of freedom fighter peasants against the oppressions of the
agas became the village literature themes.437
following dialog appears between a peasant, who lost his arms and legs during a war: “’-By the way…
You have to spare a field for the teacher, too. Yet you have plenty of lands.. We saw while we were
coming here, all the plain stands quiet empty. Why don’t you cultivate these lands, for God’s sake?’
Murat was startled. A sudden ache occurred on his handless wrist. His face crumpled, his nostrils
trembled. Why don’t they cultivate them so? Wasn’t that all he has been thinking for years? Looking
straight ahead, he replied guilty: ‘-We cannot cultivate, mister…’ The district governor said, ‘-You
need to work.. You cannot be a man with hacking around. Go and see the foreign countries. Those
guys do not leave a bit of empty lands.. They are hardworking men; this is why they are developing
continually… They do not wind down like us, they are enjoying themselves.’ To wind down… To
enjoy himself… Murat felt a hot thing that flows inside. Here, he was sitting for year winding down,
sitting without moving. He was doing nothing but eating and drinking… The lands were standing
quite empty… If he has arms and legs, if the weather goes well, if the rain drops when necessary but
not flood the plain, if the sun shines when necessary but not burn the soil; if his sons, son-in-laws
return from the military service, cannot he cultivate these lands?” “- Sahi... Ögretmene bir de tarla
ayırmanız gerekiyor. Hos, sizin topragınız çok.. Gelirken gördük, bütün ova bombos duruyor. Neden
ekmezsiniz bu toprakları Allah askına? Murat irkildi. Elsiz bilegine, birbenbire, bir sancı saplanmıstı.
Yüzü burustu, burun kanatları titredi. Neden ekmiyorlardı sanki? Yıllardanberi düsündügü hep bu
degil miydi? Önüne bakarak, suçlu suçlu: - Ekemiyoruz beyim... diye karsılık verdi. - Çalısmak gerek..
dedi Kaymakam. Tembel tembel oturmakla adam olunmaz. Gavur ülkelerine bir gidin de görün. Bir
karıs bos yer bırakmıyor herifler.. Çalıskan adamlar onlar, bu yüzden ilerliyorlar durmadan... Bizim
gibi yan gelip oturmuyorlar, keyiflerine bakıyorlar. Yan gelip oturmak... Keyfine bakmak... Murat
yüreginde sıcak sıcak ıgıldayan bir seyler duydu. ste, yıllardanberi, yangelmis kıpırdamadan
oturuyordu. Yemek yiyip su içmekten baska ne is gördügü vardı ki... Bombos duruyordu topraklar...
Kolları bacakları olsaydı hani, havalar da düzgün gitseydi, yagmur gerektigi zaman yagsa ama ovayı
sular kaplamasa, günes gerektigi zaman açsa ama topragı yakıp kavurmasa; ogulları, damatları da
askerden dönmüs olsalar ekemez miydi bu toprakları?” Orhan Hançerlioglu, Ekilmemis Topraklar
(
stanbul: Varlık Yayınları, 1954), p. 121.
437 There are some literary texts that discuss on the landless peasants during this period, too. However,
the landless peasant did not become the main theme in the literary texts during this period. The
landless peasants were mostly treated in the village interviews of Yasar Kemal and Fikret Otyam and
the effect of these interviews was more than the literary texts. See Kemal, Bu Diyar. One of the main
reasons of less frequent appearance of this problem in the literature of the period in question can be
the optimistic view that was created after the passing of the Land Reform Law in the first years of the
period. Nevertheless, the problem of landless peasants was treated in some of the stories and novels of
the period. The story of Samim Kocagöz titled “Allah, Devlet ve Toprak” (God, State and Land) can
271
When the village literature writers that were educated in the Village Institutes
are excluded, most of the writers that treated the village in their novels discussed
these technical deficiencies as being the main problem of the peasants of the period.
It can be observed that after the mid-1950s this problematic was gradually replaced
with the poverty of the peasants and the oppression of the agas in the villages. When
the intellectuals realized that the DP’s policies, which were put into practice to create
a development in the countryside, failed, the perception of the writers focused on the
images of underdeveloped and poor peasant. Nonetheless, most of the village
literature writers of this period adhered strictly to this technical development problem
until the mid-1950s.
The modernization and development which occurred due to the
mechanization of agriculture were intensely treated in two literature works. These are
Sarı Traktör (Yellow Tractor) (1958), a novel written by Talip Apaydın and Pembe
Kurt (Pink Worm) (1953) a story written by Kemal Bilbasar. In both of the texts, the
tractor is defined as the symbol of the development and as a necessary production
tool for the peasants. For both of these writers, although sometimes peasants use this
be presented as a good example of this kind. Samim Kocagöz, "Allah, Devlet ve Toprak," in Sam
Amca (
stanbul Yeditepe Yayınları, 1951). Also Fakir Baykurt in Yılanların Öcü (The Revenge of the
Snakes) (1959) mentions the troubles that the landless peasants or the peasants that own inadequate of
lands faced while trying to increase their amount of land. Only one of the side characters in the novel
was landless and his dream of land clearly summarizes the peasants’ desire from a land: “For him,
fifty dönüms of land is more than enough to rescue a man from misery in the village. Two dönüms of
the fifty dönüms or at least one dönüm becomes subasar. You hedge round vineyards and orchards.
Cultivate the half of the rest and the other half leave as fallow. Isn’t it all enough to everything for
Mustafa? If the half of the production does not split and go to the aga, wouldn’t it be enough? The
man owns a cow and an ox. Four sheep, ten chicken and a donkey. The sheep, donkey and ox more or
less give birth. When he sells two sacks of beans or wheat to get rid of every trouble, he rescues his
foot from the water. After that he does not disgrace himself to the village headman or does not rebuke
himself to the member. He does not walk around without a shirt on his back or shoe on his foot…”
“Ona göre, köy yerinde adamı sefillikten kurtarmaya elli dönüm toprak yeter, artardı. Elli dönümün
iki dönümü, hiç olmazsa bir dönümü subasar olurdu. Bag bahçe çevirirdin. Geri kalanın yarısı ekin,
yarısı nadas. Nesine yetmezdi Mustafa’nın? Kaldırdıgı ortasından bölünüp agaya gitmedikten sonra
yetmez miydi? Adamın inegi, öküzü olurdu. Dört koyunu, on tavugu, bir esegi olurdu. Koyunlar iyi
kötü kuzular, esek kunnar, inek buzulardı. Derdini belasını savmak için iki çuval fasulye, yada bugday
sattı mı ayagını sudan kurtarmıs sayılırdı. Artık kendini Muhtar’a rezil ettirmez, üyeye azarlatmazdı.
Sırtı gömleksiz, ayagı çarıksız gezmezdi...” Fakir Baykurt, Yılanların Öcü, 5 ed. (
stanbul: Remzi
Kitabevi, 1972), p. 66.
272
tool unnecessarily, as was told in Chapter Three, tractors were necessary tools that
would ease the peasants’ work. While the tractors were defined as desired and
necessary objects, the newly founded jobs in the countryside with the mechanization
of agriculture were featured in these stories, too. For example, in Pembe Kurt the
story of a tractor driver is told. Also in a story titled “
nce
s” (Fine Work) in the
book Ahmet’in Kuzuları (The Sheep of Ahmet) (1958), by Samim Kocagöz, tells the
story of the peasants who gained information about machines with the mechanization
of agriculture, and the admiration of a peasant child of the machines. This optimistic
view of these writers was not appreciated by the following writers and literary critics
and they were accused of not understanding or narrating the economic facts properly.
For example, Kemal Tahir criticized Talip Apaydın as follows:
Now, what does Talip say to us in Sarı Traktör? What is he saying?... In
a village a young man wants to buy a tractor. He wants it passionately,
his father is well-to-do; however, he does not buy it because he is tied to
the traditions. The son occupies himself with this that he becomes ill, he
feels uneasy, he suffers etc.; in the end the tractor is bought with the help
of his uncle in the town, when its advantage has been proved as a result
of a stomach ulcer, and the book ends there. In my opinion, it even starts
there. The tragedy of the human begins after the tractor is bought.438
Kemal Tahir accused Talip Apaydın of praising tractors without telling the
real problem that was needed to be told in the novel. Kemal Tahir asked whether it
was possible to learn the reality of the village from a novel that did not tell what the
tractor brings and takes. Actually, this difference occurred mostly due to the
differences in the perspectives of Kemal Tahir and Talip Apaydın in evaluating the
problems of the village. Apaydın, by following a developmentalist line, wanted to
438 Baykurt et al., Bes Romancı, p. 13. “Simdi “Sarı Traktör”de Talip ne diyor bize? Neyi anlatıyor?...
Bir köyde, bir delikanlı, traktör almak istiyor. Bunu ihtiras haline getirmis, babasının hali vakti
müsait, bunu yapabilecek vaziyette, fakat adam geleneklere baglı oldugu için almıyor. Oglan, bunu
öyle bir dert ediniyor ki, rahatsız oluyor, tedirgin oluyor, sıkıntı çekiyor falan; en sonunda bir mide
ülseri vak’ası dolayısıyle, traktörün de faydasını görünce, kasabadaki amca, yahut dayının yardımıyle
traktör alınıyor, kitap da bitiyor. Zannımca, hatta burada baslıyor. nsan, dramı, traktör alındıktan
sonra baslar.”
273
see and show the development that the tractor would bring to the village, and as
opposed to him Kemal Tahir wanted to see and show the class differentiation and
poverty which would occur after the mechanization of agricultural production.
However, for the authors coming from the Village Institutes and for the
developmentalist perception of that period this was not a fundamental problem. In
addition, as was told in detail in the previous chapters, the labor surplus which would
happen after mechanization was not a great problem during that period. This problem
would be discussed mostly during the 1960s.
Another interesting example of the developmentalist view in the village
literature was written by Refik Erduran. In his novel Yagmur Duası (Rain Prayer)
(1954), a degenerate journalist who knows nothing about the realities of the country,
accompanies a foreign professor on a trip to Anatolia and during this trip the
journalist realizes that religious reactionaries oppress the Anatolian peasants. After
realizing these reactionary movements among the peasants he organizes a fundraising
campaign at his newspaper to build a water dam in a village. Because, as was
be repeated mostly by the DP and his follower right-wing parties in Turkey, the most
important things needed to make the Anatolian villages develop were roads, water
and electricity.439 However the journalist is prevented by the reactionary forces that
hold the power in the village. As a result he gives up and says following:
I now realize that in these circumstances it is not possible to develop the
village by initiation from above. Pressure from below, a development
consciousness and desire are surely needed. THE VILLAGE PROBLEM
IS FIRST AND FOREMOST THE PROBLEM OF THE PEASANTS. If
the peasants do not do something about their problem nothing can be
done. The intellectuals can only guide the peasants, they cannot pull
them by their arm.440
439 Refik Erduran, Yagmur Duası (
stanbul: Çaglayan Yayınevi, 1954), p. 74.
440 The emphasis is in the original. Ibid., p. 210. “Su anda anlamıs bulunuyorum ki bu sartlar içinde
köyü sırf üstten gelen bir tesebbüsle tutup kalkındırmak mümkün degildir. Muhakkak asagıdan yukarı
dogru da bir itis, bir kalkınma suur ve istegi lâzım. KÖY DÂVASI HERKESTEN EVVEL KÖYLÜNÜN
274
Here, the writer emphasized that the consciousness could not be given to the
peasants via the outside intervention of the progressive district governor or village
teacher as was advised in most of the village literature texts, but it could only be
changed from within. The solution that offered by Refik Erduran is a “revolution,”
which will be pioneered by the intellectuals, engineers and workers that are in the
village for the construction of the dam with the support of the peasants in the region.
At last, the revolution of the peasants is realized following a rebellion against the
sheikh that is dominant in that region.
In addition to Erduran’s tale, another “peasant revolution” was told by Resat
Enis Aygen. Aygen had a quite strange style in his writing. Time and space were
often mixed up and confused in his novels. Actually, Aygen was not a literary writer;
he was a judiciary journalist. Due to that he had many interesting stories to tell.
However he mixed up every kind of story in his novels. Although he was not a good
literary writer, he gave interesting information in his novels about the period in
which he lived. Although it was not published during the period in question, his
novel Toprak Kokusu441 (Scent of Soil) (1944) needs to be emphasized here due to its
interesting content. This novel ends with a peasant revolution, as it was the case in
Erduran’s book. Toprak Kokusu ends with a description of the revolution as follows:
One day the news of the mutiny of several hundred peasant laborers in
Yüregir was given to the governor of Seyhan by telephone. Thousands
of dönüms of crops had been set on fire. If it was not suppressed on time,
regional rebellion could grow rapidly and became trouble. A horsedgendarmerie
battalion was sent to the mutiny zone. The skirmish
continued forty-eight hours. The gendarmerie commander, who was sent
to put down the event, brought nearby a beautiful woman, who was the
DAVASIDIR, Köylü kendi dâvasına sahip çıkmazsa hiçbirsey yapılamaz. Köylüye münevver ancak yol
gösterebilir; kolundan tutup çekemez.”
441 Tahir Alangu says the following words for Toprak Kokusu: “With this novel, he is a precursor of
Orhan Kemal, Yasar Kemal and Kemal Tahir.” “O, bu romanı ile Orhan Kemal, Yasar Kemal, Kemal
Tahir’lerin bir habercisidir.” Tahir Alangu, Cumhuriyetten Sonra Hikaye ve Roman 1919-1930, vol. 1
(
stanbul:
stanbul Matbaası, 1959), p. 28.
275
vanguard of the mutiny and heavily wounded with a bullet.. The old
Major “S…” died during the skirmish. The governor was a smart and
progressive man, who was able to understand the real content of the
rebellion. He prepared his report in favor of the peasant laborers. The
initiation to nationalize Çukurova by confiscating the lands from the
mütegallibe (usurper) began after this rebellion. Elif, the daughter of
Boyalısakal, is waiting for the making of the “land law” in jail.442
Even though they were fewer in number, similar “peasant rebellions” are
portrayed in some of the literary texts during the period. Sometimes they treat the
subject as in Aygen’s novel, but mostly they describe the terrible conditions of the
peasants, who are at the edge of a mutiny or rebellion. Fahri Erdinç tells the story of
such a village and peasant in his novel Alinin Biri (One of an Ali) (1958). In this
novel he describes the terrible conditions of the peasants and he says that the survival
of the peasants could only happen when they struggle for themselves.443 These kinds
of attitudes of some of the village literature writers coincide with the role of the
village literature during this period. As will be told in detail in the following pages
the village literature provided an opportunity for legitimate social opposition for the
opposition movements and people in Turkey.
Even if the peasants are not portrayed as being revolutionaries, there are some
other examples in which the peasants are treated as historical subjects. The first one
442 Enis, Toprak Kokusu, p. 315. “Bir gün telefonlar, Seyhan Valisine, Yüregir’de birkaç yüz köylü
ırgadın ayaklanısı haberini ulastırdı. Binlerce dönümlük ekin atese verilmisti. Vaktinde bastırılmazsa,
mevzii isyanın çok çabuk büyümesi ve bir gaile halini alması mukadderdi. Ayaklanma bölgesine bir
müfreze atlı jandarma çıkartıldı. Çarpısma kırk sekiz saat sürdü. Vakayı bastırmaya gönderilen
jandarma yüzbasısı, ayaklanmanın elebasısı olarak, kursunla agır yaralanmıs bir güzel kadın getirdi
yanında.. Eski Belediye Reisi “S...” çarpısmada ölmüstü. Vali; ayaklanmanın mahiyetini
anlayabilecek seviyede, uyanık ve ileri fikirli bir adamdı. Raporu, köylü ırgat lehine oldu.
Çukurova’nın mütegallibe elinden alınarak devletlestirilmesi tesebbüsü bu ayaklanmadan sonra
baslar. Boyalısakal’ın kızı Elif, cezaevinde, “toprak kanunu”nun çıkarılmasını bekliyor.”
443 The following dialogue between two peasants in the novel can give an idea on the perspective of
Fahri Erdinç: “Arif says: ‘-Do you know what I understood.’ ‘-What did you understand?’ ‘Our
aggrieved peasants have been left alone. This is that.’ Mr. Turhan made fun of that: ‘-The aggrieved
has his God!’ ‘-It is over now’ says Arif. ‘The peasants trust their fist more than God now.’.” “Arif: -
Ne anladım biliyor musun, dedi. –Ne anladın? –Mazlum köylümüz yapayalnız kalmıs. Bu budur.
Turhan bey isi alaya vurdu: -Mazlumun Allah’I vardır! –Geçti o, dedi Arif. Artık Allah’ından ziyade
yumruguna güveniyor köylü.” Fahri Erdinç, Alinin Biri (
stanbul: Habora Kitabevi, 1979), p. 190.
Fahri Erdinç wrote and published his first novels in Bulgaria and he was mostly affected by the
peasantist ideology of Bulgaria at that time. However, he wrote his novels in Turkish and they were
also read by Turkish readers.
276
of them is Yılan Hikayesi (Endless Story) (1954), written by Samim Kocagöz. The
political and economic struggle of the peasants in one of the Aegean villages during
the organizational years of the DP is told in this novel. The peasants are portrayed in
this novel as struggling subjects, who themselves choose the DP as the vanguard of
their struggle. The peasants try to use the new and active political atmosphere during
the foundation of the DP opposition and try to solve their land problems to the
benefit of themselves. The novel presents the political atmosphere in the villages
after the foundation of the DP opposition from a broader realist perspective. This
novel was published when the DP power was at its apex, and due to that it also
represents the political understanding that existed among most of the intellectuals of
the period. It was also the only novel which gave the political feelings of the peasants
during the DP period in a detailed way.
The other novel was Yılanların Öcü, written by Fakir Baykurt. This novel
mainly stresses the potential of the peasants to struggle against injustice. Irazca, who
is one of the main characters of the novel, is presented as a symbolic name of the
culture of resisting against injustice. The most important aspect of Yılanların Öcü is
the nonexistence of any kind of agent in the novel that brings modernization to the
village from the outside. Meaning that, there is no teacher or engineer in the village
who helps the peasants in their struggle against the ignorance and the oppression of
the village headman or aga. In the novel, the main character, Bayram, who tries to
increase his wealth through his own labor, is confronted with a class bloc that
consists of the village headman and a nouveau-riche man, who had become rich
through party relations during the DP period. Against all of the malefactions of this
bloc, Irazca declines all kinds of agreements and resists to save her son Bayram and
acts with an attitude that states that there is nothing to lose but her life. Within this
277
framework the main theme of the novel is not the modernization or the development
of the village, but the abolition of all kinds of class based or political forms of being
that hinder the freedom of the village. Irazca states that the potential to get rid of
every kind of evil that affect the peasants’ life rests in their own hands. In the last
sentence of the novel, Irazca calls the peasants, saying “Hit the Roads!... the
roads!”444 to struggle for their own survival.
In general, the most detailed information on the living conditions and habits
are given in Makal’s works. As was told before, almost all of the themes in Makal’s
works contain the material living conditions of the peasants and the village. Due to
that, it is a highly disputed whether his works are literature or sociology texts.
In most of the village literature texts more emphasis was given to the closed
structure of the villages. With the DP period, the villages became more open to the
outside world and their relations to other villages and the cities increased. With the
development of the roads during the 1950s, radio and newspapers entered the
villages at a higher rate than before. The peasants thus became more aware of the
problems of the world and country. In many of the literary texts, this development in
the villages is mentioned. They also mention the sources for getting information in
the villages during the earlier times. Most of them include common information on
the ways of communication of the village with the outside world. The male peasants
who returned back to their villages after their military service mostly brought
information and stories of their experiences from the outside world to their villages.
This subject is intensely treated in many novels and this shows that the military
service was a very important source of information for the peasants of the period.445
444 Baykurt, Yılanların Öcü, p. 273.
445 Some of the novels that mention on the military service experiences of the peasants and its use as a
kind of information source were as follows: M. Sunullah Arısoy, Karapürçek, 2. ed. (
stanbul: Varlık
Yayınları, 1972), p. 21; Baykurt, Yılanların Öcü, pp. 22-25; Fakir Baykurt, Çilli (
stanbul: Remzi
278
From the village literature texts, we can gather some important information
that cannot be found in the archival documents. In most of the village literature
novels, the writers mention metis, which is a form of resistance. Metis is mostly
defined in the historical and historiographical research of the Subaltern Studies
School as an important popular form of resistance. According to Necmi Erdogan,
quoting from Michel de Certeau, metis “refers in endless variety to forms of tactical
creativeness, artifice, cheating, trickery, hiding, disguise, faking, simulation,
dissimulation, parrying, evasion, being on the alert and cynicism.”446
In order to distinguish the state’s attitudes of this kind, Erdogan uses the
concept of “popular metis” for the behaviors of the ordinary people. He defines the
“popular metis” as follows: “As a relationship type base on coping with, deviation
and escaping from and dealing with the law that is forced by the power apparatus,
popular metis is an art of ‘being in between’ and ‘living in between’.”447 These kinds
of behaviors of the peasants can be observed in many village literature texts of the
period. These behaviors help peasants make or seemingly make the things that the
state or local officials desire them to make without changing their own habits. In this
way, the peasants both “pleased” the state and avoid the duties without getting
harmed. Most of these motifs were observed by the village literature writers of the
period and they portray them in their novels.
This “smartness” of the peasants is described in short in Resat Enis Aygen’s
novel Toprak Kokusu as follows: “The peasants are cunning. They categorize the
men of the state according to their measurements of benefiting. The feelings of
Kitabevi, 1966), pp. 49-50; Cahit Begenç, Bizim Köy (Ankara: Ulus Basımevi, 1948), p. 61; Yasar
Kemal, Ortadirek (
stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1960), pp. 205-207.
446 Necmi Erdogan, "Devleti '
dare Etmek': Mâduniyet ve Düzenbazlık," Toplum ve Bilim, no. 83
(Winter 1999/2000): pp. 8-9. “sonsuz çesitlikteki taktik yaratıcılık, kurnazlık, hile, düzenbazlık,
gizlenme, kılık degistirme, numara yapma, simülasyon, dissimülasyon, savusturma, kaytarma,
tetiktelik, kinizm biçimlerini anlatır”
447 Ibid., p. 9. “ktidar aygıtının dayattıgı yasayla bas etme, yolundan saptırma, kaçma veya idare
etmeye dayalı bir iliski tarzı olarak popüler metis bir ‘arada olma’, ‘arada yasama’ sanatıdır”
279
respect and fear that are shown to all are adjusted according to this ratio of
benefiting.”448 These behavioral patterns spread through the peasants in a very short
time period and were all adopted and practiced properly. In this way, these patterns
become not a peculiar behavior of a limited people, but were generalized among all
peasants. When these patterns were generalized they became a real normative
behavior. The power of popular metis mostly comes from this widespread practice.
Halikarnas Balıkçısı presents a good example of this kind of collective behavior in
his novel Ötelerin Çocugu (The Child of Beyond) (1955). He tells the story of a
collective play that is made by the peasants to escape from the state tax, as follows:
When the peasant heard the noise and saw that the convoy, which was
dressed with flags in reds and greens, approaching from abroad they
quickly understood that they would take money from them again or
force them into compulsory labor because they approached them only
for these two matters. They told Tiycan, who did not want to escape to
the mountain, what to say to the convoy, and they all together cleared
out. … When they arrived at the village, they did not see a soul in sight.
There was only Tiycan in the village. The district governor asked her
where the residents of the village were. Karakız (Black Girl) said: “They
escaped to the mountains!” They all together asked: “Why?” Tiycan
replied: “When they heard the noise and saw you coming with rising
clouds of dust behind, they were afraid and said that the Anti-Christ had
risen, he is wandering over hill and dale, he is announcing that the
coming of doomsday, he is blowing his horn. Due to that they escaped to
the mountains!” Turning to the others the district governor complaint as:
“Oh, how will we make men out of these ignorant guys.”449
Similar practices of the peasants were told in a story of Fakir Baykurt titled
Oyun (The Play). In his story Baykurt tells how the peasants tell the state officials
448 Enis, Toprak Kokusu, p. 64. “Köylü kurnazdır: Hükümet adamlarını kendi menfaat ölçülerine göre
kategoriye ayırmıstır. Hepsine karsı gösterdigi saygı ve korku hissi, bu menfaat nispetine göre
ayarlanmıstır.”
449 Halikarnas Balıkçısı, Ötelerin Çocugu (
stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1969), p. 233. “Köylüler, uzaktan
gürültüyü isitip de allı yesilli bayraklarla donanmıs kafilenin yaklasmakta oldugunu görünce,
kendilerinden gene para alınacagını, ya da bir angaryaya kosulacaklarını çarçabuk anladılar. Çünkü
ancak bu iki mesele için, onlara basvurulurdu. Daga kaçmak istemeyen Tiycan’a kafileye ne
diyecegini tembih ederek, hep birlikte, sıvıstılar. ... Köye varınca orada, inlerle cinlerin top attıklarını
gördüler. Köyde yalnız Tiycan vardı. Kaymakam ona köy halkının nerede oldugunu sordu. Karakız:
“Daglara kaçtılar!” dedi. Birkaç kisi birden: “Neden?” diye sordu. Tiycan: “Gürültüyü isitip tozu
dumana katarak gelmekte oldugunuzu görünce, Deccal çıkmıs, dere tepe geziyor, kıyamet kopacagını
ilan ediyor dünyaya yuf borusu çekiyor, diye ötleri koptu, onun için daglara kaçtılar!” diye cevap
verdi. Kaymakam digerlerine dönerek: “Ah, bu cahil herifleri nasıl adam edecegiz?” diye yakındı.”
280
visit the village the same stereotypical sentences, which they have memorized before.
Baykurt called this behavioral pattern the play of the peasants against the state
officials.450
Another interesting story is told in Karapürçek (Black Tassel) (1958), by
Sunullah Arısoy. The main character in this novel is a teacher. While he is going to
the village in which he will begin working, he is aware of such behavioral patterns of
the peasants. In the entire novel he tells that when the peasants try to trick any kind
of state officials that go to the village with those kinds of behaviors, what is needed
is to make the peasant like that official at first. The education and modernization
works have to be done after they have come to like the state official. According to
the writer, the teacher that desires to bring modernity to the village can use religion
as a tool and must go to the Friday prayer if necessary and has to behave like the
peasants behave. For him this is how the noncooperation of the peasants can be
broken.451 Arısoy, in a way, gives advice to the would-be agents of modernization in
the villages and actually says that in order to coop with the popular metis behaviors
of the peasants, it is necessary to use the same tactics in return.
The most important information that can be gathered from the village
literature texts is on the development of the political consciousness of the peasants
during the 1945-1960 period. Many village literature writers portrayed this political
development in their texts. This information has a binary meaning. Although most of
this information was based on the reality, they were also the product of the
imaginations of the writers. As will be discussed in the next section, the main
problematic of these literary texts was to present the “reality” of the village and the
peasants. That is to say, the village literature writers asserted that they were
450 Baykurt, Çilli.
451 Arısoy, Karapürçek, pp. 27-28.
281
presenting the “reality” at most in their texts. Most of the subjects portrayed in their
books were based on their personal experiences in the villages and with the peasants.
This situation created the binary meaning in the literary texts: The things written in
those books were real on the one hand, but on the other hand they were realities
which had been re-written according to the perceptions of the writers. Due to that
there are fundamental differences between them in evaluating the DP and the period
as a whole. In addition to that, some differences can also be observed between the
texts that were written in the early times of the DP period and during its last years.
In Yılan Hikayesi, written by Samim Kocagöz, the effect of the DP in the
village is treated positively more than in the other novels during that period. This
novel is also the only example that treats the organization of the DP opposition in a
village in the Aegean region and describes the reaction of the peasants to this new
political process. As told in the novel, the peasants learn that if they support the DP
in the coming elections that will be held in 1946, they will also find strong support
for themselves in their struggle against the aga and his man in the village, the village
headman. As a result they try to make all of the peasants in the village support the
DP in the elections. The information on how the peasants learned about voting in the
elections, which were held for the first time directly and with the existence of more
than one party, and how they discussed and accepted the elections as a tool for
making a change in the government power are treated in the novel as follows:
He intervened and said, “Stop for God’s sake…Both the government and
the state will get to the hands of whoever the people, in other words, we
want.”
“Why have we not done this work until now? Where was your mind,
Osman!”
“I was out walking the horse of the chief master. Now there is, how did
Mr. Mustafa said that, yes, democracy in the country.”
“What does it mean?”
The coffee man looked around self-righteously:
“It means voting.”
282
“Oooo!...”
“What is it…”
“How have you elected the village headman until now?”
“I have not elected village headman in my life. If I vote, my hand
breaks. I understand what you said. We will go to the ballot box with
drums and clarion and give the voting paper. You cannot make me do
this even if you cut my head.”
Osman yelled with anger: “You will certainly do that! And this time you
will elect which village headman you desire.”
“Do they make you elect the one you want?”
“We will see.”452
Mahmut Makal did not mention on political attitudes of the peasants in Bizim
Köy. However in Köyümden (From My Village) (1952), which was written as the
second volume of Bizim Köy, he gave some information on the 1946 and 1950
general elections. Although Makal did not portray political issues in Bizim Köy, the
book itself had a political meaning. The book gives the sense that no matter which
government is in power, the peasants will be ignored and exploited continually.
According to him the peasants were kept poor and ignorant for the specific benefit of
some people and groups. This material and moral exploitation of the peasants was
perpetuated by the state. In this way, the power groups could easily continue their
hegemony over the peasants. As a result of this tacit political meaning, the works of
Makal were banned both by the DP and the RPP governments.
In Köyümden, which is similar in form to Bizim Köy, Makal continued to tell
the same exploitation, poverty and deprivation stories. He thought that the peasants
could not exist in a democratic society with this ignorance. Instead of being active
subjects in politics, the politicians could easily deceive them with empty promises
452 Samim Kocagöz, Yılan Hikayesi (
stanbul: Yeditepe Yayınları, 1954), pp. 45-46. ““Durun be
yahu...” diye araya girdi, “Millet, sizin anlayacagınız biz, kimi istersek, hükümet de, devlet de onun
eline geçecek.” “Bugüne kadar bu isi neden yapmadık? Aklın nerdeydi Osman!” “Yok basefendinin
beygirini gezdiriyordum. Simdi memlekette, nasıl dedi onu Mustafa Bey bakayım; ha, demokrasi
çıkıyor.” “O da ne demekmis öyle?” Kahveci, bilgiç bilgiç etrafına bakındı: “rey demek.”
“Yaaaa!...” “Nasıl is...” “Ulan simdiye kadar nasıl muhtar seçerdin?” “Ben ömrümde muhtarı
seçmedim. Hem seçersem de elim kırılsın. Senin dedigini anladım. Davullan, zurnaylan sandık basına
gidip pusula koyacagız. Kafamı kessen bu isi bana yaptıramazsın.” “Bal gibi yapacaksın!” diye
Osman hırsla bagırdı; hem bu sefer canın istedigini muhtar seçeceksin..” “Seçtirirler mi adama?”
“Görürüz.””
283
and their exploitation for political reasons continues due to the peasants’ ignorance
and poverty. Makal says the following on the elections and political situation in the
villages:
Each of the three parties has its supporters. Everyone has found his
intellectual home and joined a party. The members of a party, and
especially their leaders, sacrifice sleep and leisure as far back as
February, turning night into day right up till the fourteenth of May; and
running round from door to door, talking people round with lies, is not
unprofitable, you know. The promises they made! If they could show
success in enlisting supporters they might even become Deputies
themselves.
When April came and there was only about a month before the election,
feelings ran high. A stream of candidates, both district and provincial, as
well as party founders and members, descended on the villages. To hear
the way the villagers talked, you’d have thought that this village was
Paris, the next one London, and the third Istanbul. No sooner had one
taxi or jeep driven off, than two others arrived, with flags on their
bonnets. The visitors get up on a stone block with reams of paper in their
hands and read and read interminably. It’s as though there were no end
to our troubles. They know better than we do. These comings and goings
are in fact a novelty for the villagers; they crowd together round each
new arrival. Most of the subject-matter is irrelevant, but they listen
patiently to the so-called speeches, which are full of mutual abuse, such
vile talk, that one feels inclined to sink into the ground or stop one’s ears
and run away. Once they’re gone, of course, people voice their criticism
according to their lights.453
In most of the novels, the political issues that the peasants talk to each other
about while sitting in the coffeehouse or when they gather in a place are portrayed.
As Makal said in the quotation above, the peasants did not reveal their thoughts
while the party representatives were talking to them in general. The peasants mostly
talked to each other and discussed the speeches to which they had listened during the
day after the party representatives left the village. Another example of this kind of
discussion between the peasants and how they revealed their political identity during
these discussions can be observed in Çarıgımı Yitirdigim Tarla (The Field that I Lost
My Pile Shoe) (1955), written by Mehmet Basaran:
453 Mahmut Makal, Köyümden-Köy Ögretmeninin Notları: II (
stanbul: Varlık Yayınevi, 1952), p. 88.
The translation is taken from, Mahmut Makal, A Village in Anatolia, trans. Sir Wyndham Deedes
(London: Vallentine, Mitchell & Co. Ltd., 1954), pp. 139-140.
284
“At the end of the world” he said, “the iron would talk… says the book..
The end of the world.. You see, it is talking now.. These are the signs of
doomsday. The democratism, playing off the people.. Partisanship and
such…”
The head of the Party, who plays cards in the corner with Ali of Barber
Ahmed, blazed: “Grey pig!.. You again begin to make propaganda.. You
found the innocent child.. If the partisanship did not occur, your skin
would be left in the police station.. Pray for the partisans.”
“Did someone say, you, shoo! you lame dog? They are sure the signs of
the doomsday. Do you know where your father was hidden during the
time of the Greeks? If they did not save us..”
“You ruined everything again.. At least don’t say that.. Wasn’t that you
that cried during the Chicken War? Didn’t you steal your own crops
from the officials of the office? Could you get closer to the government
offices? If ours were not come, you would not hear the ezan while
dying.. You would be drinking the shitty waters of the wells even
today…”
“Leave that words aside.. Look for who is gained from this work.. We
are making Mr. Kemal fat again in the town, aren’t we? His son is a
deputy, his son-in-law is a doctor.. Whose dairy collects all of the milk?
Who is buying the sunflowers even when they blossom? To whom are
these people are indebted? He is throwing two greasy bones in front of
you, making you shout..”454
As can be seen in this quotation, the peasants were informed about political
developments. They reevaluated their political positions by investigating the
everyday practices of the prominent people that were involved in the local politics.
During the conversations, they increased the extent of the political issues they
discussed by repeating exactly the slogans of the party they supported, and they
created a political consciousness of being supporters of a party which was mostly
shaped through these discussions. This situation shows that the peasants were in a
454 Basaran, Çarıgımı Yitirdigim Tarla, pp. 138-139. “Ahır zaman” dedi, “demir konusacak..” der
kitap.. Ahır zaman.. Görüysün konusuyo iste.. Kıyamet alametleri bunlar.. Dimokrasicilik, milleti
birbirine düsürmekler.. Partıcılık, purtuculuk... Kösede, Belber Ahmedin Aliyle kaat oynayan Parti
baskanı parladı : “Kır domuuuuz!.. porpugandaya basladın gene.. Buldun saf çocugu karsında.. abe
particilik çıkmayaydı, karakolda kalıcadı postun senin.. Dua et particile.” “Sana ost! deyen oldu mu
be topal köpek? Elbet kıyamet alameti bunnar. Biliy misin nerde saklanıydı baban Yunan zamanı?
Onnar kurtarmayaydı bizi.. “Te sıçtın batırdın gene.. Sen bari söyleme bunu.. Sen deyil miydin
aglayan Tavuk Savasında? Kendi ekenini gece çalmadın mı ofis memurlarından? Sokulabiliy miydin
mükümet kapısına? Bizimkiler gelmeyeydi, ölürken ezan duymaycadı kulan be... Çook kuyuların boklu
sularını içicedin daa.. “Bırak sen sindi oralarını.. Kime yarıyo is ona bak.. Gene Kemal Beyi
semirtmiyonuz mu kasabada? Oglu meppus, güvesi doktor.. Kimin mandırasına gidiyo sütler? Kim
daa çiçende alıyo gündöndüleri? Kime borçlu millet? Atıyo önünüze iki yaglı kemik, bartıyo sizi
burda..”
285
process that would develop their political consciousness, which would help them to
become active elements in politics. Albeit the political words that were repeated by
the peasants were only the repetition of the propaganda that had been created in the
center of the politics, accepting themselves as the supporters and representatives of a
political understanding was a kind of political consciousness that became established
during the 1950s and which had not been seen during the single-party period. Many
examples of that behavior can be found in the village literature texts of the period as
was shown above.
The village headmen, who had been the only political representatives of the
center in the villages during the single-party period, had taken their share of this
change in politics and felt the necessity to gain the support of the peasants. In most of
the village literature texts, this change in the government of the village is also
treated. In a way, this development affected the powerful position of the village
headmen in the village. Due to that, many village headmen were angry about when
the single-party regime made the transition to multi-party system. They were angry
because they had been able to get their works done more easily before the singleparty
period. However, now, they had to gain the votes and the support of the
majority of the peasants in their villages in order to continue their jobs. Yasar Kemal
gives a good example of this thought of a village headman in his novel Ortadirek as
follows:
Ah, all this nonsense is the invention of that Ismet Pasha. If he hadn’t
brought this democracy business upon our heads, would the likes of
Tashbash ever have had the cheek to stand up to a Muhtar? Eh Ismet, but
you’ve fallen into your own trap. Look at all these barefooted
ragamuffins you gave the right to vote to. Do they give you a single of
their votes now? Ah Ismet, you may have become a great pasha and
even a president of the Republic, but if there’s one grain of sense in that
head of yours, I’m ready to shave off this moustache of mine! Would a
man in his right senses take the knotted rope he holds in his hands and
tie it about his own legs? Hah, you’ll see the nape of your neck first
286
before you ever see the Presidency again! I, for one, will die rather than
side with you again. A man who lets the presidency slip out of his
fingers, just by trusting himself to the vote of a handful of barefooted
peasants, is surely incapable of ruling a great nation. No, my friend, I
don’t call that clever! You may be considered as an astute politician,
your fame may have spread even to the Land of the Franks, but if you
ask me, you’re simply no good at all, my friend! I’ll never forgive you
as long as I live. Because of you, I almost lost my post of Muhtar. If I
hadn’t passed over to that new Democrat Party in double quick time, it
would have been all over with me. Ah Ismet, why didn’t you consult
your faithful muhtars before deciding to change our comfortable oneparty
system? Look at the result now! Oh yes, I know you’re sorry for
what you’ve done, but it’s too late. The birds have flown out of your
hand and you can exert yourself as much as you like you’ll never catch it
again. Ah Ismet, ah, you’re much to blame! You deserve what you got,
but you’ve done us a great deal of harm too.
He lay on his bed, fully dressed, his eyes fixed on the starry sky, still
ruminating on the incomprehensible behaviour of Ismet Pasha. In the
end, he decided it must be ascribed to old age. Yes, obviously old age
had impaired Ismet Pasha’s mind!455
During the years that the DP was in power, the peasants saw that the ones that
had supported the DP had less problematic relations with the government. Due to
that, the peasants got closer to the DP government. Those who had not supported the
DP in the previous years began to support in order to be in a more advantageous
position. This patronage relation was treated frequently in the village literature
novels and during the preceding years of the DP government this observation of the
writers changed with the critique of the DP patronage. The peasants tried to get their
business done by finding an official from the government party or by representing
themselves as party members.
Although the trust of the peasants in the DP was shaken during the end of the
DP power, the peasants were aware that their relations with the DP depended on an
understanding shaped by mutual benefit. They were aware that the politicians would
visit their villages again during the election times and want their support for the DP
government. Due to that the peasants preferred to continue their relation with the DP
455 Yashar Kemal, The Wind from the Plain, trans. Thilda Kemal (London: Collins and Harvill Press,
1963), pp. 240-241.
287
power accordingly. Again in the words of Yasar Kemal, this situation is told in
Ortadirek as follows:
“If they won’t give us work, then we’ll go to Tevfik Bey, the Party
leader in the town. Didn’t we give you our honourable votes, we’ll say.
Well, see now how your people are being treated by the Muhtar and the
great aghast of the Chukurova!”
This started off a heated argument as to whether Tevfik Bey would side
with the Muhtar or with the villagers. In the end they decided that if
Tevfik Bey had a shred of sense –and no one doubted but that he was a
well of wisdom, or how could he have been elected president of the
Party branch- he would support the villagers.456
Samim Kocagöz, in his story Çalılı Köy (Bushy Village), which is in his book
Ahmet’in Kuzuları (The Lambs of Ahmet) (1958), tells the story of a land conflict
that occurs between the village that supports the party in power and another village
that supports the opposition party. This story was on a very problematic issue that
frequently happened during the period in question in between neighboring villages,
which occurred due to the conflicts on the determination of the borders between the
villages. In this way, this story also gives the information about the real pretext of
these land conflicts that cannot be gathered from the newspapers of the period.
Mahmut Makal also told in Bizim Köy that these land issues were one of the
main problems which could not be resolved until that time.457 As Kocagöz said, the
land conflicts, which actually had continued for many years between the villages,
changed form with the effect of partisanship. During the multi-party struggle, the
village that gained the support of the party in power began to use this advantageous
position in their dispute with the neighboring village. The disputes that occurred in
determining the ownership of the lands that remained between two villages began to
be resolved according to the political preferences of the peasants. These lands were
mostly used for cultivation by one village and for pasture by the other. Samim
456 Ibid., p. 26.
457 Mahmut Makal, Bizim Köy-Bir Köy Ögretmeninin Notları, 3 ed. (
stanbul: Varlık Yayınları, 1950),
pp. 17-19.
288
Kocagöz, who praised the DP during its early years in his novels, criticized this
situation and asserted that the patronage practices of the DP had resulted in these
kinds of land conflicts between the villages. He explained that due to these practices,
the peasants had come to a position to revolt against the state, the party and the state
officials, as follows:
“Why am I going to be ashamed of, why we are going to be ashamed of
my son? Let the ones that make us break each other be ashamed.” … He
said, “you are ignorant my corporal, you don’t understand. We want to
see that who will get us out of these lands, which are halal earnings of us
and inherited from our heirs and grandfathers. If it is the state than it is
the state, if it is the party than it is the party, if it is the people than it is
the people… Our neck is thinner than hair. Let us understand this.”458
During these conflicts which were shaped according to political preferences
the peasants became politically more aware of their importance in the new political
system. They understood that they had an important place in the working of this
system. At least they became aware that the votes they gave during the elections
were important for all parties, and they could use this to increase their benefits. As
the importance of the voting process in the creation of the political consciousness of
the peasants has been told in the previous chapters in detail, the peasants always tried
to use this “valuable” fact as a weapon for their benefit during this period.
As a result of the propaganda that was directed at the peasants and the
development of the political and economic conditions, the peasants’ interest in these
developments increased. Contrary to the peasants of the single-party period, who
stayed away from the government and the armed forces of the single-party regime,
the peasants during the new period had a differentiated consciousness, and they now
began to trust themselves in their relations with the state. The reflections of this
458 Samim Kocagöz, Ahmet'in Kuzuları (
stanbul: Yeditepe Yayınları, 1958), pp. 70, 71. “’Ben, ne
utanayım, biz, niye utanalım be oglum? Bizi, milleti birbirine kırdıranlar utansın.’ ... ‘Sen, cahilsin
onbasım, anlamazsın,’ dedi, ‘biz, anamızın ak sütü gibi bize helal bu topraklardan, ata dede yadigarı
bu topraklardan kimin bizi çıkaracagını gözlerimizle görmek istiyoruz. Dövletse dövlet, partiyse parti,
milletse millet... Boynumuz kıldan ince. Anlıyalım bakalım’.”
289
change can be observed in the village literature texts. Sunullah Arısoy describes this
increase in the self-confidence of the peasants during the period as follows:
I watched Kara Memis until he got lost in the opposite street with his
hands behind his back. I am sure that he is now feeling relief, a
discharge inside. He is now in a wild pride. He is in pride and enjoyment
of rising against a man from the government, not caring about him and
overrunning him. He tasted the one and the main blessings of the new
period in his rude, wild rebellion to my face. Kara Memis trusted that the
gendarmerie could not take him to the police station easily, the corporal
could not beat him while swearing a blue streak. Times had changed. It
was not the old times now. He practiced the difference of these two
periods himself with the talk that he made to me a short time ago. He felt
the indefinable taste of not being defeated and not being crushed.459
The political atmosphere which was shaped with the existence of the
peasants, even if it did not change anything, created the situation that is stated in the
last words of Arısoy, quoted above. The peasants, at least the peasants that supported
the DP, saw themselves as being in power and as an important element that had a
word on the politics.460 In a way, during this period the peasants felt as if they were
an active component of politics. This phenomenon was not only the discourse or the
observation of the intellectuals of the period, but also was a practice that the peasants
applied during this period.
459 The emphases are mine. Arısoy, Karapürçek, p. 97. “Kara Memis’i, eli arkasında karsıki sokaktan
kayboluncaya kadar, seyrettim. Simdi o, eminim, içinde bir bosalma, rahatlık duyuyordur. Vahsi bir
gurur içindedir. Hükümetten bir adama kafa tutmanın, onu umursamamanın, çigneyip geçmenin zevki,
gururu içindedir. Yeni devrin, nimetlerinden birini, baslıcasını, benim yüzüme karsı yaptıgı kaba,
vahsi isyanda tadıyordu. Kara Memis, jandarmanın kendisini hemen çalyaka edemiyecegine,
onbasının ana-avrad düz gidip sopa atamıyacagına güveniyordu. Devir degismisti. Simdi eski devir
degildi. Bu iki devrin ayırımını, kendisi, az önce benimle yaptıgı konusmada uygulamıstı.
Ezilmemenin, yenilgi duymamanın anlatılmaz tadını duyuyordu.”
460 As was told in the Chapter Three, the peasants during this period gained a new political
consciousness, which increased their self-confidence in politics. They began to interrogate the state
officials and began to demand their rights. This kind of information in the village literature texts also
supports that this change in the political consciousness of the peasants during this period was a widely
known development and the intellectuals of the period were aware of that.
290
The Making of the Village Literature Canon
In this section, the making of the village literature canon in the 1945-1960
period, the spheres that this literature genre created, and the discussions around this
subject will be analyzed more than the village literature texts of the period. In a way,
why the things in the village literature texts are said will be analyzed more than the
things themselves. In addition, how the village and the peasants became the
dominant themes in the literature during this period will be shown. Through the
relations of the intellectuals of the period to the village literature, the perceptions of
the intellectuals to the village problems and the transformation of the intellectual and
ideological perceptions on the village and the peasants will be discussed.
As a beginning, a conceptual fact which must be discussed regarding the
subject of the village literature needs to be defined in here. The concept of “reality”
was the most disputable, and the most important element that maintained the making
of the village literature cannon during this period. This discussion on “reality” was
not similar to any discussions made previously in Turkey. In other words, neither the
discussions on socialist realism that were effected by the literary developments in the
Soviet Union,461 nor the discussions on realism that took place between Ernst Bloch,
Georg Lukacs and Bertolt Brecht462 maintained the basis for the discussions on
“reality” during this period. Both discussions had had some effects on the literature
developments during the single-party period, and they were evaluated as extensions
of the discussions that occurred in the international sphere. The perception of reality
during this period was shaped through the aim of getting information about the
461 For the discussions on socialist realism current in Turkey, see Ahmet Oktay, Toplumcu
Gerçekçiligin Kaynakları (Ankara: Bilim/Felsefe/Sanat Yayınları, 1986).
462 For this discussion, see Ernst Bloch et al., Estetik ve Politika, trans. Ünsal Oskay (
stanbul: Elestiri
Yayınevi, 1985).
291
village and the peasants for making this information useful in political and technical
means in relation to the modernization and developmentalist perspective.
During this period, the literary event with the most influence on the creation
of reality in the village literature was the publication of Mahmut Makal’s Bizim Köy.
In the foreword of the book, written by Yasar Nabi and titled Birkaç Söz (A Few
Words), the creation of the realist approach and its meaning for this period are
clearly described as follows:
In my opinion, the bitter reality of a Central Anatolian village is told for
the first time in this book, in all of its bareness. Although there have
been some other materials written on the conditions of our villages these
have been either economic or sociological studies, or some observations
of intellectuals who passed through the villages haphazardly. But this
book was written as a result of the direct witnessing of a boy who was
born in the village and still lives there. This is why it is priceless.
Besides, even with the help of a magnifying glass, for a man looking far
from the village, to see and understand the things that Makal tells is
impossible.463
The realist expression of the village conditions with Mahmut Makal
stimulated the discussion of the qualification of the literary texts that treated the
village and peasants which had been published in the previous period. The “official”
village literature of the single-party era, which had been shaped by a romanticist
peasantist ideology, aimed to produce writings which sought the omnipotent,
omnipresent origin of the Turkish nation in the village. In this respect, even though
there had been some works that tried to address the rural structure from the “realist”
perspective before Bizim Köy and some of them have been mentioned in this chapter
too, Makal is always accepted as the turning point in village realism. Before
463 Makal, Bizim Köy, p. 4. “Bir Orta Anadolu köyünün acı gerçegi, bana öyle geliyor ki bütün
çıplaklıgiyle ilk defa olarak bu kitapta dile geliyor. Gerçi, köylerimizin durumuna dair daha önce de
bazı seyler yazılmıstır. Ancak bunlar ya iktisadî, içtimaî arastırmalar, yahut da köye söyle bir ugramıs
aydınların müsahedeleriydi. Halbuki bu kitap dogrudan dogruya köyde dogmus, köyde yasayan bir
köy çocugunun sehadetidir. Büyük kıymeti de bu yüzdendir. Hattâ bir pertavsızın yardımiyle de olsa,
uzaktan bakan bir insan için, Makal’ın anlattıklarını görüp tespit etmege imkân yoktu.”
292
discussing the meaning of this turning point, this differing in the realist perspective
needs to be described.
When the main reasons for the tremendous impact of Bizim Köy are examined
it will be possible to understand more clearly what kind of village realism was
created with this book or this where this “desire for realism” came from. Fakir
Baykurt, another important village literature writer of the period, defined the general
characteristics of the 1945-1960 period and the political atmosphere in which the
village literature was born as follows:
There are periods in Turkey that are sensitive to some subjects. During
the years that I was preparing to write Yılanların Öcü the village
problem was the crucial problem of Turkey. We were just in the multiparty
life and the village was coming out of the ballot box continuously.
The professor has one vote, the peasant has one, too. I don’t want say
that the peasants cannot vote, I won’t say it either; however, the weight
of the villages stated itself at the ballot box.464
It was the time of the peasants, as Fakir Baykurt said. The necessity to reach a
group that constituted eighty percent of Turkey at that time, that never got involved
in government business and had never been allowed to say a word in it, arose. The
DP, which realized this changing situation before all, tried to use this new
atmosphere, which was created with the help of this kind of publications, in order to
gain the support of the peasants and the intellectuals and to shape its discourse
against the RPP and the practices of the single-party period. Orhan Kemal made the
best definition of the political atmosphere into which Bizim Köy was born, as
follows:
May I explain it? Mahmut Makal was born in a very special period,
during the People’s Party-Democrat Party conflict… In the Democrat
464
hsan Yılmaz, "Fakir Baykurt: Yılanların Öcü Bir Çıglık Edebiyatıdır," Hürriyet Gösteri, no. 197-
198 (April-May 1997), p. 27. “Türkiye’de öyle dönemler vardır ki, o dönemler bazı konulara
duyarlıdır. Ben, ‘Yılanların Öcü’nü yazmaya hazırlandıgım yıllarda köy sorunu Türkiye’nin en can
alıcı sorunuydu. Çok partili yasama yeni geçmistik, sandıktan habire köy çıkıyordu. Profesörün bir
oyu var, köylünün bir vardı. Köylü oy veremez demiyorum, demem de; ama bu köy agırlıgının
sandıkta kendini belirtmesiydi.”
293
Party, such a thesis had existed that the People’s Party did not give a
thing during its several years of power to the village, which had been
inherited from the Ottoman sultanate. In the sphere of the press this
thesis was adopted, led by Cumhuriyet newspaper and Nadir Nadis, and
all of them started an assault on the old party in power… Against the
People’s Party… During this struggle, and during this thing of the other
side, Mahmut Makal and this book occurred. I mean, a peasant openly
brought out his own book. When this book was put onto the market, the
assertions of the Democrat Party, which were all true, were ratified by
this book. And it was the only book at that time. I mean, a peasant
describes his own village and his own realities in his own language. The
Democrat Party supported this, -Cumhuriyet newspaper- apparently,
let’s remember those years… This became a political issue. This
political issue, this value giving, this struggle, created a very fortunate
condition for Mahmut Makal’s book. Was the book of Mahmut Makal,
in fact a worthless book, no… I don’t mean that, definitely, it is in fact a
valuable book, there was no such example in its genre.465
After the Second World War, in the process of redefining and recreating the
economy and the policy of Europe and the world, a new classification was created to
address the problem of development and modernization of Third World countries.
The main focus of the developmentalist perspective in this period was on rural
structures. In order to create a stabilized world economy and policy, the need for
information about the underdeveloped countries created the demand for information
on the “reality” of rural structures. The supporters of developmentalism and
intellectuals in Turkey complained of the non-existence of works that described the
reality of the villages and peasantry, which could be used to achieve the desired
goals. In addition to this lack, there was nothing but romanticist peasantist works
465 Baykurt et al., Bes Romancı, p. 70. “Ben izah edeyim mi? Mahmut Makal, öyle bir “hadd-i
fasıl”da dogdu ki Halk Partisi-Demokrat Parti çatısmasında... Osmanlı saltanatından devr olan köye,
Halk Partisi, su kadar yıllık iktidarında hiçbir sey vermedi tezi vardı Demokrat Parti’de. Bu tezi,
Cumhuriyet Gazetesi, Nadir Nadiler de basta olmak üzere basın alanında hepsi birden topyekûn
taarruza geçmis vaziyetteydiler eski iktidara... Halk Partisine karsı... Bu mücadele, öbür tarafın da bu
seysi sırasında, Mahmut Makal ve bu kitabı meydana geldi. Yani, bir köylü kendi kitabını resmen
ortaya attı. Piyasaya atınca, o zaman Demokrat Parti’nin iddialarını –ki hakikattı- tesvik etmis oldu
bu kitap. Ve tek kitaptı o zaman. Yani, bir köylü kendi köyünü, kendi gerçeklerini kendi diliyle
vermisti. Demokrat Parti tuttu bunu –Cumhuriyet gazetesi- malum iste, o yılları hatırlayalım... Politik
bir mevzu oldu bu. Bu politik mevzu, bu kıymet, bu çatısma Mahmut Makal’ın kitabının çok sanslı bir
sartı oldu, Mahmut Makal’ın kitabı, ama haddi zatında degersizmiydi kitap, yok... onu kastetmiyorum,
katiyen, haddi zatında degerli bir kitap, janrında öyle bir kitap yoktu.”
294
which had been prepared by the “peasantist branches” of the People’s Houses, a
populist propaganda organization of the RPP.
In fact, there had been another book named Bizim Köy before Makal’s book,
but it had been the representative of the approach told above, and had not attracted
the attention of the intellectuals and politicians. An example from this book
illustrates the difference from Makal’s book:
The city-dwellers that come frequently to the village like us either for
another thing: there are no such things as assault, murder, robbery,
inauspiciousness in our village. Land conflicts do not occur. We do not
make a pass at the honor of the others. We do not look with an evil eye
at the neighbors’ assets and life. The gendarmeries pass by our village, if
they happen to pass. The tax collector turns back from the village room.
The most crowded houses in our village are the wealthiest ones. If
someone has more people in his house, he earns much more money.466
The descriptions in Cahit Begenç’s Bizim Köy mostly were received in an
opposite way to that of the village literature works during the period under
discussion. Instead of this idealized peasants, who had no such bad habits and did not
have any problems with the gendarmeries and the state officials, Makal’s description
of the peasants, who lived in poverty and feared of the gendarmeries and the state
officials, were found more realistic. This also shows that the perception of reality
changed in this period according to the needs of the new system.
Another important reason behind the non-existence of this kind of realism in
the previous works which dealt with rural structures was the anti-communist political
atmosphere of the period. The relation of peasants to these anti-communist policies
was analyzed in detailed in Chapter Four. Although the poverty of the rural poor and
the rural exploitation had been mentioned in previous works, these writings mostly
466 Begenç, Bizim Köy, p. 18. “Köye sık sık gelen sehirliler bizi bir seyden daha severler: bizde
yaralama, adam öldürme, hırsızlık, ugursuzluk gibi seyler yoktur. Tarla nizası yapmayız. Elin günün
ırzına ayaline laf atmayız. Konu komsunun malına canına kem gözle bakmayız. Yolu düserse,
jandarma bizim köyden ancak o zaman geçer. Tahsildar köy odasından döner gider. Bizim köyde en
varlıklı evler en kalabalık evlerdir. Kimin evinde insan çoksa o daha çok para kazanır.”
295
dealt with the pre-Republican period. Even so, during the single-party era these
writings had been prohibited and their writers had been arrested on the grounds of
making communist propaganda. In this context, realism had been an undesirable
approach for the single-party era writers.
The period of 1945-1960 was more dominated by anti-communism than the
previous period. Then, how could this kind of realist literature, which discusses the
rural poor, exploitation and ignorance as clear as a picture, flourish? Makal and the
literature canon created after him achieved this with the help of two factors. Both of
these factors, first, strengthened the assertion that this kind of literature was a
reflection of reality, and second, obstructed the accusation of communist propaganda.
The first factor was related to the political atmosphere of the period. The
DP’s propaganda against the RPP government was based especially on the neglect of
the villagers and especially the rural poor by the single-party regime. The DP used
the “reality” described in Makal’s book and by the literature trend following him as
the justification of its propaganda against the RPP period. The intellectuals who
supported the DP and transition to the multi-party system cherished the book. Samet
Agaoglu, a prominent member of the DP and an intellectual writer, described the
importance of Bizim Köy in the journal Varlık: “a new phase in our literature, maybe,
begins with this little work of art.”467
These good days did not last long. Makal was arrested a short time after his
book was published. Along with not clearly explaining the main reason for his arrest,
the state officials implied that the pretext of the arrest of Makal was not related to the
book, but to a speech that he had made. Some words in this speech were identified by
467 Kaplan, Türk Romanında Köy, p. 76. “edebiyatımızda yeni bir merhale belki de bu küçük eserle
baslayacaktır”
296
the officials as being the propaganda of communism.468 The statements of the
governor of Nigde, who made the arrest of Mahmut Makal, are described in
Cumhuriyet as follows:
The arrest of Mahmut Makal, the writer of Bizim Köy, has become clear
with the statement of the Governor of Nigde that is given above. Only,
the crime that caused the arrest of the writer cannot be enlightened
again. Although the governor states that the arresting has occurred not
because of the book, but because of the speech that was made in the
People’s Houses, he did not touch the nature of the crime.469
The state officials who were directed by the party in power, the RPP, tried to
convince the general public that the pretext of Makal’s arrest was not the book, but
his communist thoughts. Because, if this book, which was described insistently as a
“picture of the reality,” was prohibited by the party in power, this would weaken the
image of the RPP, which was in fact worsening day by day, against the DP
opposition. On the other hand, they had to prove that the things told in the book were
exaggerated and that Makal was telling lies under the influence of his communist
tendency. Mahmut Makal, in his memoirs, told the story of how the governor of
Nigde made the effort to reveal that the things written in Bizim Köy are exaggerated,
as follows:
After they left, the governor of Nigde,
brahim Tevfik Kutlar, came to
the village the next day. To the peasants that gathered in front of the
school, he suddenly said:
“Take your feet out of your shoes!”
468 The speech that was said that Makal made in the People’s Houses was as follows: “Today the rich
people can educate their children; the children of the poor ones cannot be educated… However after
one or two years a new state will be founded; after that time the rich, poor; the bagel seller, barber,
blacksmith will go to the school all together, equally.” “Simdiki zamanda zenginler çocuklarını
okutuyor; fakirlerin çocugu okuyamıyor… Fakat iki üç sene sonra yeni bir devlet kurulacak; o zaman
zengin, fakir; simitçi, berber; demirci hep beraber ve müsaveten okutulacak.” Nuhun Gemisi, 19 April
1960, no. 25.
469 “’Bizim Köy’ Müellifinin Tevkifi,” Cumhuriyet, 11 April 1950. “’Bizim Köy’ müellifi Mahmud
Makal’ın tevkif edildigi Nigde Valisinin yukarıdaki izahatile de tebeyyün etmis bulunuyor. Yalnız,
müellifin tevkifine sebeb olan suç gene aydınlanmamıs bulunmaktadır. Vali, tevkif hadisesinin eser
yüzünden degil, Halkevinde yapılan bir konusmadan ileri geldigini beyan etmekle beraber, suçun
mahiyetine temas etmemektedir.”
297
When the shoes were taken, he made a speech to them. He asked “Are
you infested with lice, are you naked, are you hungry?” The peasants
looked stupidly and did not understand a thing.
Just after that he spoiled the beans and with showing me he said:
“You see, that man is like a spy in between you. He is telling lies from
here to abroad. He is saying that you are hungry, naked, he says you
have no socks on your feet. Look, you all have socks in your feet, for
God’s sake… You are not like the ones that he told about in his
book!...”470
Since they could not say that the things described in Makal’s book were all
lies, they tried to imply that he was a communist and exaggerated the condition of
the rural people for making the propaganda of communism. Against the
government’s claims, especially the press tried to prove that Makal was not a
communist and that his book presented nothing but the truth. So, in order to achieve
that, Cumhuriyet newspaper made an interview with Makal471 and to show that the
rural people who were described in his book were real, the reporters visited his
village.472 In this way, both with the help of the DP’s propaganda and the anti-RPP
intellectuals’ attitude, the extent of the reality in the story of Makal’s book became
stronger. But more important than that, the previously dominant romanticist
peasantist comprehension was replaced by the peasantry in need of urgent
development.
470 Makal, Anımsı Acımsı, p. 46. “Onların ardından Nigde Valisi brahim Tevfik Kutlar geldi ertesi
gün. Okulun önüne toplanan köylülere tepeden inme: ‘Ayaklarınızı çıkarın kunduralarınızdan!’ dedi.
Ayaklar çıkında da bir söylev çekti onlara. ‘Siz bitli misiniz, çıplak mısınız, siz aç mısınız?’ diyerek.
Köylüler aval aval bakıyorlar, hiçbir sey anlamıyorlardı. Derken baklayı agzından çıkardı beni
göstererek: ‘ste bu adam, aranızda casus gibidir. Yalan ögütüyor buradan öteye. Aç diyor sizler için,
çıplak diyor, çorapları yok diyor. Bakın hepinizin çorabı var allaha sükür... Bunun kitabında anlattıgı
gibi degilsiniz!...’”
471 Ferdi Öner, "’Bizim Köy’ Müellifi Ile Bir Konusma," Cumhuriyet 13 April 1950, Ferdi Öner,
"’Bizim Köy’ Müellifi Hayatını Anlatıyor," Cumhuriyet 17 April 1950.
472 Ferdi Öner, "’Bizim Köy’de Neler Gördük, Neler Duyduk?," Cumhuriyet 18 April 1950.
298
Figure 4. A caricature that criticizes the inspection of the governor of Nigde in
Mahmut Makal’s village473
The DP’s support of Makal would continue after it came to power.
Cumhuriyet, which pretty much volunteered to act in the role of spokesman for
Makal, invited Makal to visit Istanbul, Bursa and Ankara. During this trip, Makal
was the center of attention from the prominent intellectuals of the period. After his
visit to the Turkish Journalists Association, he ate lunch at
stanbul University with
the rector and after that he met with Yahya Kemal and talked to him on the
Bosporus. He saw the sea for the first time and got on to a plane for the first time
while going to Bursa and “investigated” the night life of
stanbul together with the
journalist that accompanied him during his entire trip.474 After this trip, Makal was
invited to Çankaya, the residence of the president, to a meeting with Celal Bayar,
473 Nuhun Gemisi, 26 April 1960, no. 26. Under the caricature it is written: “New type of inspection…
The governor of Nigde is in Makal’s village.”
474 Ferdi Öner, "Mahmud Makal ‘Cumhuriyet’in Misafiri," Cumhuriyet 23 May 1950; Ferdi Öner,
"Mahmud Makal,
stanbulu Geziyor," Cumhuriyet 24 May 1950; Ferdi Öner, "Mahmud Makal
Bogaziçinde," Cumhuriyet 25 May 1950; Ferdi Öner, "Mahmud Makal Üniversitede," Cumhuriyet 26
May 1950; Ferdi Öner, "Mahmud Makal, Büyük Sehrin Gece Hayatını Tetkik Etti," Cumhuriyet 27
May 1950; Ferdi Öner, "Mahmud Makal Bursada," Cumhuriyet 28 May 1950; Ferdi Öner, "Mahmud
Makalın Uçak Yolculugu," Cumhuriyet 29 May 1950; Ferdi Öner, "Mahmud Makal, Üniversite
Gençlerin Verdikleri Çayda," Cumhuriyet 30 May 1950; Ferdi Öner, "Mahmud Makal, Gazeteciler
Cemiyetini Ziyaret Etti," Cumhuriyet 31 May 1950.
299
who was the leader of the DP and the president after the DP came to power. Makal
talked to Celal Bayar on the village development issues during the meeting and
according to the spokesman of the Presidency, who wrote an article in Cumhuriyet
on Makal’s visit to Bayar, Makal said:
While going to Çankaya, I was thinking about how President Celal
Bayar would meet me and what would he say on the village
development issues. I saw Bayar as a sincere and intimate President who
knows our claims. Due to that my gladness has increased. I am now
going back to the village relieved. I am working, we will be
successful!475
After his
stanbul trip, Makal wrote his general views and the impressions
that he got from this trip in an article in Cumhuriyet. In this article he stated clearly
that he was not a communist. This article was very meaningful in strengthening the
legitimacy that he gained while creating the village realism. The related part of this
article was as follows:
By the way I have to highlight an important point here: They showed me
a newly published journal. Its name is as weird as its content. This
journal published an open letter for me, it gives so much advice.
According to them the people around me were exploiting me, they were
deceiving me. They advised me see the poor areas of
stanbul, such and
such things that I had to do, I needed to pass to their side. I thank for
their advice but the problems of my village cannot be solved with the
political acrobatics in the way that they understand. I don’t need their
advice. I have consciousness to compare the scenes of poverty and
wealth. However, I do not make of the meanings that they understand
from these comparisons. I do not use my village as bait for a class
struggle. I believe that the problems of this country can only be solved
by the people of this country. I cannot adjust my mind according to the
ordered slogans brought from abroad. As I am the enemy of right-wing
bigotry, so I am the enemy of left-wing bigotry. As a matter of fact, I
don’t assume that real problems can be solved through theories. The
country wants us to work. We have to work for its service, as much as
we can with devotion, no need for us to strive to save the world.476
475 Faruk Fenik, "Cumhur Baskanı Dün M. Makalı Kabul Etti," Cumhuriyet 16 June 1950.
“Çankayaya giderken Cumhur Baskanı Celal Bayar beni nasıl karsılayacak? ve köy meseleleri için
neler söyliyecek diye düsünüyordum. Bayarı bizim davamızı bilen, samimi ve candan bir Cumhur
Baskanı olarak gördüm. Onun için sevincim arttı. Simdi köye daha çok iç rahatlıgı ile gidiyorum.
Çalısıyorum, muvaffak olacagız!”
476 Mahmud Makal, "
stanbuldan Ayrılırken," Cumhuriyet 3 June 1950. “Söz açılmısken çok önemli
bir noktaya dokunmadan geçemeyecegim: Yeni çıkan bir dergi gösterdiler. Adı gibi içi de bir tuhaf.
Bu dergi tutmus bana açık bir mektup yayınlamıs, bir sürü nasihatlar ediyor. Yok beni istismar
300
With the effect of these trips, Makal created a new image of the peasantry
around himself. He was now a “real peasant” whom the RPP had tried to label
communist. In fact, he was a naïve, rural poor villager, who had only revealed the
truth of the rural structure and actually knew nothing more than his own village.
Makal was a village boy and came from inside of the village. He sincerely wanted
the development and modernization of his village and struggled against the
reactionary forces in the village that obstructed development. Due to that, he told the
truth, and it was totally wrong to label him a communist.
Ferdi Öner, who was near Makal during his trip to
stanbul and wrote every
detail to Cumhuriyet, said that he had seen many things during his trip for the first
time. He created an image in the articles he wrote in Cumhuriyet and attached a
naïve but intelligent personality to Makal. Thus, it would be proved that this “village
boy” could not have any “treacherous” thoughts. This “real and sincere village boy,”
who was accepted by the DP and by its utmost leader Celal Bayar, became the
symbol of the DP, which promised to follow developmentalist and progressive
policies towards the peasants. With the help of the DP and the intellectual supporters,
Makal would be acquitted of the accusations that were directed to dishonor him. As a
result, these developments obstructed the anti-communist efforts, which prohibited
the mention of poverty and relations of exploitation in the rural structure, and created
ediyorlarmıs, yok gözümü boyamaya çalısıyorlarmıs, stanbul’un sefalet manzaralarını görmeli, söyle
söyle yapmalı, onların tarafına geçmeliymisim. Nasihatlerine tesekkür ederim ama, benim köyümün
derdi onların anladıgı sekilde bir politika canbazlıgıyla halledilemez. Tavsiyelerine ihtiyacım yok.
Fakirlik, zenginlik manzaraları arasında karsılastırma yapacak kadar aklım var. Ama böyle
karsılastırmalardan ben, onların anladıgı manaları çıkarmam. Köyümü bir sınıf kavgasına yem diye
kullanamam. Ben, bu memleketin meselelerinin yalnız bu memleketin insanları tarafından
halledilecegine inanıyorum. Dısarıdan getirilen ısmarlama parolalara göre kafamı ayarlayamam. Sag
yobazlıga ne kadar düsmansam, sol yobazlıga da o kadar düsmanım. Zaten nazariyeler yoluyla gerçek
dertlerin karsılanabilecegini de sanmam. Memleket bizden is istiyor. Kendimizi verip gücümüz yettigi
kadar onun hizmetinde çalısalım, nemize lazım bizim dünyayı düzeltmeye kalkmak.”
301
a strong relationship between the village literature genre and reality. The importance
of this factor will be stressed later.
The second factor that had an important place in maintaining the relationship
between the village literature and reality was the formation of a new generation of
writers that could write “real” literature from within the village. The Village Institute
experiment of the single-party regime, which had been founded to overcome the
education problem of the rural people, had created a new generation that knew the
village and could also write about it. In the Village Institutes the children of the rural
people learned to read, write and also criticize. They became aware of the world’s
problems and discussed them. These practices created a new generation of conscious
peasants who could talk and write about their feelings and problems. Between 1943-
1947, the head of the students read books, newspapers and journals and, with the
help of the supervisor teacher summarized the materials that were to be read were
prepared and discussed together during the “Free Reading” hours.477 In the same
years, the world classics were translated to Turkish with the support of the minister
of education, Hasan Ali Yücel. The students in the Institute’s were mostly reading
these newly translated books. These translations were called the “White Series.” The
naturalism of Emile Zola and Russian realist literature were translated in this series,
too. This new generation was mostly affected by these sources and thus as Ömer
Türkes put it, “in most of the stories of the village literature, the peasants of Anatolia
remind the readers, the Russian ‘mujik’.”478
The creation of the “notes from the village” genre in literature, the vanguard
of which was Mahmut Makal, occurred in the Village Institutes, too. The Köy
477 For the reading practices in the Village Institutes, see Hasan S. Keseroglu, Köy Enstitülerinde
Kitap, Kitaplık ve Okuma (
stanbul: Türk Kütüphaneciler Dernegi
stanbul Subesi Yayınları, 1995).
478 Türkes, "Tasra
ktidarı!," p. 213. “pek çok hikayedeki Anadolu köylüsü bir ‘mujigi’ hatırlatır
okuyucuya”
302
Enstitüleri Dergisi (The Journal of Village Institutes), which was published by the
Hasanoglan Village Institute, was the first place that examples of this kind of
literature were seen. Kemal Karpat said the following about this journal: “This small
journal became the vanguard of the new village literature. The teachers and students
published their stories, poems and observations in this journal. In all of the texts,
there was a direct connection between what is told and what is lived; the thoughts
were objective and based on the reality.”479
As Karpat writes, the most important effect of these texts was the change they
created in the perception of reality. The writers of these texts were actual peasants
and they had been educated in the state’s schools. There was a direct relation to
reality in these texts and due to that their effective power was more than any other
texts. When it is thought that these texts were published and distributed in high
number as to the conditions of Turkey,480 it is possible to assert that the new
perception of the period towards the village and the peasants found this new
constructed reality more functional from the previous peasantist ideology.
When the graduates of the Village Institutes, who later became literature
writers are taken into consideration, the accusations of “making propaganda for
communism” in the Institutes to the students were not that much wrong. However,
more than being communists, as can be seen in the words of Makal quoted above, the
peasants in these Institutes mostly believed in a more dynamic Kemalist
modernization and development program directed for the development of the village.
Saving the writers of the Institute graduates from the accusations of communism was
a widespread effort among some distinguished intellectuals of the period. The
479 Karpat, Çagdas Türk Edebiyatında, p. 39.
480 Atilla Özkırımlı says that this journal was published seventeen thousands per issue. Atilla
Özkırımlı, "Anahatlarıyla Edebiyat," in Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi (
stanbul:
letisim
Yayınları), p. 594.
303
following words of Hasan Ali Yücel, the leading supporter of the Village Institutes,
are a clear sign of this effort:
There is one common point in the languages of these peasant youths that
have entered into our literature. When you read them you feel sourness
in your palate. It is a somewhat acrid and a bitter taste even. This taste is
a new food for the old mouth. We need to stand for it. Need to stand for
and search for why they are writing like that. What I found is that the
expression movement that they feel, originated from the necessity of
recovering from the poisons of the snakes that are settled down in the
consciousness and the sub-consciousness of these youths, which have
occurred due to the exploitation of the Turkish peasants in the hands of
bad administrators for centuries by enslaving them under the most
horrible and insubstantial beliefs. They want to get rid of those poisons
with talking and writing. Their language will surely be acrid. If the
Sikayetname (indictment) of Fuzuli was not a communist manifest, the
vengeful and sometimes bitter smiling expressions of these peasant
youths cannot be accepted as left-handedness, as some of our
intellectuals supposed. They are writing with their right and clean
hands.481
Such acquittal efforts of the intellectuals for the realist representatives of the
village literature from communism strengthened the power of the things said in the
village literature texts and resulted in the establishment of a new kind of perception
towards the village. As was said in the title of the article of Hasan Ali Yücel, which
is quoted above, this time, the peasants did not enter into literature with an
intellectual perspective from outside of the village, but the peasants “entered
themselves” with a look from “within its natural living space.” Due to that, a new
understanding established which asserted that the policies towards the development
481 Hasan Ali Yücel, "Türk Edebiyatına Kendi Giren Köylü," Yeditepe, no. 161 (15 Agustos 1958), pp.
1, 3. “Edebiyatımıza giren bu köylü gençlerin üsluplarında müsterek bir nokta var. Okudugunuz
zaman damagınızda bir burukluk duyuyorsunuz. Kekremsi, hatta acımsı bir tat. Bu tat, eski agıza yeni
taamdır. Dayanmalı. Dayanmalı ve neye böyle yazıyorlar arastırmalı. Benim buldugum su:
Duydukları ifade hamlesi, Türk köylüsünün asırlar boyunca kötü idareciler elinde, en korkunç ve
asılsız inançlara esir edilerek sömürülmesi neticesi, bu gençlerin bilincinde ve bilinçleri altında
çöreklenmis yılanların zehirleri dısarı atıp ondan kurtulma ihtiyacından geliyor. Söyliyerek ve
yazarak bu zehirleri dökmek istiyorlar. Elbette üslupları buruk olacak. Fuzuli’nin Sikayetnamesi nasıl
bir komünist manifesti degilse bu köylü gençlerin hınçlı bazan acı gülüslü ifadeleri de bu kısım
aydınlarımızın sandıgı gibi solaklık eseri bellenmemelidir. Onlar, sag ve temiz ellerile
yazmaktadırlar.”
304
of the village and the whole country had to be maintained by paying attention to this
realist voice.
Actually, the writers that portrayed the village and peasants in their texts
wrote for this purpose. Each one of them had a peculiar development plan for the
peasants, who suffered in poverty and ignorance. In this way, the characteristic of the
village literature canon became clear with Bizim Köy. These characteristics were the
village as the origin of the writer, the writer as the bearer of the information on the
reality of the village, the necessity of the production of the texts that mostly focused
on the documentation of the village more than being literature and the presentation of
these texts as a report to the concerned authority.482 These characteristics mostly
were used in defining the so-called village literature genre during and after this
period.
As Zeki Coskun said, actually, these texts were written as “a petition that
were presented to the concerned authorities.”483 The motive behind these “petitions”
is explained by Fakir Baykurt, as follows:
I wanted to develop myself in the literary sphere and write books to
support the coming of better days in Turkey, to serve the survival of the
ones that grew up in hard conditions like me, to introduce and endear
Turkey to the world as a country which is valuable in all respects and
respectful with her people, flag and money. I want to be a writer as
Maksim Gorki and want to make the people say, “Here is a writer from
Turkey! His books are good; than his people must be good!”484
This state of mind of the graduates of the Village Institutes, which can be
summarized in short as a commitment to the peasants and the development of the
country, became the main themes in their literature works. The idealized goals that
482 Türkes, "Tasra
ktidarı!," p. 213.
483 Zeki Coskun, "Bireyi Iskalayan Roman," Available August 2009:
http://www.radikal.com.tr/1999/10/11/kultur/01bir.html 15 May 2006.
484 Baykurt, Özyasam 2, p. 285. “Kendimi yazın alanında gelistirip kitaplar yazmak, Türkiye’ye güzel
günlerin gelmesine destek olmak, benim gibi zor kosullarda büyüyenlerin kurtulmasına hizmet etmek,
Türkiye’yi dünyada her bakımdan degerli, insanları, bayragı, parası saygın bir yurt olarak tanıtmak,
sevdirmek istiyorum. Maksim Gorki gibi bir yazar olup “ste Türkiye’nin bir yazarı! Kitapları güzel;
öyleyse halkı da güzeldir!” dedirtmek istiyorum.”
305
they gained from the Institutes, such as the development of the village and the spread
of modernization through education, were reflected in their literature and they
replaced themselves in these novels as the agents of this development and
modernization. For this reason they portrayed themselves in their novels in the role
of the village teacher that would bring modernization to the village, which was the
most criticized factor in the village literature critiques afterwards.
As a result of the education they had received in the Institutes the peasants
that learned how to think and write for themselves did not realize the differentiation
of themselves as being the authors of the “reality” they produced. These “peasant
writers” who became active with the motives of having a mission and struggling in
order to realize this mission, during their education process began to get in an
intellectual mood that was alienated from the village realities, which they presented
in order to effect on the everyday politics. In Makal’s Bizim Köy, this differentiation
can clearly be seen. In this book, while describing about his village and the things
that happened around even while telling his own family, he tells these things like he
is coming across with them for the first time in his life. He asks question to the
peasants he comes across in his village not like a peasant but more like a citydweller.
For example, he uses the following words while telling that he could not eat
the village-made bread: “I am a peasant too, but how my mother cooked I don’t
remember, was it doughier before, it is now too hard for me.”485 He repeats this
alienated mood in other parts of the book, saying that “my father got angry at my
staring stupidly at him.”486 He talks sometimes in the book not like a peasant in his
own village but as a city-dwelling state official, who was assigned to that village.
Makal drew a profile of himself, who got alienated or transformed through
485 Makal, Bizim Köy, p. 23. “Biz de köylüyüz ya, anam nasıl yapardı bilmem, daha yufka olurdu da
ondan mı ne, pek sert geliyor bana”
486 Ibid., p. 47. “Benim afal afal hayretle seyredisime kızdı babam”
306
education, in his book. He was now not a complete peasant or a complete citydweller.
This situation also coincided with the designated missions of the Institute
graduate writers. According to this view the village could only be transformed with
interventions from above. This perspective is also reflected in their writings and the
writers began to look at “their” villages from above. Their experience in the
Institutes increased their knowledge and convenances on the world problems and due
to that their perception towards the village changed and this development increased
their efforts to make a change in the village. This change in their perception also
affected their writing style and due to that their texts resemble not literature works
but petitions. They are writing within from the village and at the same time, similar
to the previous intellectual perspective, above from the village. Although the writers
seemed to be complaining about the conditions of the peasants in these texts, they
were in fact bringing a complaint on peasants to the state and the intellectuals that
they considered the authorities responsible for the development of the peasants.
Although was previously stated, Fakir Baykurt may be excluded from this
perspective, most of the village literature writers of this period believed that it was
the duty of the intellectuals to find a way for the salvation of the peasant. These
writers did not try to mobilize the peasants in order to emancipate them from their
conditions. Instead, mostly due to not believing in the peasants’ potential to achieve
this, they gave this duty to the intellectuals in their writings. As an example to that
perspective, Mahmut Makal compares his works, both as being aware of this
situation and for trying to abstain from this awareness, with Yaban (Stranger), a
novel by Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu, as follows:
And I can say that, my only leader is the village itself. After I finished
the village institutes, I returned and began to experience the village from
307
the beginning. While experiencing it I just wanted to write. I wanted to
state clearly that, we mentioned about Yaban just now. The second time
I read Yaban was during my writing of these notes from a village. How
Yakup Kadri calls out to the Turkish intellectuals –at that time I got
angry with Yakup Kadri- I want to call out to the Turkish intellectuals
from another perspective. I want to call out as I understand it. This is the
work of that. Bizim Köy is a call out to the Turkish intellectual. I wrote it
like that.487
This realist village literature, which was created with the effect of Makal, was
criticized and attacked surely by various groups and perspectives during the period.
That the RPP tried to eliminate the reality in this literature works was mentioned
above. In addition to that, the RPP side again tried to organize a campaign especially
against Makal’s works, claiming that these novels actually had been created by the
intellectuals that supported the DP and wanted to incapacitate the government in
power. These groups believed that this kind of literature work could not be written by
a peasant himself. Also, in order to reduce the effects of the reality that has been told
in this book, they asserted that Bizim Köy had been written by Yasar Nabi himself
and due to their “secret goals” the book had published in the name of Makal.488 In
this way, they hoped to prove that this book was not written by a “real” peasant and
that the things written in it were not real and they were only the propaganda of the
ill-minded opposition. However, the general political atmosphere obstructed the
effect of this anti-propaganda and did not give the result of the removal of the realist
effect of the book.
487 Baykurt et al., Bes Romancı, pp. 71-72. “Ve benim tek önderim, diyebilirim ki köyün kendisi. Ben,
köy enstitülerini bitirdikten sonra döndüm, yeni bastan köyü tanımaga basladım. Tanırken de yazmak
içimden geldi. Açık söyliyeyim, ben iste sunu söyliyeyim, biraz evvel “Yaban”dan bahsettik. “Yaban”ı
ikinci okuyusum benim, bu köyden notları yazısımla beraberdir. Türk münevverine Yakup Kadri nasıl
sesleniyor –ben o arada Yakup Kadri’ye kızdım- Türk münevverine baska bir açıdan seslenmek
istedim. Kendi anladıgım sekilde seslenmek istedim. Bu, bunun eseridir. “Bizim Köy” Türk
münevverine bir seslenistir. Bu sekilde kaleme alınmıstır.” It is clear that Bizim Köy was written and
marketed for the use of the intellectuals of the period in an advertisement that occurred in Cumhuriyet.
In an advertisement replaced just on one side of the head title of the newspaper it said that: “Mahmut
Makal, Bizim Köy, third edition is published. Per copy is 1 lira until there remains no intellectuals that
did not read this book.” “Mahmud Makal, Bizim Köy, 3 üncü basılısı çıktı. Bu kitabı okumamıs tek
aydın kalmayıncaya kadar tanesi 1 liradır.” Cumhuriyet, 20 April 1950.
488 Ibid., p. 73.
308
Another attack on the realist village literature works held the old time
accusations again during the new period. The village literature, which mostly treated
the subjects that coincided with the developmentalist policies of the DP for a long
time and, due to that, which were accused of being “the tool of the official ideology”
of the DP, this time was accused by the DP of pretexts similar to that the RPP had
during its power years. This change in the DP’s approach to the village literature
occurred as a result of the DP’s failure in its economic development policies towards
the peasants. During the formation years of the village literature cannon, the village
literature was used as a tool to attack the policies of the RPP and the single-party
period. This time, this tool was directed to the DP policies without changing its
content or its realism and gradually in increasing numbers. After the publication of
Bizim Köy, together with Köyümden in a single edition in English,489 the dosage of
the criticism of the village literature from by DP side increased. Two editorials
published in the DP’s media organ Zafer in 1955 directly pointed at Makal and the
village literature that had developed during the time as a target and made the
following accusations, similar to those were seen during the RPP government:
A defeatist and destructive propaganda, which tries to enter to the daily
newspapers, journals, universities, unions and factories and to many
other organizations, as in the form of Anatolian interviews, as so-called
literature meetings, as various poems, stories and articles, as gossips,
secret whisperings and continuous inculcations, disregards the great
development movement in the country, the wealth that many of our
regions and villages have gained and the recovery movements. It
489 Makal told in his memoirs that the Turkish authorities in Britain tried to obstruct the publication of
his book as follows: “The owner of the publishing house, who published my books Bizim Köy and
Hayal ve Gerçek (Dream and Reality) in one volume as ‘A Village in Anatolia’ said that: ‘One day
two individuals came from your embassy. They asked how many copies we had published of the
book. We have published five thousand, and I said it. We are buying all of them, they said. I was
happy. They asked me why I was happy for. I said, I could publish it again now, that is why I am
happy. No, they said, we are buying on the condition that you will not publish it again. I will not sell it
then, I said, they left deep in thought…” "Bir gün sizin sefaretten iki kisi geldi. Kitabı kaç tane
bastıgımızı sordular. Bes- bin basmıstık, söyledim. Hepsini satın alıyoruz, dediler. Sevindim. Neden
sevindigimi sordular. Yeniden basabilecegim için seviniyorum, dedim. Yok, hayır biz yeniden
basmamanız kosuluyla alıyoruz, dediler. O zaman, satmıyorum, dedim ve kös kös gittiler..." Makal,
Anımsı Acımsı, p. 83.
309
presents Anatolia overall as a molehill, all of the peasants and the
workers as a miserable destitute mass, all of the country as an
abandoned, neglected and abandoned country. Some of the painters,
caricaturists, young poets and story tellers are encouraged to create their
arts according to the theory that is convenient with the directives of
Moscow, which is named as “social realism.”490
In the first years of the making of the village literature canon, the literature
was used as a weapon against the RPP and the practices of the single-party regime.
But as the years passed, this weapon was turned against the DP. This kind of realism
in literature had been championed by the DP, but it became the main target. Now the
DP tried to accuse the writers of being communists. However, once this kind of
realism was cleared from the accusations of supporting communism, the DP could
not find any supporters among the intellectuals for the same accusation this time.
Only some of the DP members and tenacious supporters of anti-communism
supported the efforts to prohibit the village literature works. As a result, the DP
became the target of an oppositional space that it once had glorified by its own hand
and could not develop any acceptable attitude towards it.
The criticism of the village literature genre did not develop only through the
groups that were directly affected by the realism in these novels and their necessary
efforts to obstruct the development of this literature with political discourse. The
criticism also arose from within the literature sphere, which would intensify after the
mid-1960s, but also would develop gradually during this period. At first, a discussion
on the village literature developed in the readers’ response section of the Forum
journal during the 1950s. Some of the readers, after Mahmut Makal, began to
490 “Memleketin Bir Numaralı Davası”, Zafer, 31 May 1955. “Günlük gazetelere, dergilere,
üniversitelere, sendika ve fabrikalara ve daha birçok tesekküllere sokulmaya çalısan bozguncu ve
yıkıcı bir propaganda, Anadolu röportajları halinde, güya edebiyat toplantıları halinde, çesitli, siir,
hikaye ve makaleler halinde, dedikodu gizli fısıltı, sistemli ve devamlı telkinler halinde memleketteki
büyük kalkınma hareketini, birçok bölgemizin ve köylerimizin kavustugu refahı, sayısız dogrulma
hamlelerini hiçe sayar; Anadolu'yu bastanbasa bir köstebek yuvası, bütün köylüyü ve isçiyi açlıktan
nefesi kokan sefil bir kitle, bütün memleketi sahipsiz, bakımsız, kendi haline bırakılmıs bir ülke
halinde gösterir. Bir kısım ressamlar karikatüristler, genç sair ve hikâyeciler "Sosyal gerçeklik" adı
verilen Moskova direktifine uygun bir nazariye istikametinde eser yapmaya tesvik edilirler.”
310
complain in the Forum about the lack of artistic apprehensions in the village
literature texts. At the same time, the readers criticized that being a village-originated
writer should not allow anyone to be the only authority in the literature sphere.
According to the readers, these writers presented themselves as having a monopoly
on this subject. The readers also said that with the effect of the fame that Makal
gained during the process, a new literary mass had been created with a low-quality of
artistic apprehension, such as in Makal’s works.491 As opposed to that, some other
readers defended Makal and the discussions continued and after a few articles more
critiques on this subject ended. Although the real discussion on the artistic quality of
these works occurred during the 1960s, it can be asserted that even during these early
years there was a group of people that became unhappy about the developments in
the literature.
The discussions on the literature during the 1960s and 1970s were at the same
time discussions on how the class struggle in Turkey should be portrayed in literary
works. The increase in the number of literary works that defended both similar
peasantist approach still in the 1960s and the static approach to the village and the
peasants since Makal, led those who complained about this development to an open
critique of these literary works. Mehmet Bayrak gives an overall presentation of the
critiques on the village literature from the literary side and summarizes the view of
Attila
lhan, who made the sharpest critique of the village literature, as follows:

lhan says that, he dislikes not “the village and peasant literature” but the
Bizim Köy literature. What he understood from the Bizim Köy literature
is defined with these words:
491 Behiç Duygulu, "Forumcular ve ‘Bizim Köy’lü," Forum 4, no. 48 (15 March 1956). On the
monopoly of the peasant-writers in this literature genre, Behiç Duygulu says the following words as a
critique: “They are looking down on to the artists, which try to present the village without being
peasant and writing not with an arid language as they actually do, but with art.” “Köylü olmayıp ta
köyü vermeye kalkan, gerçekte onlar gibi kupkuru degil de sanatla veren sanatçıyı küçümsüyorlar.” p.
15.
311
a) This literature “revolves around some particular themes”. Their basic
assertion is that the development of the village will be done by the
teacher; the development method will be the education. This literature
“missed out that the Village Institutes aimed to obstruct the
proletarianization of the peasants.”
b) Both the Village Institutes and the writers that grew out of there take
the development of the country and the peasants as being the problem of
education, in other words a problem of superstructure.
c) These writers have stereotyped the problems, themes and even the
villages and the characters for years. “They are writing so stereotyped so
similar things that if you sign the book of one of them with the signature
of the other, even they could not understand the difference.”
ç) It is asserted and stressed that “in the books of the village writers,
with an astonishing insistence, Turkey stands still in the place where it
was twenty-five years ago, even it flows along the rails of a capitalist
development process at a dizzying pace.” These writers “either do not
feel or pretend not to have heard in their flesh the capitalization process
of the country and the urbanization process of the peasant masses.”
A.
lhan also mentions the place of the peasantry in the revolution and
after defining the “Bizim Köy literature” for himself as such, he says that
“this literature is not socialist but a RPP supporter of the
nönü period”
and “these minds, whose desire is to change their class origin, cannot
maintain the socialist revolutionary Turkish literature.”492
As was discussed above, actually the main anxiety of the village literature
writers was not to solve the class differentiation in the village but to bring about the
village development and the awakening of the intellectuals about the village
problems. Except for Makal and the like, who clearly stated their anti-communist
tendency, this cannot be said of the other representatives of the village literature
genre. For example, the motivation of writing village novels in Yasar Kemal, Orhan
492 Mehmet Bayrak, Köy Enstitülü Yazarlar Ozanlar, nceleme-Antoloji (Ankara: Töb-Der Yayınları,
1978), pp. 22-23. “lhan, “köy ve köylü edebiyatından” degil; (Bizim Köy) edebiyatından
hoslanmadıgını söylüyor, (Bizim Köy Edebiyatı)ndan ne anladıgınıysa su görüsleriyle ortaya
koyuyordu: a) Bu edebiyat, “belirli temalar çevresinde dolasır”. Temeli, köyü kalkındıracak adamın
ögretmen, kaldırma yönteminin de egitim oldugudur. Bu edebiyat; “Köy Enstitülerinin, köylünün
proleterlesmesini önleme amacını gözden kaçırmıstır.” b) Köy Enstitüleri de, oradan çıkan yazarların
çogu da, ülkenin ve köylünün kalkınmasının bir egitim yani üstyapı sorunu olarak ele almaktalar. c)
Bu yazarlar, yıllardır sorunları, konuları hatta köyleri ve tipleri klise haline getirmistir. “Öylesine
beylik, öylesine birbirine benzer seyler yazıyorlar ki, birinin imzasını ötekinin kitabına atsanız,
kendileri bile ayıramazlar.” ç) “Kapitalist bir gelisme sürecinin raylarında basdöndürücü bir hızla
akıp gittigi halde, köy yazarlarının kitaplarında, sasılacak bir ısrarla, Türkiye’nin yirmibes yıl önceki
yerinde durdugu” öne sürülüyor, vurgulanıyor. “Köylü yıgınlarının sehirlesme, ülkenin
kapitalistlesme sürecini etlerinde ya duymaz, ya duymazlıktan gelirler” bu yazarlar. Köylülügün
devrimdeki yerine de ilisen A. lhan, “Bizim köy edebiyatı”nın kendince böyle bir tanımını yaptıktan
sonra; “Bu edebiyatın toplumcu degil, nönü dönemi CHP’lisi oldugunu” ve “hevesi sınıf degistirmek
olan bu kafaların sosyalist devrimci Türk edebiyatını gerçeklestiremeyeceklerini” söylüyordu.”
312
Kemal or Kemal Tahir was totally different from the village literature writers who
graduated from the Village Institutes. In fact, “the Bizim Köy literature” definition of
Attila
lhan mostly refers to the latter representatives of the village literature canon.
Fethi Naci, an important literature critic in Turkey, approached the
discussions on the realism of village literature from an alternative perspective. He
said that in underdeveloped countries like Turkey, village literature was perceived as
realism, but in industrialized countries the tendency to write about villages or rural
structures indicated an “escapist tendency.” In the critique of Knut Hamsun’s novels
by Georg Lukacs, Lukacs said that in relation to the decline of bourgeois society, the
novel of the bourgeoisie “moves away from the capitalist reality, and escapes to the
village, which is isolated as much as possible from capitalism.”493
Actually, this escapist tendency was the basis of the village romanticism. But
in the making of this realist village literature in Turkey, if we put the single-party
village literature aside, there was no escape, but awareness. Even so, when we
consider both the critiques of Attila
lhan and the escape analogy of Fethi Naci
together, we can talk about another kind of escapist tendency or “escape literature,”
which was influential in the making of the village literature.
The center of the escapism in Turkish literature was from the city to the
village, too. But this time, the reason to move away from the cities to the villages
was not capitalism but anti-communism, which obstructs the mention of any kind of
class and exploitation relations that occurs in the cities. As a subject of literature or
even as a subject of social science research, any kind of engagement with class
relations in the cities would be seen as evidence of being a communist by the state,
regardless of whether it was in the single or multi-party period. Instead, this kind of
493 Naci, Roman ve Toplumsal Degisme, p. 261. “kapitalist gerçeklik dısında, kapitalizmden
olabildigince soyutlanmıs bir köye dogru kaçıs”
313
literature began to choose its subjects from the psychological/inner problems of the
individual. The city literature was more individualistic than the village literature, but
this would make it more qualified as a literature style. Atilla Özkırımlı summarizes
this development as follows:
Parallel to the village literature, the storytellers that became famous
between the years 1950-1960, such as Vüs’at O. Bener, Yusuf Atılgan,
Nezihe Meriç, Leyla Erbil, Ferit Edgü, Demir Özlü, Onat Kutlar, Erdal
Öz, Adnan Özyalçıner, Bilge Karasu, developed a new perception in
storytelling, which was a reaction against the realism of the village
literature. The aim of this perception was not the negation of realism or
trying to establish a perception of art other than realism, but the
necessity to make a new interpretation of the realism. What was
contravened by these storytellers was the cliché in the village literature,
or the barrenness in the stories, which was limited to the closed
environment and the adventure of the little man. They defend to
overcome the superficial realism that depends on event-based stories in
which uniform individuals are treated. In relation to these critiques,
which were mostly directed at the previous generation and to the village
literature, they tried to treat the individual at first, outer observations
were changed with inner observations and not the events but the
situations are analyzed in their stories. This new development, which
can be related to Sait Faik’s stories in the recent era, also bears the
effects of the French new novel and the stream of consciousness
technique with trends such as surrealism and existentialism.494
As a result of this development, in the words of Ahmet Oktay, “these writers,
who could not use the Marxist concepts, left the village literature, which was
produced through some cliché oppositions such as evil, exploiter aga/exploited
peasant, reactionary imam/progressive district governor aside. They moved towards
portraying problems such as the loneliness, lack of communication and sexuality of
494 Özkırımlı, "Anahatlarıyla Edebiyat," pp. 596-597. “Köy edebiyatına kosut olarak 1950-1960 arası
adlarını duyuran Vüs’at O. Bener, Yusuf Atılgan, Nezihe Meriç, Leyla Erbil, Ferit Edgü, Demir Özlü,
Onat Kutlar, Erdal Öz, Adnan Özyalçıner, Bilge Karasu gibi hikayecilerin köy edebiyatı gerçekligine
tepki olarak yeni bir hikaye anlayısı gelistirdikleri görülür. Amaçlanan gerçekçiligin yadsınması,
gerçekçilik dısında bir sanat anlayısının yerlestirilmesi degil, gerçekçilige yeni bir yorumun
getirilmesi gerektigidir. Karsı çıkılan, köy edebiyatındaki basmakalıplık ya da dar bir çevreye, küçük
adamın serüvenine kapanan hikayedeki kısırlıktır. Olay anlatımına dayalı, bir örnek kisilerin
yansıtıldıgı yüzeysel gerçekçiligin asılması savunulmaktadır. Bir önceki kusaga ve köy edebiyatına
yöneltilen bu elestirilere baglı olarak hikayede bireyin öne alındıgı, dıs gözlemin yerine iç gözlemin
geçtigi, olayların degil durumların irdelendigi görülmektedir. Sait Faik’in son dönem hikayelerine
baglanabilecek bu yeni atılım, gerçeküstücülük, varolusçuluk benzeri akımlarla Fransız yeni
romanının ve bilinç akımı tekniginin de etkilerini tasımaktadır.”
314
urban individuals, in other words, petite-bourgeois individuals on the way to
becoming intellectual.”495 As a result of the dominant political preferences of the
period, the city lost its role as the main sphere of class relations and instead the
village undertook the same role with the help of the village literature.
I like to call this shift from city to village the “Makal Effect.” The creation
and acceptance of the reality in the making of the village literature canon with the
effect of Mahmut Makal’s Bizim Köy, as described above, paved the way for this
shift. The use of Makal’s book in the multi-party struggle between the DP and the
RPP, the intellectuals’ favoring attitude, and by using the power coming from within
the rural people, his gaining the status of the “spokesman of the ultimate reality”
created the legitimacy of telling stories of poverty and exploitation. Makal’s
narrative of reality, which was accepted by the intellectuals and approved by the
party in power, made the village a space in which class differentiations could be
mentioned. Also, the possibility of defining the village as a sphere of social struggle
occurred with this acceptance. Within this context, the Makal Effect maintained the
formation of the village as a legitimate sphere of political struggle. The affirmative
dialogue with developmentalism during the period and parrying the obstructions of
anti-communism eased the formation of this legitimate sphere.
After Makal, many authors began to write on the problems of the rural
people. Village literature became the dominant literature movement of the period.
Even writers who did not come from the village or knew nothing about the village
tried to write on this subject. The legitimacy of this sphere, which was acquired
495 Ahmet Oktay, "Sartre ve 1950 Kusagı," Birgün Kitap, no. 21 (25 July 2006), p. 3. “Marksist
kavramları kullanamayan bu yazarlar, kötü, sömürgen aga/sömürülen köylü, gerici imam/ilerici
kaymakam gibi klise karsıtlıklarla üretilen köy edebiyatı’nı bir yana bıraktılar. Kent bireyi’nin, daha
kesinleyici bir söyleyisle küçük burjuvaziden gelen aydın olma yolundaki bireylerin yalnızlık,
iletisimsizlik, cinsellik gibi tinsel sorunlarına yöneldiler.”
315
during the period, led this shift from city to village in the literature works. Makal
mentions this development in his memoirs as follows:
As a matter of fact, according to the rumors, my first book was written
by Yasar Nabi or Hakkı Tonguç. During those years, Kemal Tahir was
saying that “the village is an adobe house” and due to that no literature
can come from there. Necati Cumali, who was sent to Paris by the
undersecretary of the Prime Ministry, was also saying “no novel can be
written from the village” in his articles. Due to that, I could not have
written anything from the village. Then, how did Yasar Nabi or Tonguç
find subjects in between the adobe houses of the villages? Besides, were
not that the books of Kemal Tahir, such as Köyün Kamburu, Sagırdere,
Göl nsanları, books that had risen from the village? Did Zelis of
Cumalı harvest the tobacco inside of
zmir?496
A similar assessment of this development was made by Samim Kocagöz
during that time, as follows: “Some of our novelists, who claim that they are seventh
generation
stanbul residents, write now on Anatolia and the village. The writers that
want to write on the city cannot find a thing to write about the city. Maybe it is hard
to find the city. They all stroll around the shop windows of Beyoglu boulevard.”497
After the demise of “city-literature,” the social problems of the city were
treated in another version of the literature. Mehmed Seyda described this
development as follows:
In this condition, the writing space of the writers that will mention city
people becomes narrow with the triple pressure coming from both the
extreme right and left and the liberals from above. The comfort of the
other is not available for it. Any word can be understood differently.
However, the love of humanity cannot be obstructed with anything and
can overcome every barrier. Due to that, it changes its way. The urban
literature chooses an indirect way for itself. What is this way, a new kind
496 Makal, Anımsı Acımsı, pp. 60-61. “Zaten, ortada dolasan söylentilere göre, ilk kitabımı Yasar Nabi
ya da Hakkı Tonguç yazmıstı. O yıllarda, Kemal Tahir “Köy dedigin dört kerpiç dam” diyerek,
köyden yazı çıkmayacagını söylüyordu. Basbakanlık Müstesarı Munis Faik’in Paris’e yolladıgı Necati
Cumalı da “Köyden roman çıkmaz” diyordu yazılarında. Öyleyse, ben de köyden yazı çıkaramazdım.
Peki, Yasar Nabi ya da Tonguç nasıl konu bulmuslardı o dört tanecik kerpiç dam arasında? Dahası,
Kemal Tahir’in Köyün Kamburu, Sagırdere, Göl nsanları vb. köyden gelen öyküler degil miydi?
Cumalı’nın Zelis’i zmir’in içinde mi tütün kırmıstı.”
497 Samim Kocagöz, "Sehirli Romancı, Köylü Romancı," Yeni Ufuklar 8, no. 93 (February 1960), p.
271. “Degme, yedi göbek sülalesinin stanbul’lu oldugunu savunan romancılarımız, bugün,
Anadolu’yu köyü yazıyorlar. Sehiri yazmak isteyen yazarlar da sehirden yazacak hiçbir sey
bulamıyorlar. Belki de sehiri bulmak güç oluyor. Aksam sabah, Beyoglu caddesinin vitrinlerini
geziyorlar.”
316
of symbolism? No; humor literature. Is there any kind of obstruction in a
place, you tell the things that cannot tell directly by “making them laugh
bitterly.” I am telling you my daughter, but you understand my daughterin-
law.498
The city literature mostly preferred this way during the 1950s and due to that
the humor literature during this period developed more than other kinds of city
literature. The prominent humor writers such as Aziz Nesin and Rıfat Ilgaz published
their first important works during this period. The criticism on the city problems
mostly developed through this kind of literature. This development can also be
defined as another aspect of the escapist tendency in literature during this period.
The legitimacy of the village literature also enabled some of the oppositional
writers to use this legitimacy for political purposes. Some of the writers that had a
socialist tendency, such as Fakir Baykurt and Kemal Tahir, used this legitimacy in
spreading socialist views in their novels. They even put some of the poems of Nazım
Hikmet, which were illegal during that period, into their novels or mentioned the
equality among the classes of society. They, surely, did not make this practice
openly; however, the banned poems of Nazım Hikmet found themselves a place in
the widely read literature of the period in this way. For example, in Yılanların Öcü,
Fakir Baykurt tells the thoughts of a poor landless night-watchman Mustafa, and his
thought mostly resembles the Davet (Invitation) poem of Nazım Hikmet:
You will put fire all of it and make them burn furiously… The house of
the traitor will be burned! Together with the ones inside!.. Oh the gates
of plutocracy, oh!.. Don’t let them open again!.. If you burn it, it will be
closed… None of them ever be opened in this world again! Let all the
498 Mehmed Seyda, "Köy Edebiyatı-Sehir Edebiyatı," Sanat Dünyası 6, no. 143 (1962), p. 11. “Su
halde, sehir insanlarını anlatacak yazarın yazı alanı, hem asırı sol hem asırı sagdan gelen, bir de
tepeden bastıran liberalistlerin üçgen baskısıyla daralmıs durumda. Ötekinin rahatlıgı onda yok. Bir
söz her yana çekilip uzatılabilir. Ama insan sevgisi dag tas dinlemedigine, her yoldan asıp gittigine
göre o ne yapıyor? Sehirli edebiyatı, kendine, o zaman, dolambaçlı bir yol seçiyor. Bu yol nedir, yeni
bir sembolizm mi? Hayır; mizah edebiyatı, Bir yerde çesitli engeller mi var. Dümdüz anlatamadıgını
“acı acı güldürerek” anlatırsın. Kızım sana söylüyorum, gelinim sen anla.”
317
hardships be ended. Let end all the poverty! Let necessarily annihilate
man's servitude to man! All I have done is just servitude to man!..499
Another factor effective in the development and the dominance of the village
literature sphere, was the increase in the publication of village literature books after
the unexpected interest in Bizim Köy of Mahmut Makal. There was a great race to
publish the village literature books during this period between Varlık Yayınları,
which was directed by Nadir Nadi, and Yeditepe Yayınları, which was directed by
Samim Kocagöz. In addition to that, many village stories and discussions on the
village literature genre were featured in the journals published by these publishing
houses. Through these publications, these two publishing houses dominated the
literary publishing sphere and created a monopoly. Some other publishing houses,
such as Remzi Yayınevi, tried to break this monopoly and published some of the
prominent authors’ books, such as those of Yasar Kemal and Cengiz Tuncer.500 In
order to enter this publishing market, Çaglayan Yayınları, which published Yagmur
Duası novel of Refik Erduran, even held a contest for the village literature novels.
The announcement of this contest was given on the back cover of Yagmur Duası as
follows:
499 Baykurt, Yılanların Öcü, p. 213. “Bir atas vereceksin, yanıp çıkıp gidecek cayır cayır... Yanıp çıkıp
gidecek dürzünün evi! çindekilerle barabar!.. Ah el kapıları, ah!.. Kapansın el kapıları!.. Yakacaksın
ki kapansın... Baskaları da açılmasın namusuz dünyada! Yokluklar yok olsun. Yok olsun yoksulluklar!
lle de kulun kula kullugu kalksın! Tam kulun kula kullugu benimki!...” The poem of Nazım Hikmet is
as follows: “Galloping from Far Asia and jutting out into the Mediterranean like a mare’s head this
country is ours. Wrists in blood, teeth clenched, feet bare and this soil spreading like a silk carpet, this
hell, this paradise is ours. Shut the gates of plutocracy, don’t let them open again, annihilate man’s
servitude to man, this invitation is ours. To live like a tree single and at liberty and brotherly like the
trees of a forest, this yearning is ours.” Also Kemal Tahir in his novel Körduman, makes one of an
educated peasant talk on the dream of equality among the peasants and the city-dwellers. See Kemal
Tahir, Körduman (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1976), p. 106.
500 In a review of Cengiz Tuncer’s novel Hacizli Toprak (Confiscated Lands) (1959) in Akis, this
monopoly and competition between the publishing houses was defined as follows: “Remzi Kitabevi
makes a great service to our novel with a series of publications that are prepared for the young Turkish
novelists. Remzi Kitabevi is needed to be congratulated for ending the sultanate of the owners of some
publishing houses, whose number does not exceed one or two and which loll against to some
journals.” “Remzi Kitabevi, genç Türk romancıları için hazırladıgı bir seri yayınla, romanımıza
gerçekten büyük bir hizmet ediyor. Sayıları biri ikiyi geçmiyen ve sırtlarını dergilere dayayan bazı
yayınevi sahiplerinin saltanatlarına son verdigi için Remzi Kitabevini tebrik etmek gerekir.” Akis 17,
no. 295 (23 March 1960).
318
Çaglayan Yayınevi will always support the village question, which every
Turkish citizen believes it will have a great role in the development of
our country, with its entire means. We will also present the works of
Mahmut Makal and Yasar Kemal, who are the writers that are grown
from inside of village, to our readers as much as possible. We are
holding our great novel contest preferably on the works that are written
on this subject. The jury, which consists of Refik Halid Karay, Resat
Nuri Güntekin, Hasan Âli Yücel, Cevat Fehmi Baskut and Sabri Esat
Siyavusgil, considers the works that are sent to us. When the final results
are in, we will publish the winning novel. Our publishing house will
always consider works that treat this subject that are not dull or arid, on
the contrary, in order to attract wider attention they need to be written in
an attractive and lively style. Yagmur Duası is our first step on this
way.501
Some other publications tried to benefit from this publishing rush and these
books also asserted that the only problem in the country was not the village
development. The publication of a little book with the title of Bu Da Bizim Sehir
(This is Our City) (1950) shows the condition of this publishing rush and what some
of the intellectuals understood about the problems of the cities during that time. The
explanations of the writer in the foreword of this book, which was written in a
moralist style, are enough to present the general understanding:
We learned with all of its openness in “Bizim Köy” how our villages
are sacrificed to negligence until tomorrow by leaving them totally to
nature, deprived of technical progress in an inert and superstitious
condition. I tried to present in “Bizim Sehir” our moral negligence by
giving various examples of the deprivations of some cultural factors
such as religion, ethics and tradition, which occurred in parallel to the
civil development level of our cities.502
501 Erduran, Yagmur Duası, back cover. No information is found that if the contest was held or what
were the results. “Memleketimizin kalkınmasında en büyük rolü oynıyacagına bütün Türk
vatandaslarının inandıgı köy davasını Çaglayan Yayınevi bütün imkânlarıyla herzaman
destekliyecektir. Mahmut Makal ve Yasar Kemal gibi köyün içinden yetismis yazarların da eserlerini
fırsat buldukça okuyucuları¬mıza sunacagız. Büyük roman müsabakamızı da tercihan bu mevzuda
yazılmıs eserlere açtık. Refik Halid Karay, Resat Nuri Güntekin, Hasan Âli Yücel, Cevat Fehmi
Baskut ve Sabri Esat Siyavusgil'den mütesekkil jüri gelen eserleri tetkik et¬mektedir. Son netice alınır
alınmaz ka¬zanan romanı nesredecegiz. Yayınevimiz bu davayı tutan eser¬lerin kuru ve sıkıcı
olmaması, bilâkis en genis alâkayı çekmek için mümkün mertebe cazip ve hareketli bir tarzda
yazılması gerektigini daima gözönünde bulunduracaktır. Yagmur Duası bu yolda attıgımız ilk
adımdır.”
502 Selahattin Senelt, Bu Da Bizim Sehir (
stanbul: Gün Basımevi, 1950), p. ii. “Düne kadar
köylerimizin teknik terakkiden mahrum atıl ve batıl bir surette tamamile tabiata terk edilerek, nasıl bir
ihmale kurban gittiginin (Bizim Köy) den bütün açıklıgile ögrenmis bulunuyoruz. Sehirlerimizin de
medeni gelisme cehdine paralel olarak din, ahlak, adet ve anane gibi kültürel faktörlerden mahrum
319
This publication rush on village literature works spread to the film industry.
After a short time period, movies that treated the village problems were shot. The
movies, whose scripts were written by Yasar Kemal or Kemal Bilbasar, mostly were
shot during the period in question.503 However, either most of these films were
censored by the state authorities or some of them adjusted the discourse in the
movies with the desired view of the state.504 Nevertheless, even in this situation, the
transition from written to the visual art increased the dominance of the village
literature and the themes of village and peasantry became the most known and
demanded “realities” of the period.
The publishing houses were effective in the creation of an increase in the
number of the village literature works. The owners of the publishing houses mostly
chose not to get into a controversy with the government in power in order to continue
their work without causing any problems. Due to that, they even self-censored the
literary works.505
bir hale dogru götürülmüs bulunmasının akla gelen çesitli misallerini vermek suretile manevi
bakımdan ugradıgımız ihmali (Bizim Sehir) de göstermege çalıstım.”
503 "Filmcilik-Bir Ümid," Akis 9, no. 143 (2 February 1957); "Filmcilik," Akis 10, no. 167 (20 July
1957). As one of the examples of a combined production, which repeated in the following periods
intensely, the movie titled Karacaoglanın Kara Sevdası (The Blind Love of Karacaoglan) was shot by
Atıf Yılmaz as the director, Yasar Kemal as the scriptwriter and Ruhi Su as the music producer during
this period. "Sinema," Akis 16, no. 274 (27 October 1959), p. 25.
504 Cantek, "Köy Manzaraları," p. 196.
505 Fakir Baykurt told in his memoirs how the publishing house approached the title of his first story
book Çilli (Freckled) as follows: “Çilli was my first book. It was presented to the market in 1956 with
eleven stories in it. I had chosen them from my first stories in which the living conditions in the
village are told. I wanted its name to be not Çilli but Pıtrak (Cocklebur). Pıtrak is one of the eleven
stories in the book. I want to write such stories very much even today. The sources of the story were
coming from our lives, the difficulties that we faced during my childhood. In two pieces miserable
land we were cultivating with by brothers and sisters. The cockleburs were growing always from the
land. The crops were not growing due to the cockleburs. We were always drenched in blood. The
tricky government during that period was boasting on the radio and in the newspapers, saying: ‘I
mechanized agriculture! I mechanized agriculture!’ The tractors and crop machines were shared by
the owners of the plains. Only hair remained to the poor. The credits were always given to the wealthy
people. The poor only got at most fifty or a hundred liras. Same as today… When I wanted to name
my book after this story, mixed with blood and tears, the owner of the publishing house objected to
that: ‘The man says that I mechanized agriculture, you are saying that we are cultivating with our
hands and cocklebur… don’t you dare! Look, there is Çilli. This name evokes a beautiful localness…’
Actually, I loved the green eyed, freckled face, desperate girl of the story. However, I was connected
320
In addition to that, some of the writers re-wrote their novel when the
conditions changed, such as Orhan Kemal. The well-known novel of Orhan Kemal,
Bereketli Topraklar Üzerinde (On the Fertile Lands) (1954) was re-written ten years
after its first publication. The size of the book doubled after this second publication.
Some of the literary critics said that due to the political atmosphere of the 1950s, the
writers felt the necessity to practice self-censorship in their novels, especially in the
parts in which the conditions of the peasants and the workers were described. Some
other critics also state that with the change in the condition of the period, Orhan
Kemal attached consciousness to his unconscious peasants in the novel. No matter
what the reason was, the comparison of the two versions of the novel can also reveal
the difference in evaluating the peasant and working class problems in two different
periods.
This comparison will not be presented in this study, because it exceeds the
purpose of this chapter. However, it is necessary to say some words about his books
and their relation to the village literature genre in general. In my opinion, it is
difficult to accept Orhan Kemal as a village literature writer. He mostly treated the
condition of the working class in towns and cities in his novels. Even his novels that
to Pıtrak in a different way. The bookseller did not make me even say no, it cannot. The news was
given, the ads were given, and after that the name of the book became Çilli. My mother’s desire was
also accordingly. She wanted the name of the book to be Pıtrak. She said, ‘Name your book after
Pıtrak, make it prickle to the bodies of the men in Ankara…’ Her desire is also engulfed in it.” “’Çilli’
benim ilk kitabım. çindeki on bir hikaye ile 1956 da satısa çıktı. Köy yasayısını anlatan ilk
hikayelerimden seçip çıkardım. Adı ‘Çilli’ degil, ‘Pıtrak’ olsun istiyordum. On bir hikayeden biridir
Pıtrak. Bugün de öyle hikayeler yazabilmeyi çok istiyorum. Hikayenin kaynakları kendi
yasantımızdan, çocukluk günlerinde çektiklerimizden sürüp geliyordu. ki parça bitik tarlada kardes,
bacı, ellerimizle hasat yapıyorduk. Toprak haberi pıtrak getiriyordu. Pıtrak ekini bastırıyordu. Kan
revam içinde kalıyorduk. O denemin dümenci hükümeti de: ‘Tarımı makinelestirdim! Tarımı
makinelestirdim!’ diye, radyo radyo, gazete gazete ögünüyordu. Gelen traktörleri, ekin makinelerini
ovaların sahipleri paylasmıstı. Yoksullara kıl düsmüstü. Krediler hep varsıllara, zenginlere
veriliyordu. Yoksullar, çok çok elli lira, yüz lira alıyordu. Tıpkı bugünkü gibi... Bu gözyasıyla kan
karısık hikayeyi ilk kitabıma ad yapmak istedigimi yazdıgım zaman yayınevi sahibi karsı koydu:
‘Adam diyor ben tarımı makinelestirdim, sen diyorsun elimizle hasat, pıtrak... sakın ha! Bak, Çilli var.
Ne güzel bir yöresellik çagrısımı getiriyor...’ Hikayenin yesil gözlü, yüzü bir sürü benli çaresiz kızını
seviyordum aslında. Ama Pıtrak’a baska türlü baglıydım. Hayır, olmaz, bile dedirtmedi kitapçı. Haber
çıktı, ilan çıktı, derken, kitabın adı ‘Çilli’ oldu. Anamın da arzusu buydu. O da Pıtrak olsun istiyordu.
‘Kitabın adını Pıtrak koy da batsın Ankara’dakilerin orasına burasına...’ diyordu. Onun da arzusu
içinde kaldı.” Baykurt, Çilli, p. 12.
321
are mostly defined in the village literature category, such as Bereketli Topraklar
Üzerinde, Kanlı Topraklar (Bloody Lands) (1963) and Gurbet Kusları (Immigrant
Birds) (1962), are not totally novels about peasants, but mostly on peasant-workers.
Due to that, the peasants in his novels are not defined in their villages but as seasonal
immigrant workers in the cities. Due to that, it is better to define Orhan Kemal not as
a village literature writer, but as a working-class literature writer.506
The village literature, with its dominant and legitimate position and due to its
popularity among the ordinary people, changed the general perception of the village
and the peasants during this period. This differentiation in perception occurred on
two levels. The first one of them was the change in the perception of the urban
intellectuals towards the peasants. The intellectuals held themselves responsible for
this terrible condition of the peasants, and they thought that it was necessary to be
active in order to change this situation. The intellectuals of the period felt badly
about this condition of the peasants. Sezer Tansug described this feeling as follows:
I told it to Fakir Baykurt when he came to
stanbul. I said that, I have
this feeling for a long time, but it became visible when I come across
you, I feel a kind of shame, I feel badly near you. This is exactly the
opposite of the older times. It is the shrinking, embarrassment, not
finding any place to put his hands of the city-dweller of the Istanbul
resident near the peasant. What do you say? Whereas, in the old times,
the peasants were in the same position as the
stanbul resident, they were
afraid that they would make a mistake, and the
stanbul resident rode on
the peasant’s neck.507
Secondly, the peasants were perceived not with the old time romantic
approach, but, both due to the “Makal Effect” and the development of the village
506 For a study that analyzes Bereketli Topraklar Üzerinde from the working-class perspective, see
Berna Güler Müftüoglu and Elif Hacısalihoglu, "Emekçilerin Gündelik Hayatını Görünür Kılmak:
'Bereketli Topraklar Üzerinde'
le 40'lı ve 50'li Yıllara Gerçekçi Bir Bakıs," Çalısma ve Toplum, no. 3
(2008).
507 Sezer Tansug, "Köylüye, Sehirliye ve Çevreye Dair," Yeni Ufuklar 8, no. 87 (August 1959), p. 88.
“Fakir Baykurt geldi stanbul’a da ona söyledim. Çoktanberi içimde var bu, ama seninle karsılasınca
gözle görülür hale geldi dedim, senin yanında bir utanç, bir eziklik duyuyorum. Bu tam eskinin
zıddına. stanbullunun, sehirlinin köylünün yanında ufalması, saskınlıgı, ellerini koyacak yer
bulamayısı. Ne dersin? Oysa eskiden köylü stanbullu’nun yanında bu hallere düsermis, bir pot
kıracagım diye ödü koparmıs zavallının, stanbullu da onun tepesine bindikçe binermis.”
322
literature genre afterwards, with a more realistic approach. As for its direct relation
with reality, this perception was not that “pretty” for most of the intellectuals of the
period. However, this perception also changed the perception of the intellectuals
towards the peasants. Adile Ayda, who wrote a critique on Bizim Köy in Cumhuriyet,
defined clearly this differentiation in perception. Ayda said that, “When Bizim Köy
was published I bought the book to have pity for the peasants and to love the
peasants. However, unfortunately I was unable to do that. The peasants of Mahmut
Makal are unlovable creatures.”508
From that time on, the old time perception on the peasants, which had defined
the peasants as lovable and idealized them in the literature texts, was replaced with
that of unsympathetic peasants, who were the remnants of the feudal age and whose
conditions needed to be cured immediately. This underdevelopment of the peasants,
which was thought in relation with the underdevelopment of Turkey, would become
the primary issues in the social sciences of the following period.
From the “Reality” of the Literature to the “Reality” of the Country
As a consequence, many different but closely related factors affected the
process of the making of the village literature canon in Turkey after the Second
World War. Most of the factors were created with the contribution of the factors
motivated by the political atmosphere of the period, which is called here all together
the Makal Effect. The presentation of the reality in the village novels and the
approval process of the village reality by the intellectuals and the public enabled the
creation of the village as a legitimate sphere of social struggle during this period. In
508 Adile Ayda, “Bizim Köy”, Cumhuriyet, 27 April 1950. “‘Bizim Köy’ çıkınca, kitabı köylüye
acımak ve köylüyü sevmek niyetiyle ele aldım. Fakat maalesef buna muvaffak olamadım. Mahmud
Makalın köylüsü sevimsiz bir mahlûktur.”
323
this context, the importance of Mahmut Makal and Bizim Köy lies in the
legitimization of the sphere sociologically and politically as a whole.
With the legitimization of this sphere, sociology and literature studies were
concentrated mostly in this area. During the 1950s rural structures would be the main
focus of all kinds of studies, whether they were of a popular or academic character.
With the increase in the number of studies, the main bulk of information about the
social structures of the country which would be passed to the next generations would
be on the rural structures only. During the 1960s, when class-based political
struggles increased, the main problematic of the Turkish progressive/leftist/socialist
parties was based on the underdevelopment question. Most of the revolutionary
youth organizations or socialist parties would problematize their discourse and
actions on the rural underdevelopment question. Also with the effect of the Latin
American and Far Eastern peasant revolutions, similar perspectives would be found
more reasonable. According to this perspective, due to the underdevelopment of the
capitalist relations of production, the main contradictions of the country could only
be found in the countryside. It is possible to claim that these perspectives
epistemologically based their assertions about Turkey on the information created
during the 1945-1960 period. The lack of information about the class contradictions
in the cities fortified the claims of underdeveloped capitalism in Turkey.
The dominancy of the popular sociological studies on the peasants and village
literature novels, in a way, defined the whole “reality” of the social structures in
Turkey. As was told above, all kinds of problems in Turkey became related to the
information gained from these sources. The city lost its reality during this period, and
it could not gain it back until the 1970s or even the 1990s.
324
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
The reason I chose to focus on peasantry in Turkey for the 1945-1960 period
stemmed from the false premises of the later decades, especially of the 1960s and the
1970s. Many problematical and controversial issues of the 1960s and 1970s had their
origins, in fact, in the developments and the discussions of the 1950s. For this reason,
it would be difficult to evaluate the discussions and the developments of the recent
history of Turkey without a comprehensive and overall analysis of the 1945-1960
period.
As pointed out in this dissertation, most of the studies that have treated the
period in question have re-produced the general prejudices constructed mainly due to
the impact of the 27 May 1960 coup and, to a large extent, defined the dominant
characteristics of the new era. This crucial factor, which I called the “perception
rupture” during this study, made it possible for me to question many of the premises
of the studies in the Turkish social sciences literature about this period that were
insufficient. Because of this, most of our knowledge on this period has been shaped
by prejudices that were widely constructed by or affected from the historical pretexts
of the coup. In this regard, the main intention of this study was to re-evaluate the
1945-1960 period with a new perspective together with questioning the widely-held
ideas and beliefs regarding the post-World War II era.
As in the case of Turkish history in general, the social history of the peasantry
during the 1945-1960 period has yet to be written. This is mostly due to the lack of
relevant sources on the subject. The limited literacy of the peasants has left us with
325
nearly nothing as far as primary sources are concerned. So, it is remains difficult to
write the history of the peasants from their perspective. However, as pointed out
throughout this dissertation, from the late 1940s onwards, the peasants became more
visible in social and political life. In the previous periods, the primary sources
regarding the peasants were limited and, to a large extent, were confined to and
shaped by the perspectives and the visions of the intellectual elites of the time. They
described or sought a kind of peasant, whom they hoped existed, or attempted to
shape it according to their own political aims and visions. During the period in
question, the peasants did not fully begin to talk about themselves and did not leave
us concrete sources about themselves directly, but nonetheless found more space to
identify or expose themselves. It is therefore still hard to achieve a kind of “history
from below” for the peasants of the period; but there are sources to tell the story of
the late 1940s and the 1950s from a different perspective in which the peasants are
the main actors.
It was mostly the multi-party politics and the increase in the importance of
the majority votes that made the peasants able to become aware of their own political
power. By so doing, the voices about the peasants’ modes of living multiplied and
alternative voices began to be heard. In addition, the elites’ perspective and academic
studies on the village and peasants became more academic and varied compared to
those of the previous periods. The rising importance of the village and peasants also
made this improvement possible.
The rising importance of the peasantry was related directly to the conditions
of the post-war period. Therefore, during this study emphasis was also given to the
reconstruction process of the new world order in the post-war period and on the way
in which it affected the peasantry during this period. The reconstruction process of
326
the new international economic order, at the same time, became the stage of the
struggle for the construction of the international hegemony between the United States
and the Soviet Union. This study also covered the conditions of the peasantry in
Turkey at beginning of this Cold War atmosphere during which the peasants were
affected directly by this worldwide struggle.
The most important international structural development during the period in
question was the process of the reconstruction of the underdeveloped or the
agriculture-based Third World countries’ social structures. In this way, their roles in
the international system were redefined accordingly. The reconstruction process in
these countries in which the peasantry made up the majority of the population, at the
same time, necessitated the redefinition of the “peasant question,” which was the
most debated theme since the development of capitalism in the Western world. The
problems of these countries, colored by the development of capitalism during the
previous decades, this time became the problems of the international system. With
the spread of the capitalist mode of production in these newly-established nationstates,
which mostly gained their independence in the post-war period, reforms
revolving around the necessities of the international political and economic system
were perceived as crucial. These reforms were needed in order to maintain the
stabilization and the unproblematic integration of these states to the international
system. Within this framework, the post-World War II developments in Turkey can
be evaluated as extensions of these policies.
Not surprisingly, the post-war period began in Turkey with discussions on the
condition of the peasantry. During and after the Assembly discussions on the Land
Reform Law in 1945, the conditions that would lead up to the transition to the multiparty
system developed with the foundation of the political opposition against the
327
single-party regime and its representative, the RPP. With the transition to the multiparty
system, the peasants became the most important power in the country, since
their support was essential for all the political parties. The DP successfully
manipulated this development and came to power, substantially with the support of
the peasants.
As this dissertation made clear, the peasants in Turkey were considerably
transformed as a result of both international and national developments. The main
intention of this study was to show how the peasants, who made up the majority in
Turkish society, were affected by the developments that occurred in the post-war
period, when Turkey and the world entered into an overall reconstruction process. As
such, I aimed to cover the most important aspects of peasants’ involvements in
social, political and economic life in order to investigate the validity of my
arguments.
The overall reconstruction process of the system and the social structures
necessitated the accommodation of all spheres that were related to the process and
the redefinition of their roles in this new order. In this way, new establishments and
concepts were developed according to the economic, political, theoretical and
cultural necessities of the time. The meaning and the functions of the peasantry in
Turkey underwent a transformation in accordance with this new reconstruction
process. In order to present this transformation, it was necessary to analyze then
almost all aspects of social, economic, political and cultural life of the era.
During this period in which the economic order was almost entirely
reorganized, all kinds of reconstruction processes developed through mutual
involvement. This mutual involvement maintained a more dynamic social structure
with respect to the previous periods thanks to the rapid social and political changes
328
that Turkey underwent. The consequences and the problems that took place due to
this dynamism in the social structure necessitated the development of new plans for
solving the emerging problems. During this period, the peasantry was theoretically
discussed with a new and differentiated perspective from that of previous periods,
and the main goal in the theoretical developments was to acquire the “real” and
“concrete” knowledge of the peasantry that would be needed during this
reconstruction process. This “real” knowledge of the peasantry would maintain the
basis for the social projects during this process that were developed for solving the
problems that could be encountered.
The change in the economic and political preferences of Turkey in the postwar
period and the direct cooperation with the international capitalist system affected
the peasantry, as it affected all other social classes and groups. Along with the
developments and transformation in the rural structures, agricultural production in
Turkey changed with the market-based cash cropping system. This development both
changed the rural economic order and increased the relations between the city and
countryside. As a problem resulting from this transformation, rural migration was
one of the important developments through which the dynamism created by the
change in the rural structures can be observed. As much as rural migration revealed
the development dynamics in the countryside, it made the main elements of the
countryside, the peasants, “visible” in the cities. The “peasant-squatters,” as they
were defined during the period in question, made the concrete reality of the peasants
noticeable in the cities through the invention of a distinguished settlement type, the
gecekondu.
As far as the political sphere was concerned, as indicated in many relevant
examples, the peasants, rather than being passive elements in politics, turned into
329
more active components of politics. The peasants became politicized thanks to their
use of new tools which were made possible by the requirements of the multi-party
system. Especially after the DP assumed power, the peasants became aware of their
importance and became the crucial element in the political realm. Accordingly, both
in politics and social life, the voice of the peasant could be heard more and more, as
this study underlined time and again. In this development, the peasants and other
subaltern groups who, to a large extent, had been ignored previously realized that
politics could be a transformative force for their own benefit, and thereby raised their
voices increasingly. Both in the state archives and in the sources written during the
period in question, it is possible to see the political discourse of the peasants grow
much more visible, elaborate and articulate. Especially in the analysis of the political
incidents that occurred during the period, such as the Arslanköy Incident, it became
more possible than the other spheres to present the peasants’ political attitudes and
their active participation in politics through their own voices. Within this framework,
it would not be wrong to assert that during this period the peasants made themselves
“visible” in politics as well through their active participation in the political process.
The peasants were the subject of one of the most important cultural
developments of the period, too. The dominance of the so-called village literature
genre, in which the peasants portrayed the peasants an essential part of the social and
cultural sphere. In the writings belonging to this village literature genre, the existence
of the peasants was presented and their “real situation” was treated intensely, and
through this presentation, a legitimate sphere for discussing the poverty and relations
of exploitation taking place in the countryside was created. Within this framework,
the peasants were defined and described increasingly through their existence and
social realities thanks to this literary genre, which I discussed in detail and depth.
330
As depicted in the title of this dissertation, the peasants increasingly detached
from the previous romantic ideological “imaginations,” were redefined, recreated and
widely-presented through their existence and through their sociopolitical “realities.”
“Reality” seems to have been the mythic concept of the era. How much this
discourse on “reality” matched up with the actual “reality” can be questioned (which
is also an epistemological question indeed), as I sought to do in this study. In this
study, I focused on the making of such a “reality” and in this way the composition of
this “real knowledge” on the peasantry was presented. The transformation of the
peasantry from “imaginary” to “real” was analyzed through the discussion of the
transformation of all the spheres that were related to the peasantry. In this way, not
only the ideological developments, but also the developments and the transformation
that occurred in relation to the peasantry per se became the focus of this study.
One of the most important results that were set forth in this dissertation was
the way in which the composition of the knowledge was produced during the period
in question. Between 1945 and 1960, the peasants were re-invented and in this way
were redefined in all of the spheres of life mentioned throughout this study. The
“close encounters” with the peasantry that occurred in all spheres made it possible
for the creation of the bulk of knowledge on the peasantry during the 1945-1960
period. The peasantry became the most treated, mentioned and thought out subject in
the economic, political and cultural spheres. Not surprisingly, it was a matter of hot
theoretical controversies as well. As pointed out above, the themes that were to be
discussed extensively and fiercely during the 1960s and after should not be analyzed
without taking into consideration the discussions and texts that were created earlier.
This is because the concepts and accumulation of knowledge that characterize the
peasants and that would be used in the discussions of the following periods mostly
331
were created as a result of the discussions, studies and developments that took place
during the 1945-1960 period.
Similarly, the studies focusing on the Turkey of the 1960s, an era more
characterized by political activism, would miss the crucial facts and developments if
they refrain from considering the political consciousness-gaining processes of the
broad masses during the 1950s. As can be seen in the chapter where I analyzed the
relation of the peasants to politics, the direct participation of the broad masses and
their becoming an active component of politics were mostly related to the post-war
developments in the country. During this period, politics began to develop most of
the time with the effect of the DP, though there were times where this was despite the
DP, but substantially with the active participation of the urban and rural people.
Different from the single-party period, most people became aware during this period
that they could affect politics and even change its direction, and they put into practice
their political awareness most of the time. In the following periods, especially the
peasants mostly would maintain their relation to politics through the political
consciousness that they gained during this period.
The 1945-1960 period, which is usually evaluated in the social science
literature in Turkey only as being a “transition” from the single-party period to the
1960s, except for a few studies, forms the “missing” link, the “missing” years in the
field of social sciences in Turkey. The fact that this period has not been studied
comprehensively will make it difficult to analyze in proper detail and depth in the
decades to come.
Some of the issues that were mentioned in this study are still needed to be
analyzed and developed through further research by using new and different sources.
Some of the social movements that were mentioned in this study where the peasants
332
and city-dwellers actively participated, such as the Arslanköy Incident and Case and
the Baladız Incident, still needs to be elaborated in detail as independent researches.
Especially the Arslanköy Incident can be developed through regional sociological
field surveys. Through using the oral history techniques, regional newspapers and
regional archives, a detailed investigation of the Arslanköy and Baladız Incidents can
reveal important consequences with the re-questioning of our knowledge on the
period in question.
In order to conduct more studies with a historical perspective on similar kinds
of social incidents, new archival sources are needed to be introduced for the use of
researchers. The documents that cover the 1945-1960 period in the Republican State
Archives of the Prime Ministry are gradually increasing and they are introduced to
researchers more often. However, for the social history of various social groups and
classes in Turkey, these sources would not be enough. Especially in order to gather
detailed information on the social incidents that the subalterns got involved, the local
courts registers and the archives of security, gendarmerie and surveillance offices are
needed to be used in addition to the Republican Archives. During the research
process of this study, many surveillance reports were found in the State Archives on
the 1945-1960 period, and some of them were used in this study. However, when the
security and the surveillance activities of the state is taken into consideration, it is
possible to assert that there must be more reports of this kind in the depots of the
Archives and they were not introduced for the use of the researchers yet. With the
existence of these kinds of documents more and more, a different historical narrative
of the period can be written accordingly.
Another subject that was related to the peasants of the period that I
encountered during the research but was not mentioned here due to the lack of
333
adequate information on the subject is the widespread “banditry.” Although there are
some limited numbers of studies on banditry about the Ottoman period, there is none
on the activities of the bandits during the Republican period. Despite the fact that
banditry became less intensive during the period in question, it still continued.
Especially the well-known bandit “Koçero,” whose name was mostly mentioned
during the 1960s, was actually active during the 1950s in the eastern parts of Turkey.
During this study, the bandits were mentioned only in the chapter where I focused on
the so-called village literature, through the comparative analyses of the perspectives
of Yasar Kemal and Kemal Tahir. Within this framework, banditry during the period
in question is an important subject that still needs to be researched.
The 1945-1960 period is a period that is needed to be re-evaluated through its
inner dynamics. To conduct new researches with a new perspective, not only on the
peasants but also on all kinds of social groups and mentalities, will be an important
activity that will develop the historiography of the Turkish Republic. This period
cannot be evaluated through the historical tools and discourse that were used both for
the single-party period and the following periods. The distinctive characteristics of
this period can only be revealed through using various social science disciplines
together with asking new questions. The first thing that is needed to be done with
respect to this problematique is to eliminate both the judgmental discourse of the 27
May 1960 coup and the ennobling discourse of the political followers of the DP
tradition from the treatment of the period in question and define and analyze the
period in its own entirety. In this way a new sphere can be opened in the analysis of
the historical events of this period.
The studies on the condition of the peasantry in Turkey were handled through
different fields and periods from various perspectives. What this study aimed has
334
been to show the transformation of the peasantry during a period in which the social
structures in Turkey were reconstructed in accordance with the international
developments, and to maintain the role of the peasantry in this process. Turkey,
again, passes through a new reconstruction process nowadays, which is similar to the
1945-1960 period. Due to both the European Union (EU) accession process and the
reconstruction process of the new world order in the post-Cold War period, the role
and the status of Turkey within this system are reevaluated. The preparation of
various adaptation programs and change both in the political and economic
preferences in Turkey reveal that the “peasant-question” is still very important. The
peasantry still makes up a considerable proportion of the population in Turkey and
this situation is defined as an important problem during the accession process to the
EU. The transformation of social structures in Turkey during the past ten years
created distinct pressures on the peasantry. The state control and regulation on the
agricultural production, the relations with the world market still maintain its
importance at this level. Within this framework, this study also designates the sphere
in which the current transformation of the peasantry and agriculture can be
maintained historically.
335
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archival Documents
Republican State Archives of the Prime Ministry (BCA) (Basbakanlık Cumhuriyet
Arsivleri)
Catalogue of General Directorate of Transactions (Muamelat Genel
Müdürlügü Katalogu), Catalog no. 030..10.0.0
Catalogue of Archives of the Republican People's Party (Cumhuriyet Halk
Partisi Katalogu), Catalog no. 490..1.0.0
Newspapers
Aksam (
stanbul), 1947-1948
Cumhuriyet (
stanbul), 1945-1960
Demokrat Afyon (Afyon), 1947-1948
Kara Dayı (
stanbul), 1948
Karagöz (
stanbul), 1953-1955
Kel Kâhya (
stanbul), 1947
Köroglu (
stanbul), 1950-1951
Nuhun Gemisi (
stanbul), 1949-1950
Ulus (Ankara), 1947-1948
Vakit-Yeni Gazete (
stanbul), 1947-1948
Vatan (
stanbul), 1947-1948
Yeni Sabah (
stanbul), 1947-1948
336
Journals
Akis, 1954-1960
Ayın Tarihi, 1947-1957
Forum, 1954-1960
Sosyoloji Dergisi, 1942-1966
Sosyoloji Dünyası, 1951-1953
Sosyoloji Konferansları, 1960-1969
TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, 1945-1960
Yeditepe, 1951-1959
Yeni Ufuklar, 1952-1960
Web Pages (all available at August 2009)
“Arslanköy Tarihçesi.” http://www.arslankoy.com/8_tarihce.asp. 12 February 2009.
Coskun, Zeki. "Bireyi Iskalayan Roman."
http://www.radikal.com.tr/1999/10/11/kultur/01bir.html. 15 May 2006.
Erman, Tahire. "Gecekondu Çalısmalarında 'Öteki' Olarak Gecekondulu Kurguları."
European Journal of Turkish Studies, no. 1 Thematic Issue, Gecekondu.
http://www.ejts.org/document85.html. 20 December 2006.
“Dr. Tahsin Tola.” http://www.risale-inur.org/10.htm. 22 January 2009.
Okur, Meliha. “Mezar Kazıcılarının 30 Milyarlık Otomobilleri!”,
http://arsiv.sabah.com.tr/2007/07/03/haber,B7832F2270CA4E44971808CBB
0137100.html. 22 January 2009.
Karpat, Kemal. "The Genesis of the Gecekondu: Rural Migration and Urbanization
(1976)." European Journal of Turkish Studies 1 Thematic Issue, Gecekondu
(2004) http://www.ejts.org/document54.html. 20 December 2006.
TÜ
K. Demografi
statistikleri.
http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=202. 13 June 2007.
337
Books and Articles
1945 Köyler statistigi. Ankara: D.
.E., 1948.
(IBRD), International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Economy of
Turkey: An Analysis and Recommendations for a Development Program,
Report of a Mission Sponsored by the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development in Collaboration with the Government of the Turkish
Republic. Washington, D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development Publication, 1951.
Ahmad, Feroz. Demokrasi Sürecinde Türkiye 1945-1980. Translated by Ahmet Fethi.
2. ed.
stanbul: Hil Yayınları, 1996.
———. The Making of Modern Turkey. London; New York: Routledge, 1993.
Akademisi, SSCB Bilimler. Ekim Devrimi Sonrası Türkiye Tarihi II. Translated by
A. Hasanoglu.
stanbul: Bilim Yayınları, 1978.
Akgül, L. Hilal. "The Transition from Industrial Plans to Development Planning in
Turkey after the Second World War." International Journal of Turcologia II,
no. 4 (Autumn 2007): 71-82.
Aksin, Sina. "DP'nin Karsı Devrimi." Radikal ki 14 May 2000.
Aksit, Bahattin. "Cumhuriyet Döneminde Türkiye Köylerindeki Dönüsümler." in 75
Yılda Köylerden Sehirlere, edited by Oya Baydar, 173-186.
stanbul: Tarih
Vakfı Yayınları, 1999.
Aktan, Resat. "Analysis and Assessment of Land Reform Activities in Turkey."
Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 26, no. 3 (1971): 85-
136.
———. "Mechanization of Agriculture in Turkey." Land Economics 33, no. 4 (Nov.,
1957): 273-285.
———. "Türkiye Ziraatinde Prodüktivite." Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler
Fakültesi Dergisi 13, no. 2 (1958): 1-49.
———. "Zirai Teknolojide
lerlemeler ve Arazi Reformu." Ankara Üniversitesi
Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 11, no. 1 (1956): 1-19.
Alangu, Tahir. Cumhuriyetten Sonra Hikaye ve Roman 1919-1930. Vol. 1.
stanbul:

stanbul Matbaası, 1959.
Alpay, Mehmet Nuri. Köy Davamız ve Köyün çyüzü. Ankara: Örnek Matbaası,
1952.
Altun, Fahrettin. Modernlesme Kuramı: Elestirel Bir Giris.
stanbul: Küre Yayınları,
2005.
338
Araghi, Farshad A. "Global Depeasantization: 1945-1990." Sociological Quarterly
36, no. 2 (Spring, 1995): 337-368.
Aran, Sadri. Evedik Köyü: Bir Köy Monografisi. Ankara: Yüksek Ziraat Enstitüsü,
1938.
Arısoy, M. Sunullah. Karapürçek. 2. ed.
stanbul: Varlık Yayınları, 1972.
Armagan, Mustafa. "Seçim Sonuçlarını Açıklıyorum." Zaman Pazar 22 July 2007, 6.
Atalay, Mustafa. Aslanköy Faciası. Ankara: Güven Basımevi, 1954.
Avcıoglu, Dogan. Türkiye'nin Düzeni.
stanbul: Tekin Yayınevi, 1978.
Aydın, Zülküf. "Kapitalizm, Tarım Sorunu ve Azgelismis Ülkeler I-II." 11. Tez 3-4
(1986): 126-55 and 71-216.
Baber, Zaheer. "Modernization Theory and the Cold War." Journal of Contemporary
Asia 31, no. 1 (2001): 71-85.
Balıkçısı, Halikarnas. Ötelerin Çocugu.
stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1969.
Baloglu, Burhan. "Carle Clark Zimmerman (1897-1983)." in Türkiye'de Sosyoloji
(simler-Eserler) I, edited by M. Çagatay Özdemir, 555-595. Ankara:
Phoneix Yayınevi, 2008.
Balta, Ecehan. "1945 Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma Kanunu: Reform Mu Karsı Reform
Mu?" Praksis, no. 5 (Winter 2002): 277-298.
Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. "'Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma Kanunu' ve Türkiye'de Zirai Bir
Reformun Ana Meseleleri." in Türkiye'de Toprak Meselesi, 449-521.

stanbul: Gözlem Yayınları, 1980.
Barkın, Rebii, Osman Okyar, and Dogan Avcıoglu. Sehirlere Akın ve Mesken
Davası. Ankara: C.H.P. Arastırma Bürosu, 1959.
Barlas, Mehmet. "Turan Günes Anlatıyor." Milliyet 20 Ocak 1979.
Basaran, M. Aç Harmanı-Çarıgımı Yitirdigim Tarla.
stanbul: Varlık Yayınevi, 1973.
Baskut, Cevat Fehmi. Göç.
stanbul:
nkılap ve Aka Kitabevi, 1962.
Baydar, Oya. "1950 Sonrası Göç." in Dünden Bugüne stanbul Ansiklopedisi 406-
410.
stanbul: Kültür Bakanlıgı ve Tarih Vakfı Ortak Yayını, 1994.
Baykurt, Fakir. Çilli.
stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1966.
———. Köy Enstitülü Delikanlı-Özyasam 2.
stanbul: Papirüs Yayınları, 1999.
———. Yılanların Öcü. 5 ed.
stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1972.
Baykurt, Fakir, Kemal Tahir, Mahmut Makal, Orhan Kemal, and Talip Apaydın. Bes
Romancı Köy Romanı Üzerinde Tartısıyor.
stanbul: Düsün Yayınevi, 1960.
339
Bayrak, Mehmet. Köy Enstitülü Yazarlar Ozanlar, nceleme-Antoloji. Ankara: Töb-
Der Yayınları, 1978.
Beeley, Brian W. "The Turkish Village Coffeehouse as a Social Institution." The
Geographical Review 60, no. 4 (October 1970): 475-493.
Begenç, Cahit. Bizim Köy. Ankara: Ulus Basımevi, 1948.
Belli, Mihri. Mihri Belli'nin Anıları-nsanlar Tanıdım 2.
stanbul: Dogan Kitap,
1999.
Berkes, Niyazi. Bazı Ankara Köyleri Üzerinde Bir Arastırma. Ankara: DTCF
Yayınları, 1942.
———. "Sociology in Turkey." The American Journal of Sociology 42, no. 2 (Sep.,
1936): 238-246.
Bernstein, Henry. "V. I. Lenin and A. V. Chayanov: Looking Back, Looking
Forward." The Journal of Peasant Studies 36, no. 1 (2009): 55-81.
Besikçi,
smail. Dogu Anadolu'nun Düzeni (Sosyo-Ekonomik ve Etnik Temelleri).

stanbul: E Yayınları, 1970.
Besirli, Hayati. "Nurettin Sazi Kösemihal (1909-1972)." in Türkiye'de Sosyoloji
(simler-Eserler) I, edited by M. Çagatay Özdemir, 753-782. Ankara:
Phoneix Yayınevi, 2008.
Bloch, Ernst, Georg Lukacs, Bertolt Brecht, Walter Benjamin, and Theodor Adorno.
Estetik ve Politika. Translated by Ünsal Oskay.
stanbul: Elestiri Yayınevi,
1985.
Bora, Tanıl, and Necmi Erdogan. "'Biz Anadolu'nun Bagrı Yanık Çocukları'
Muhafazakâr Popülizm." in Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi Düsünce, Cilt 5,
Muhafazakârlık, edited by Ahmet Çigdem.
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2003.
Boran, Behice. Toplumsal Yapı Arastırmaları: ki Köy Çesidinin Mukayeseli Tetkiki.
Ankara: DTCF Yayınları, 1945.
———. Türkiye ve Sosyalizmin Sorunları.
stanbul: Gün Yayınları, 1968.
Boratav, Korkut. "
ktisat Tarihi (1908-1980)." In Türkiye Tarihi, Vol. 4, Çagdas
Türkiye 1908-1980.
stanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1995.
———. Tarımsal Yapılar ve Kapitalizm. 3 ed. Ankara:
mge Kitabevi, 2004.
———. Türkiye ktisat Tarihi 1908-2002. 8. ed.
stanbul:
mge Kitabevi, 1998.
Boyacıoglu, Aslıhan Ögün, and Levent Boyacıoglu. "Prens/Sultanzâde Mehmed
Sabahaddin Bey (1879-1948)." In Türkiye'de Sosyoloji (simler-Eserler) i,
edited by M. Çagatay Özdemir, 261-319. Ankara: Phoneix Yayınevi, 2008.
340
Brass, Tom. Peasants, Populism, and Postmodernism: The Return of the Agrarian
Myth. London; Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 2000.
Brockett, Gavin D. "Betwixt and Between: Turkish Print Culture and the Emergence
of a National Identity 1945-1954." PhD., University of Chicago, 2003.
Bryceson, Deborah Fahy. "Peasant Theories and Smallholder Policies: Past and
Present." in Disappearing Peasantries? Rural Labour in Africa, Asia and
Latin America, edited by Deborah Bryceson, Cristobal Kay and Jos Mooij, 1-
36. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 2000.
"Bulgaristan'dan Türkiye'ye Sivas'tan
stanbul'a...
ki Kez Göçmen!..(Akdeniz Sesleri
Projesi Kapsamında Bir Sözlü Tarih Çalısması)." Toplumsal Tarih, no. 140
(August 2005): 82-91.
Burke, Peter. History and Social Theory. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University
Press, 1993.
Cantek, Levent. Cumhuriyetin Bülug Çagı-Gündelik Yasama Dair Tartısmalar
(1945-1950).
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2008.
———. "Köy Manzaraları: Romantizm ve Gerçekçilik Düalizmleri." Toplum ve
Bilim, no. 88, Spring (2001): 188-200.
Chomsky, Noam, and Edward S. Herman. Manufacturing Consent: The Political
Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 2002.
Coleman, James. "Sosyolojik Çözümleme ve Sosyal Politika." in Sosyolojik
Çözümlemenin Tarihi, edited by Tom Bottomore and Robert Nisbet, 671-696.
Ankara: Ayraç Yayınevi, 1997.
Costa, Pietro. "The Rule of Law: A Historical Introduction." in The Rule of Law-
History, Theory and Criticism, edited by Pietro Costa and Danilo Zolo, 73-
149. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007.
Crary, Douglas D. "The Villager." in Social Forces in the Middle East, edited by
Sydney Nettleton Fisher, 43-59. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1955.
D.
.E. 1944-1965 Tarım statistikleri Özeti. Ankara: Basbakanlık Devlet
statistik
Enstitüsü.
Daglar, Yalçın. Köylerimizden Örnekler.
stanbul: Kader Basımevi, 1951.
Darkot, Besim. "Türkiye'nin Nüfus Hareketleri Üzerinde Yeni Gözlemler." Türk
Cografya Dergisi 17, no. 21 (1961): 1-12.
Demiray, Tahsin. "Modern Cemiyet
lmi'nin Kurucusu Le Play'in Hayatı." in Le Play
Sosyolojisinin 100. Yılı-Dünyada ve Türkiyede Tesirleri, edited by Türk
Sosyoloji Cemiyeti, 3-7.
stanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi ve Basımevi, 1958.
341
———. "Science Sociale'in Türkiye'ye Gelisi ve Bizdeki Tesirleri." in Le Play
Sosyolojisinin 100. Yılı-Dünyada ve Türkiyede Tesirleri, edited by Türk
Sosyoloji Cemiyeti, 20-34.
stanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi ve Basımevi, 1958.
Demirel, Meral. Tam Bir Muhalif Abdülkadir Kemali Bey.
stanbul:
stanbul Bilgi
Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2006.
Demirkan, Salâhattin. "Baglum Köyünde Köylü
sletmesi Anketi." Sosyoloji Dergisi,
no. 7 (1952): 23-39.
———. Celaliye Köyü Monografisi.
stanbul, 1941.
———. Küçükçekmece Köyü Monografisi.
stanbul, 1941.
Descamps, Paul. Deneysel Sosyoloji. Translated by Nurettin Sazi Kösemihal. 2. ed.

stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1965.
Dogan, Mehmet. Tarih ve Toplum-Türkiye'de Toprak Meselesi.
stanbul: Dergah
Yayınları, 1977.
Durukan, Kaan. "Prens Sabahaddin ve
lm-i
çtima-Türk Liberalizminin Kökenleri."
in Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi Düsünce, Vol. 1, Cumhuriyet'e Devreden
Düsünce Mirası Tanzimat ve Mesrutiyet'in Birikimi, edited by Mehmet Ö.
Alkan, 143-155.
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2001.
Duygulu, Behiç. "Forumcular ve ‘Bizim Köy’lü." Forum 4, no. 48 (15 March 1956):
15-16.
Ecevit, Mehmet C. "
ç Göçün Unutulan Kaynakları: Tarımsal Farklılasma ve
Dönüsüm Dinamikleri." in II. Ulusal Sosyoloji Kongresi: Toplum ve Göç (20-
22 Kasım 1996, Mersin), 493-501. Ankara: Devlet
statistik Enstitüsü, 1997.
Ege, Nezahet Nurettin. Prens Sabahaddin-Hayatı ve lmî Müdafaaları.
stanbul:
Fakülteler Matbaası, 1977.
Elwitt, Sanford. "Social Science, Social Reform and Sociology." Past and Present,
no. 121 (Nov., 1988): 209-214.
Enis, Resat. Toprak Kokusu.
stanbul: Örgün Yayınevi, 2002.
Ercan, Fuat. Gelisme Yazını Açısından Modernizm, Kapitalizm ve Azgelismislik.

stanbul: Sarmal Yayınevi, 1996.
Erder, Sema. stanbul'a Bir Kent Kondu-Ümraniye.
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları,
1996.
Erdinç, Fahri. Alinin Biri.
stanbul: Habora Kitabevi, 1979.
Erdogan, Necmi. "Devleti 'Idare Etmek': Mâduniyet ve Düzenbazlık." Toplum ve
Bilim, no. 83 (Winter 1999/2000): 8-31.
Erduran, Refik. Yagmur Duası.
stanbul: Çaglayan Yayınevi, 1954.
342
Ergun, Dogan. 100 Soruda Sosyoloji El Kitabı.
stanbul: Gerçek Yayınevi, 1990.
Erinç, Orhan. "250 Yıl Önce
stanbul'da Gecekondu Kaçak
nsaat Sahil Yagması
Sorunları ve Çareleri." Belgelerle Türk Tarihi Dergisi, no. 10 (July 1968): 54-
58.
Erkul, Ali. "Prens Sabahattin." in Türk Toplumbilimcileri I, edited by Emre Kongar,
79-150.
stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1982.
Erman, Tahire. "Sehirli Olmak ya da Köylü Kalmak: Kentteki Kır Göçmenin
Kendini Tanımlaması Olayı." in II. Ulusal Sosyoloji Kongresi: Toplum ve
Göç (20-22 Kasım 1996, Mersin), 303-307. Ankara: Devlet
statistik
Enstitüsü Matbaası, 1997.
Erogul, Cem. Demokrat Parti-Tarihi ve deolojisi. Ankara:
mge Kitabevi, 1998.
Ertürk, Recep. Türk Sosyolojisinde ve Cumhuriyet Döneminde Köy Tartısmaları.
Ankara:
stanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1997.
Fenik, Faruk. "Cumhur Baskanı Dün M. Makalı Kabul Etti." Cumhuriyet 16 June
1950.
"Filmcilik." Akis 10, no. 167 (20 July 1957): 30-31.
"Filmcilik-Bir Ümid." Akis 9, no. 143 (2 February 1957): 33.
Fındıkoglu, Z. Fahri. Le Play Mektebi ve Prens Sabahaddin.
stanbul: Fakülteler
Matbaası, 1962.
Frey, Frederick W. The Mass Media and Rural Development in Turkey. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Center for International Studies, 1966.
Gelekçi, Cahit. "Cahit Tanyol (1914- )." in Türkiye'de Sosyoloji (simler-Eserler) I,
edited by M. Çagatay Özdemir, 985-1027. Ankara: Phoneix Yayınevi, 2008.
Geray, Cevat. "Toplum Kalkınması ve Köy Arastırmaları." Ankara Üniversitesi
Egitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi 5, no. 1 (1972): 3-49.
Gerber, Haim. The Social Origins of the Modern Middle East. Boulder, Colorado:
Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1987.
Göknil, Nedim. "Garbî Anadolu Köy Monografileri." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 2 (1943):
312-357.
Göksen, Enver Naci. "Kahvehaneler Nasıl Kuruldu ve Ne Oldu?" Yeni Adam 12, no.
460 (21.10.1943): 8-9.
Gurvitch, Georges. "Sosyolojinin Bugünkü Temayülü (I)." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 4-5
(1949): 57-71.
Gümüsbas, Yılmaz. Toprak Agrısı (Röportaj). Ankara: ÇGD Yayınları, 2001.
343
Günes-Ayata, Ayse. "Gecekondularda Kimlik Sorunu, Dayanısma Örüntüleri ve
Hemsehrilik." Toplum ve Bilim, no. 51-52 (Autumn 1990-Winter 1991): 89-
101.
Gürkan, Nilgün. Türkiye'de Demokrasiye Geçiste Basın (1945-1950).
stanbul:

letisim Yayınları, 1998.
Habermas, Jurgen. "Knowledge and Human Interests: A General Perspective." in
Continental Philosophy of Science, edited by Gary Gutting, 310-321. Malden:
Blackwell Publishing, 2005.
Halberstam, David. The Fifties. New York: Villard Books, 1993.
Hale, William. The Political and Economic Development of Modern Turkey. London
& Sydney: Croom Helm, 1981.
Hançerlioglu, Orhan. Ekilmemis Topraklar.
stanbul: Varlık Yayınları, 1954.
Harootunian, Harry. mparatorlugun Yeni Kılıgı: Kaybedilen ve Tekrar Ele Geçirilen
Paradigma. Translated by Erkal Ünal.
stanbul: Bogaziçi Üniversitesi
Yayınları, 2006.
Hattox, Ralph S. Kahve ve Kahvehane-Bir Toplumsal çecegin Yakındogu'daki
Kökenleri.
stanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1998.
Heise, Ulla. Kahve ve Kahvehane.
stanbul: Dost Kitabevi Yayınları, 2001.
Helling, Barbara, and George Helling. Rural Turkey - a New Socio-Statistical
Appraisal.
stanbul:
stanbul Üniversitesi
ktisat Fakültesi, 1958.
Hershlag, Zvi Yehuda. Turkey: The Challenge of Growth. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968.
Hilts, H. E. The Highway Situation in Turkey: A Report of the United States Public
Roads Mission to Turkey to the Minister of Public Works of Turkey. Ankara,
1948.
Hinderink, Jan, and Mübeccel B. Kıray. Social Stratification as an Obstacle to
Development: A Study of Four Turkish Villages. New York: Praeger
Publishers, 1970.
Hobsbawm, Eric. Age of Extremes-the Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991. London:
Abacus, 1995.
Huntington, Samuel P. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Heaven and
London: Yale University Press, 1968.

çduygu, Ahmet,
brahim Sirkeci, and
smail Aydıngün. "Türkiye'de
çgöç ve

çgöçün
sçi Hareketine Etkisi." in Türkiye'de çgöç, 205-244.
stanbul:
Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, 1998.

loglu, Asım Süreyya. "Ziraî Sosyolojiye Bir Giris." in 1962-1963 Ders Yılı Sosyoloji
Konferansları, 31-59.
stanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası, 1964.
344

nan, Süleyman. "Toprak Reformunun En Çok Tartısılan Maddesi: 17. Madde."
Journal of Historical Studies 3 (2005): 45-57.

ncioglu, Nihal Kara. "Türkiye'de Çok Partili Sisteme Geçis ve Demokrasi
Sorunları." in Tarih ve Demokrasi: Tarık Zafer Tunaya'ya Armagan, edited
by Üniversite Ögretim Üyeleri Dernegi, 69-86.
stanbul: Cem Yayınevi,
1992.
Kaçmazoglu, H. Bayram. "Türkiye'de Sosyoloji Çalısmaları 1950-1960 Dönemi."
Sosyoloji Dergisi 3. dizi 1993-1995, no. 4 (1997): 131-190.
Kanbolat, Yahya. Türkiye Ziraatinde Bünye Degisikligi. Ankara: AÜ, SBF Maliye
Enstitüsü, 1963.
Kandiyoti, Deniz. "Some Social-Psychological Dimensions of Social Change in a
Turkish Village." The British Journal of Sociology 25, no. 1 (1974): 47-62.
Kansu, Aykut. "Prens Sabahaddin'in Düsünsel Kaynakları ve Asırı-Muhafazakâr
Düsüncenin
thali." in Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi Düsünce, Vol. 1,
Cumhuriyet'e Devreden Düsünce Mirası Tanzimat ve Mesrutiyet'in Birikimi,
edited by Mehmet Ö. Alkan, 156-165.
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2001.
Kaplan, Ramazan. Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Romanında Köy. Ankara: Kültür ve
Turizm Bakanlıgı Yayınları, 1988.
Kara, Nihal. "Türkiye'de Çok Partili Hayata Geçis Kararının Nedenleri." Yapıt, no. 8
(December-January 1984-1985): 64-75.
Karaömerlioglu, Asım. "Bir Tepeden Reform Denemesi: "Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma
Kanununun" Hikayesi." Birikim, no. 107 (March, 1998): 31-47.
———. Orada Bir Köy Var Uzakta-Erken Cumhuriyet Döneminde Köycü Söylem.

stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2006.
———. "Turkey's 'Return' to Multi-Party Politics: A Social Interpretation." East
European Quarterly 40, no. 1 (2006): 89-107.
Karpat, Kemal H. Çagdas Türk Edebiyatında Sosyal Konular.
stanbul: Varlık
Yayınevi, 1962.
———. "Recent Political Developments in Turkey and Their Social Background." in
Studies on Turkish Politics and Society, 148-171. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2004.
———. "Social Effects of Farm Mechanization in Turkish Village." Social Research
27, no. 1 (Spring 1960): 83-103.
———. Turkey's Politics: The Transition to a Multi-Party System. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1959.
———. Türkiye'de Toplumsal Dönüsüm-Kırsal Göç, Gecekondu ve Kentlesme.
Translated by Abdulkerim Sönmez. Ankara:
mge Kitabevi, 2003.
345
Kazgan, Gülten. "Sehirlere Akın ve
ktisadî Degisme." .Ü. ktisat Fakültesi
Mecmuası 19, no. 1-4 (October 1957-July 1958): 375-394.
Keles, Rusen. 100 Soruda Türkiye'de Sehirlesme, Konut ve Gecekondu.
stanbul:
Gerçek Yayınevi, 1972.
Kemal, Yashar. The Wind from the Plain. Translated by Thilda Kemal. London:
Collins and Harvill Press, 1963.
Kemal, Yasar. Bu Diyar Bastan Basa. 2. ed.
stanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1973.
———. nce Memed. 7. ed.
stanbul: Ararat Yayınevi, 1967.
———. Ortadirek.
stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1960.
Kepenek, Yakup, and Nurhan Yentürk. Türkiye Ekonomisi. 15. ed.
stanbul: Remzi
Kitabevi, 2004.
Keseroglu, Hasan S. Köy Enstitülerinde Kitap, Kitaplık ve Okuma.
stanbul: Türk
Kütüphaneciler Dernegi
stanbul Subesi Yayınları, 1995.
Kessler, Gerhard. "
stanbul'da Mesken Darlıgı, Mesken Sefaleti, Mesken
nsaatı."
Arkitekt 18, no. 5-6 (1949): 131-134.
Keyder, Çaglar. "Türk Tarımında Küçük Meta Üretiminin Yerlesmesi." in Türkiye'de
Tarımsal Yapılar, edited by Sevket Pamuk and Zafer Toprak, 163-173.
Ankara: Yurt Yayınları, 1988.
———. Türkiye'de Devlet ve Sınıflar. Translated by Sabri Tekay. 5. ed.
stanbul:

letisim Yayınları, 1999.
———. "Türkiye Demokrasisinin Ekonomi Politigi." in Geçis Sürecinde Türkiye,
edited by Irvin Cemil Schick and Ertugrul Ahmet Tonak, 38-75.
stanbul
Belge Yayınları, 1990.
Keyder, Çaglar, and Sevket Pamuk. "1945 Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma Kanunu Üzerine
Tezler." Yapıt 8 (December/January 1984/1985): 52-63.
Keyder, Nur. "Türkiye'de Tarımsal Reel Gelir ve Köylünün Refah Seviyesi." ODTÜ
Gelisme Dergisi, no. 1 (Autumn 1970): 33-57.
Kıray, Mübeccel. "Degisen Patronaj Kalıpları Yapısal Degisme Üzerine Bir
Çalısma." in Toplumsal Yapı Toplumsal Degisme, 272-302.
stanbul: Baglam
Yayınları, 1999.
———. "Gecekondu: Az Gelismis Ülkelerde Hızla Topraktan Kopma ve Kentle
Bütünlesememe." Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 27,
no. 3 (1972): 561-573.
Kirisçi, Kemal. "Migration and Turkey: The Dynamics of State, Society and
Politics." in The Cambridge History of Turkey, Volume 4, Turkey in the
346
Modern World, edited by Resat Kasaba, 175-198. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008.
Kırlı, Cengiz. "Kahvehaneler ve Hafiyeler: 19. Yüzyıl Ortalarında Osmanlı’da
Sosyal Kontrol." Toplum ve Bilim 83 (Winter 1999/2000): 58-79.
Knöbl, Wolfgang. "Theories That Won't Pass Away: The Never-Ending Story of
Modernization Theory." in Handbook of Historical Sociology, edited by
Gerard Delanty and Engin F. Isin, London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE,
2003.
Kocagöz, Samim. Ahmet'in Kuzuları.
stanbul: Yeditepe Yayınları, 1958.
———. "Allah, Devlet ve Toprak." in Sam Amca, 60-75.
stanbul Yeditepe
Yayınları, 1951.
———. "Sehirli Romancı, Köylü Romancı." Yeni Ufuklar 8, no. 93 (February 1960):
270-272.
———. Yılan Hikayesi.
stanbul: Yeditepe Yayınları, 1954.
Kolars, John F. "Community Studies in Rural Turkey." Annals of the Associations of
American Geographers 52, no. 4 (1962): 476-489.
Komisyonu, M.B.K. 27 Mayıs
nkılabını Yayma ve Tanıtma. Köy Kahvesinde 27
Mayıs. Ankara: DS
Matbaası, 1961.
Konyar, Hürriyet. "Çok Partili Hayata Geçis ve Yeni Siyasi Yapılanmanın
Toplumsal Hareketlilikte Meydana Getirdigi Degisim." in II. Ulusal Sosyoloji
Kongresi-Toplum Ve Göç 20-21-22 Kasım 1996 Mersin, 679-87. Ankara:
Devlet
statistik Enstitüsü Matbaası, 1997.
Köker, Levent. Modernlesme, Kemalizm ve Demokrasi.
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları,
1990.
Köprülü, Fuad. Demokrasi Yolunda. Edited by T. Halasi-Kun. The Hague: Mouton
& Co., 1964.
Köroglu, Erol. "Edebiyatla Tarihin Flörtü." Milliyet Sanat June 2006, 84-87.
Kösemihal, Nureddin Sazi. "Memleketimizde Tecrübi Sosyolojinin Dogusu ve
Gelismesi." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 6 (1950): 117-133.
Köyler statistigi-1960 Anket Sonuçları. Ankara: D.
.E., 1963.
Köymen, Oya. "Bazı
çgöç Verileri (1950-1980)." in 75 Yılda Köylerden Sehirlere,
edited by Oya Baydar, 260-263.
stanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, 1999.
———. Kapitalizm ve Köylülük-Agalar, Üretenler ve Patronlar.
stanbul: Yordam
Kitap, 2008.
347
Kulübü, Demokratlar. 14 Mayıs 1950 Seçimlerinin 40. Yılı Sempozyumu. Ankara:
Demokratlar Kulübü Yayınları, 1990?
Kurhan, Yusuf. "Eskitaslı Köyü Monografisi." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 10-11 (1956):
44-59.
———. "Yenibedir Köyü Monografisi." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 10-11 (1956): 60-71.
Lerner, Daniel. The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East.
Glencoe, III.: Free Press, 1958.
Lewis, Bernard. Modern Türkiye'nin Dogusu. Translated by Metin Kıratlı. 7. ed.
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1998.
Leys, Colin. The Rise & Fall of Development Theory. Nairobi; Bloomington: EAEP;
Indiana University Press, 1996.
Lobao, Linda. "Rural Sociology." in 21st Century Sociology: A Reference Handbook,
edited by Clifton D. Bryant and Dennis L. Peck, 465-475. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, 2007.
Makal, Mahmud. "
stanbuldan Ayrılırken." Cumhuriyet 3 Haziran 1950.
Makal, Mahmut. Anımsı Acımsı. 3 ed. Ankara: Güldikeni Yayınları, 1996.
———. Bizim Köy-Bir Köy Ögretmeninin Notları. 3 ed.
stanbul: Varlık Yayınları,
1950.
———. Köyümden-Köy Ögretmeninin Notları: II.
stanbul: Varlık Yayınevi, 1952.
———. A Village in Anatolia. Translated by Sir Wyndham Deedes. London:
Vallentine, Mitchell & Co. Ltd., 1954.
"Maksad." Sosyoloji Dünyası 1, no. 1 (1951): 4.
Margulies, Ronnie, and Ergin Yıldızoglu. "Tarımsal Degisim: 1923-1970." in Geçis
Sürecinde Türkiye, edited by Irvin Cemil Schick and Ertugrul Ahmet Tonak,
285-309.
stanbul Belge Yayınları, 1990.
McMichael, Philip. Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. 2nd ed,
Sociology for a New Century. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press,
2000.
Miller, Paul A., and Arthur F. Raper. "Rural Sociologists and Foreign Assignments."
Rural Sociology 18, no. 3 (1953): 264-266.
Morley, Ian. "Democracy." in Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right;
Volume 1: The Left, edited by Rodney P. Carlisle, 123-124. Thousand Oaks,
London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2005.
Mutluay, Rauf. 100 Soruda Çagdas Türk Edebiyatı (1908-1972).
stanbul: Gerçek
Yayınevi, 1973.
348
Müftüoglu, Berna Güler, and Elif Hacısalihoglu. "Emekçilerin Gündelik Hayatını
Görünür Kılmak: 'Bereketli Topraklar Üzerinde' ile 40'lı ve 50'li Yıllara
Gerçekçi Bir Bakıs." Çalısma ve Toplum, no. 3 (2008): 43-67.
Naci, Fethi. 60 Türk Romanı.
stanbul: Oglak Yayınları, 1998.
———. 100 Soruda Türkiye'de Roman ve Toplumsal Degisme.
stanbul: Gerçek
Yayınevi, 1981.
Nalbantoglu, Gülsüm Baydar. "Sessiz Direnisler ya da Kırsal Türkiye Ile Mimari
Yüzlesmeler." in Türkiye'de Modernlesme ve Ulusal Kimlik, edited by Sibel
Bozdogan and Resat Kasaba, 153-167.
stanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları,
1999.
Nâzım, Nâbîzâde. Karabibik. Translated by M. Fatih Andı.
stanbul: 3F Yayınevi,
2006.
Nicholls, William H. "Investment in Agriculture in Underdeveloped Countries." The
American Economic Review 45, no. 2 (May, 1955): 58-73.
Oktay, Ahmet. "Sartre ve 1950 Kusagı." Birgün Kitap, no. 21 (25 July 2006): 3.
———. Toplumcu Gerçekçiligin Kaynakları. Ankara: Bilim/Felsefe/Sanat Yayınları,
1986.
Okur, Enver. "Çok Partili Demokrasi Dönemi Türk Romanı." Hece (Türk Romanı
Özel Sayısı) 6, no. 65/66/67 (May/June/July 2002): 67-81.
Ozankaya, Özer. "Köyde Toplumsal Yapı ve Siyasal Kültür." Amme daresi Dergisi
4, no. 1 (March 1971).
Öngör, Sami. "Türkiye'de Dahili Muhaceret Hakkında." Türk Cografya Dergisi 14-
15, no. 18-19 (1958-1959): 101-111.
Öz, Esat. Tek Parti Yönetimi ve Siyasal Katılım. Ankara: Gündogan Yayınları, 1992.
Özcan, Feridun Cemil. "U.S. Aid and Turkish Macroeconomic Policy: A Narration
of the Aid Bargain Process in the 1946-1958 Period." Turkish Yearbook, no.
34 (2003): 119-136.
Özkiraz, Ahmet. Modernlesme Teorileri ve Postmodern Durum. Konya: Çizgi
Kitabevi, 2003.
Özkırımlı, Atilla. "Anahatlarıyla Edebiyat." in Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye
Ansiklopedisi, 580-606.
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları.
Öztürk, Serdar. Cumhuriyet Türkiyesinde Kahvehane ve ktidar (1930-1945).

stanbul: Kırmızı Yayınları, 2006.
Painter, David S. The Cold War: An International History, The Making of the
Contemporary World. London; New York: Routledge, 1999.
349
Pamuk, Orhan. "Kemal Tahir'in Devleti ve Dili." In Berna Moran'a Armagan-Türk
Edebiyatına Elestirel Bir Bakıs, edited by Nazan Aksoy and Bülent Aksoy,
129-136.
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2008.
Pincus, Steve. ""Coffee Politicians Does Create": Coffeehouses and Restoration
Political Culture." Journal of Modern History 67, no. 4 (Dec., 1995): 807-
834.
Ranulf, Svend. "Scholarly Forerunners of Fascism." Ethics 50, no. 1 (Oct., 1939):
16-34.
Reyhan, Cenk. "Prens Sabahaddin." in Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi Düsünce, Vol. 1,
Cumhuriyet'e Devreden Düsünce Mirası Tanzimat ve Mesrutiyet'in Birikimi,
edited by Mehmet Ö. Alkan, 146-151.
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2001.
Robin, Corey. Fear: The History of a Political Idea. Oxford; New York: Oxford
University Press, 2004.
Robinson, Richard D. "38-Communism in the Villages (September 25, 1949)." in
Letters from Turkey. Robert College: Reprinted for the Peace Corp by
Permission of The Institute for Current World Affairs, 1965.
———. "Turkey's Agrarian Revolution and the Problem of Urbanization." Public
Opinion Quarterly 22, no. 3 (Autumn, 1958): 397-405.
S.B.F., A.Ü. Türkiye'de Ziraî Makinalasma. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal
Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları, 1954.
Sabahaddin, Prens. Gönüllü Sürgünden Zorunlu Sürgüne-Bütün Eserleri. Edited by
Mehmet Ö. Alkan.
stanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2007.
Sag, Vahap. "Nurettin Sazi Kösemihal." in Türk Toplumbilimcileri I, edited by Emre
Kongar, 291-350.
stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1982.
Saran, Nephan. "Squatter Settlement (Gecekondu) Problems in
stanbul." in Turkey,
Geographic and Social Perspectives, edited by Peter Benedict, Erol
Tümertekin and Fatma Mansur, 327-361. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974.
Savran, Sungur. Türkiye’de Sınıf Mücadeleleri-Cilt I (1919-1980).
stanbul: Kardelen
Yayınları, 1992.
Schuurman, Frans J. "Paradigms Lost, Paradigms Regained? Development Studies in
the Twenty-First Century." Third World Quarterly 21, no. 1 (2000): 7-20.
Seddon, David, and Ronnie Margulies. "The Politics of the Agrarian Question in
Turkey: Review of a Debate." The Journal of Peasant Studies 11, no. 3
(1984): 28-59.
Sencer, Yakut. Türkiye'de Kentlesme. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı Yayınları, 1979.
Seren, Sefik. Senirkent Faciası.
stanbul: Çeltüt Matbaası, 1947.
350
Serper, Özer. "1950-1960 Devresinde Türkiye'de Sehirlesme Hareketleri." .Ü.
ktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 24, no. 1-2 (October-March 1964): 155-181.
Seyda, Mehmed. "Köy Edebiyatı-Sehir Edebiyatı." Sanat Dünyası 6, no. 143 (1962):
10-11.
Simmons, William Paul. "Gurvitch, Georges." in Encyclopedia of Modern French
Thought, edited by Christopher John Murray, 282-84. New York: Fitzroy
Dearborn, 2004.
"Sinema." Akis 16, no. 274 (27 October 1959): 21-26.
Singer, Morris. The Economic Advance of Turkey. Ankara: Ayyıldız Matbaası, 1977.
Stirling, Paul. Turkish Village. London: Weindenfeld and Nicolson, 1965.
Summers, Gene F., and Frederich H. Buttle. "Rural Sociology." in Encyclopedia of
Sociology, edited by Edgar F. Borgatta and Rhonda J. V. Montgomery, 2425-
2436. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000.
Suzuki, Peter. "Encounters with Istanbul: Urban Peasants and Village Peasants."
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 5 (1964): 208-216.
———. "Peasants without Plows: Some Anatolians in Istanbul." Rural Sociology 31,
no. 4 (December 1966): 428-438.
Senelt, Selahattin. Bu Da Bizim Sehir.
stanbul: Gün Basımevi, 1950.
Sengül, H. Tarık. Kentsel Çeliski ve Siyaset: Kapitalist Kentlesme Süreçleri Üzerine
Yazılar.
stanbul: Dünya Yerel Yönetim ve Demokrasi Akademisi, 2001.
Senyapılı, Tansı. 'Baraka'dan Gecekonduya-Ankara'da Kentsel Mekânın Dönüsümü:
1923-1960.
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2004.
T...K.P. Davası-Savunma.
stanbul: Kaynak Yayınları, 1992.
Tahir, Kemal. Körduman. Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1976.
———. Köyün Kamburu.
stanbul: Düsün Yayınevi, 1959.
———. Rahmet Yolları Kesti. 3. ed. Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1975.
Tahir, Kemal, and Yasar Kemal. "Eskiyalık Üstüne." Türkiye Defteri, no. 4
(February 1974): 1-6.
Tansug, Sezer. "Köylüye, Sehirliye ve Çevreye Dair." Yeni Ufuklar 8, no. 87
(Agustos 1959): 88-89.
Tanyol, Cahit. "Baraklarda Örf ve Âdet Arastırmaları." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 9
(1954): 67-102.
———. "Baraklarda Örf ve Âdet Arastırmaları." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 8 (1953):
126-135.
351
———. "Baraklarda Örf ve Âdet Arastırmaları." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 7 (1952): 71-
108.
———. "Elifoglu Köyü." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 17-18 (1962-1963): 171-222.
———. "Peske Binamlısı Köyü." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 16 (1961): 17-58.
———. "Traktör Giren 50 Köyde Nüfus Hareketlerinin ve
çtimaî Degismelerin
Kontrolü." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 13-14 (1958-1959): 198-218.
Tas, Halil I., and Dale R. Lightfoot. "Gecekondu Settlements in Turkey: Rural-Urban
Migration in the Developing European Periphery." The Journal of
Geography, no. 104 (Nov/Dec 2005): 263-271.
Tasçıoglu, Rahmi. "Manisa
li Kayalıoglu Köyü Monografisi." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no.
10-11 (1956): 32-35.
———. "Manisa
li Mütevelli Köyü Monografisi." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 10-11
(1956): 28-31.
Tatarlı,
brahim, and Rıza Mollof. Hüseyin Rahmi'den Fakir Baykurt'a Marksist
Açıdan Türk Romanı.
stanbul: Habora Kitabevi Yayınları, 1969.
Tekeli,
lhan. "Bir Modernlesme Projesi Olarak Türkiye'de Kent Planlaması." in
Türkiye'de Modernlesme ve Ulusal Kimlik, edited by Sibel Bozdogan and
Resat Kasaba, 136-152.
stanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1999.
———. "Türkiye'de
çgöç Sorunsalı Yeniden Tanımlanma Asamasına Geldi." in
Türkiye'de çgöç, Sorunsal Alanları ve Arastırma Yöntemleri Konferansı 6-8
Haziran 1997 Bolu-Gerede.
stanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih
Vakfı, 1998.
———. "Türkiye'nin Göç Tarihindeki Degisik Kategoriler." in Kökler ve Yollar:
Türkiye'de Göç Süreçleri, edited by Ayhan Kaya and Bahar Sahin, 447-473.

stanbul:
stanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2007.
———. "Türkiye Tarımında Mekanizasyonun Yarattıgı Yapısal Dönüsümler ve
Kırdan Kopus Süreçleri." in Yerlesme Yapısının Uyum Süreci Olarak ç
Göçler, edited by
lhan Tekeli and Leila Erder, 301-329. Ankara: Hacettepe
Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1978.
Tekeli,
lhan, and Yigit Gülöksüz. "Kentlesme, Kentlilesme ve Türkiye Deneyimi."
in Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Vol.5 1224-1238.
stanbul:

letisim Yayınları.
Thapa, Shanker. "Conceptual Framework to Study Peasant Society and Economy."
Voice of History 17, no. (20)1 (2005): 29-50.
Thornburg, Max Weston. Turkey: An Economic Appraisal. New York: The
Twentieth Century Fund, 1949.
352
Timur, Taner. Osmanlı-Türk Romanında Tarih, Toplum ve Kimlik. 2 ed. Ankara:

mge Kitabevi, 2002.
Tipps, Dean C. "Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A
Critical Perspective." Comparative Studies in Society and History 15, no. 2
(Mar., 1973): 199-226.
Toprak, Zafer. "Halkçılık
deolojisinin Olusumu." in Atatürk Döneminin Ekonomik
ve Toplumsal Sorunları, 13-38.
stanbul:
stanbul Yüksek
ktisat ve Ticaret
Mektebi Mezunları Dernegi, 1977.
———. "Popülizm ve Türkiye'deki Boyutları." In Tarih ve Demokrasi Tarık Zafer
Tunaya'ya Armagan.
stanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1992.
———. "Sosyal Tarihin Alanı ve Türkiye Gerçegi." Tarih ve Toplum, no. 54-55
(Summer-Autumn 1991): 77-88.
———. "Türkiye Tarımı ve Yapısal Gelismeler 1900-1950." in Türkiye'de Tarımsal
Yapılar, edited by Sevket Pamuk and Zafer Toprak, 19-35. Ankara: Yurt
Yayınları, 1988.
Tökin,
smail Hüsrev. Türkiye Köy ktisadiyatı.
stanbul: Kadro Mecmuası, 1934.
Tören, Tolga. Yeniden Yapılanan Dünya Ekonomisinde Marshall Planı ve Türkiye
Uygulaması.
stanbul: Sosyal Arastırmalar Vakfı, 2007.
Tunçay, Mete, Zafer Toprak, Erol Tümertekin, and Ugur Tanyeli. "Cumhuriyet

stanbul'u." in stanbul'un Dört Çagı-stanbul Panelleri, 67-87.
stanbul:
Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1996.
Turhan, Mümtaz. Kültür Degismeleri: Sosyal Psikoloji Bakımından Bir Tetkik.

stanbul:
stanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1951.
Tümertekin, Erol. Türkiye'de ç Göçler.
stanbul:
stanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları,
1968.
Türkdogan, Orhan. Türkiye'de Köy Sosyolojisinin Temel Sorunları. Erzurum: Atatürk
Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1970.
Türkes, A. Ömer. "Tasra
ktidarı!" Toplum ve Bilim, no. 88, Spring (2001): 201-234.
Tütengil, Cavit Orhan. çtimaî ve ktisadî Bakımdan Türkiyenin Karayolları.

stanbul:
stanbul Matbaası, 1961.
———. "
hsaniye Köyü
ncelemesi." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 9 (1954): 37-58.
———. "Keçiller Köyü
ncelemesi." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 10-11 (1956): 36-43.
———. "Köyden Sehre Göçün Sebepleri ve Neticeleri." in 1961-1962 Ders Yılı
Sosyoloji Konferansları, 88-99.
stanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası, 1962.
———. Prens Sabahattin.
stanbul:
stanbul Matbaası, 1954.
353
———. "Türkiye'de
çtimaî Degismeler ve Yol." In 1960-1961 Ders Yılı Sosyoloji
Konferansları, 22-39.
stanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası, 1962.
Tütengil, M. Cavid. "Prens Sabahaddin." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 4-5 (1949): 176-220.
Unbehaun, Hans. Türkiye Kırsalında Kliyentalizm ve Siyasal Katılım-Datça Örnegi:
(1923-1992). Translated by Mehmet Öztürk. Ankara: Ütopya Yayınevi, 2005.
Ülken, Hilmi Ziya. "Dünyada Science Sociale." in Le Play Sosyolojisinin 100. Yılı-
Dünyada ve Türkiyede Tesirleri, edited by Türk Sosyoloji Cemiyeti, 19-20.

stanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi ve Basımevi, 1958.
———. "
çtimaî Arastırmalar." Sosyoloji Dergisi 1, no. 1 (1942): 271-289.
———. "Milli Egitim Bakanlıgı Yüksek Makamına." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 9
(1954): 59-66.
———. "Türkiye'de Köy Sosyolojisi." Sosyoloji Dünyası 1, no. 1 (1951): 22-27.
Ülken, Hilmi Ziya, Nurettin Sazi Kösemihal, and Cahit Tanyol. "Karatas Köyü
Monografisi." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no. 6 (1950): 85-103.
Ülken, Hilmi Ziya, and Ayda N. Tanyeli. "Gönen Bölge Monografisi." Sosyoloji
Dergisi, no. 10-11 (1956): 113-154.
Ünüvar, Kerem. "Osmanlı'da Bir Kamusal Mekan: Kahvehaneler." Dogu Batı 2, no.
5 (November-December-January, 1998-1999): 186-196.
Ünver, Süheyl. "Türkiye'de Kahve ve Kahvehaneler." Türk Etnografya Dergisi, no. 5
(1962): 39-84.
Üstel, Füsun. “Makbul Vatandas”ın Pesinde-II. Mesrutiyet’ten Bugüne Vatandaslık
Egitimi.
stanbul:
letisim Yayınları, 2004.
Üyepazarcı, Erol. "Uzun Soluklu Bir Halk Gazetesi Karagöz ve Kurucusu Ali Fuad
Bey." Müteferrika, no. 19 (Summer 2001): 17-33.
Waterbury, John. "Peasants Defy Categorization (as Well as Landlords and the
State)." in Peasants & Politics in the Modern Middle East, edited by Ferhad
Kazemi and John Waterbury, 1-23. Miami: Florida International University
Press, 1991.
Wolf, Eric R. Peasants. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966.
Yalçın, Durmus. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Tarihi II. Ankara: AKDTYK, Atatürk
Arastırma Merkezi, 2004.
Yaman, Talat Mümtaz. "Türkiye'de Kahve ve Kahvehaneler." Karacadag
(Diyarbakır Halkevi Mecmuası) 5, no. 53 (September 1945): 667-672.
Yasa, Ibrahim. Türkiye'nin Toplumsal Yapısı ve Temel Sorunları. Ankara: Türkiye ve
Orta Dogu Amme
daresi Enstitüsü Yayınları, 1970.
354
Yasa,
brahim. Hasanoglan Köyü'nün çtimaî-ktisadî Yapısı. Ankara: TODA
E
Yayınları, 1955.
———. "Köylerin Sosyolojik Bakımdan
ncelenmesinde Bazı Esaslar." Ankara
Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi XIV, no. 1 (March 1959): 146-
172.
———. Sindel Köyü'nün Toplumsal ve Ekonomik Yapısı. Ankara: TODA
E
Yayınları, 1960.
———. Yirmibes Yıl Sonra Hasanoglan Köyü-Karsılastırmalı Bir Toplumbilimsel
Arastırma. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları,
1969.
Yasa, Memduh. Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ekonomisi 1923-1978.
stanbul:
Akbank Kültür Yayını, 1980.
Yıldıran, Kenan. "Gecekondular ve Mücadeleleri." Forum 17, no. 253 (October
1964): 13.
Yılmaz,
hsan. "Fakir Baykurt: Yılanların Öcü Bir Çıglık Edebiyatıdır." Hürriyet
Gösteri, no. 197-198 ( April-May 1997): 24-29.
Yörükân, Turhan, and Turgut Cebe. "Çatak Köyü Arastırması." Sosyoloji Dergisi,
no. 10-11 (1956): 1-27.
Yurdoglu,
hsan. C.H.P.'nin Oyunları ve Demokrat Parti.
stanbul: Rıza Koskun
Matbaası, 1948.
Yurduseven, Mehmet. "Antalya
hsaniye Köyü
ncelemesi." Sosyoloji Dergisi, no.
15 (1960): 99-104.
Yücel, Hasan Ali. "Türk Edebiyatına Kendi Giren Köylü." Yeditepe, no. 161 (15
August 1958): 1,3.
Zâdil, Ekmel. "
stanbul'da Mesken Mes'eleleri ve Gecekondular." in çtimai Siyaset
Konferansları, kinci Kitap, 65-87.
stanbul:
.Ü.
ktisat ve
çtimaiyat
Enstitüsü Nesriyatı, 1949.
Zimmerman, Carle C., and Pitirim Sorokin. Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology.
New York: H. Holt, 1929.
Zürcher, Erik Jan. Turkey: A Modern History. London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 1993.