Türkiye hangi Avrasya?nın parçası? Türk Avrasyacı jeopolitik söylemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi

This study argues that there are two prominent Eurasianist discoursesin Turkey, the Kemalist and the Ottomanist, and that these traditions draw on three geopolitical traditions: the nationalist, the socialist, and the Islamist. The thesis then comparatively examines these three traditions and two discourses by employing insights from theories of collective memory and critical geopolitics. The contents of three representative journals (the nationalist Türk Yurdu, the socialist Teori, and the conservative democrat Türkiye Günlüğü) are analyzed, investigating their issues published between 1990 and 2010, in order to seek answers to three main questions. First, what distinguishes these three types of geopolitical traditions? Second, did the nationalist and socialist views in recent years converge on each other, thereby forming the Ulusalci view, while the Islamists became the new opposing pole? Third, insofar as the answer to the second question is yes, why did this realignment take place?In response to the first question, the thesis shows that the geopolitical visions of these three groups and the way they imagine the past help to explain their respective perspectives of Eurasia and how they place Turkey in these perspectives. In response to the second question, again the thesis shows that the nationalist and socialist visions of Eurasianism did indeed converge on each other. The thesis then maintains that this happened because the Islamist circles in the Post- Cold War allied with the liberal groups and developed a ?counter-memory? of the past that became an alternative to the Kemalist historiography, while the nationalist and socialist geopolitical traditions remained faithful to the Kemalist narrative of the past. In other words, while the political elites of these three ideological camps try to construct these geopolitical discourses instrumentally with a view to serve their political aims, the ensuing disputes of historiography and competing collective memory constructions shape and constrain their political and ideological alliances and cleavages.