The ideological divergence within the bureaucracy during the modernization process in the last period of the Ottoman Empire is mostly reduced to three different ideological orientations composed of Westernism, Islamism, and Turkism in the relevant literature. However, claiming that this model, which is formulated regarding the classical works of Gökalp and Akçura, could not adequately explain the actual ideological division between the bureaucrats of the period, this study aims to propose a new theoretical framework based upon an alternative tripartite model. For this, Anthony D. Smith’s infamous theoretical explanation about the ideological-strategic differences between the bureaucratic elites of various societies, which rise as a response to the experience of modernization, is re-evaluated and reformulated concerning the intellectual contribution revealed in classical and contemporary studies on the ideological and intellectual orientations within the late Ottoman elites. Accordingly, the first ideological orientation within the elite groups that fundamentally stood against any attempts in the name of modernization and advocated retaining the Islamic tradition could be entitled “traditionalism.” The second one, which could be named “Westernism” (Westernist modernism), asserted that the only way to capture Western civilization was following the same modernization path as the West, contrary to the previous orientation. “Conservatism” (conservative modernism), the third and final ideological orientation, made a distinction between the fields of culture and civilization and idealized to implement a conservative version of modernization by synthesizing Islamic tradition with the technical developments of the contemporary Western world.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ali Babahan (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: