Abstract
By considering the models of cultural policies, this chapter explores changes to Turkish cultural policies since 2002. To do so it distinguishes between aspects stemming from a political project and those relating more to sectorial changes affecting cultural policy observable elsewhere in the world. It argues that while we are witnessing the depoliticization of cultural policy in Europe, the Justice and Development Party’s cultural policy is governed by a desire to display a separation from certain parts of the Kemalist reference framework and to promote Ottoman heritage instead. Against the backdrop of social and political polarization, culture has become a powerful policy instrument enabling the government to present its project as a break with the past, thanks to its symbolic dimensions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
This chapter draws on a study of changes to Turkish cultural policy I conducted with Füsun Üstel (Polo and Üstel 2014) but it broadens the analysis to enquire into the policy model.
- 2.
Outside academia, international organizations have been set up to gather data and statistics about national culture polities, such as that operated under the aegis of the Council of Europe, the Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe (http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/compendium.php?language=en), and the International Database of Cultural Policies (http://www.worldcp.org/index.php). It is worth noting that these databases do not include any studies of Turkey.
- 3.
The Peoples’ Institutes were closed in 1951 when the main opposition party (the Democrat Party) came to power. It saw them as a propaganda instrument for the Kemalist Party, which had held power since the founding of the republic.
- 4.
This organic vision of the nation is perhaps even better exemplified by the language laws. The 1983 law, no. 2932, forbade the use of any language other than Turkish in accordance with Article 26 of the constitution, which for decades had made it an offence to use K urdish.
- 5.
DEPO, housed in a former tobacco warehouse, is a cultural center financed by the Anadol u Kültür (Anatolian culture) foundation. It acts as an exhibition space and forum for exchanges and debates about cultural issues. It works as an artistic operator with countries in Caucasia, the Middle East, and the Balkans . Interview with the manager of DE PO, January 2013.
- 6.
In 2009, Turkish public television company TRT6 launched a channel broadcasting in Kurdish around the clock.
- 7.
The Anadolu K ültür foundation was established in Istanbul in 2002. It works to disseminate cultural programs across Turkey in partnership with non-governmental organizations and local institutions so as to develop civil initiatives nationwide. “As soon as it was founded it set up the Diyarbakir Cultural Centre [Diyarbakir Sanat Merkezi, DSM]. Its presence was part of a progressive depolarization of the local public sphere, shared between the Kurdish movement and central state institutions, with the latter conducting a cultural policy that seemed on occasions to be implemented in a sphere parallel to that of the Kurdish movement […]. The DSM’s cultural events and training courses have had a fundamental impact on the field of arts and artistic creation in Kurdistan. An adolu Kültür is also involved in the local literary scene, with readings, a translation fund, and critical reviews. Lastly, the foundation regularly supports independent theater” (Scalbert-Yücel 2015: 54).
- 8.
The specificity of the French system of financing cinema is based on the role played by the CNC, which under the tutelage of the Ministry of Culture administers the audiovisual ind ustry, as well as being a body for representing professional interests. The close ties and mutual goodwill between public agents and those working in the cinema ind ustry have made it possible to establish a generous funding system and consolidate the French audiovisual industry. Although this model has acted as an inspiration for other states, t he Turkish cinema industry, despite a very limited public funding system, has preferred to retain its independenc e and draw on the revenue generated by its highly dynamic, exportable, and profitable audiovisual industry. Furthermore, certain Turkish directors (e.g. Nuri Bilge Ceylan and Deniz Gamze Ergüven), whose films have won prizes in leading international festivals, have been able to make their films in international coproduction partnerships (which have been directly financed by the French CNC or the Council of Europe’s Eurimages program).
- 9.
Although other Turkish towns (the cities and especially those with the capacity to attract tourists) have started operating in the cultural field on varying scales and with varying degrees of success, clearly none of them compares to what has been undertaken in Istanbul.
- 10.
For further discussion of the powers of Turkish municipalities, see Bayraktar (2007).
- 11.
Mr Topba ş was one of Erdo ğan’s advisers when the latter was mayor of Istanbul (1994–1998). He was also vice-chairman of the Ministry of Culture’s first committee for the protection of heritage and historic monuments. From 2010 to 2016 he was chairman of the United Cities and Local Governments network that represents the interests of local and regional governments worldwide. Although the theme of culture is one of the issues examined by this organization, an informed observer states that this involvement stems primarily from a desire to attract foreign tourists and investors rather than any attempt to develop culture. Interview January 2017.
- 12.
World Tourism Organization figures, 2014. http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_highlights14_fr.pdf. Terrorist threats and geopolitical instability over the past two years have resulted in plummeting figures (with a drop of 30% in 2016). http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN,170247/number-of-arriving-departing-foreigners-and-citizens-no-.html.
- 13.
The Ministry for Culture fused with the Ministry for Tourism in 2003, becoming the Ministry for Culture and Tourism (law no. 4848 of April 16, 2003).
- 14.
The number of private museums rose from 93 in 2002 to 157 in 2011. Over the same period the number of visitors to museums and historic places rose from 7.4 million to 28 million, and the revenue they generated increased by a factor of almost 10 to reach 250 million Turkish lira (US$130 million) (Türkiye’de Kültür ve Turizm Verileri, T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Dumat Ofset, 2012, pp. 20–22).
- 15.
The programming and holding of cultural events as part of Istanbul’s year as European C apital of Culture in 2010 show the Turkish public authorities’ strategy to recuperate a project initially driven by non-governmental cultural actors, especially the IKSV (Maisetti et al. 2012). This provides a good illustration of the ambiguous uses that can be made of Europe. Taking control of the event enabled the political authorities to promote Ottoman herit age (Göktürk et al. 2010). This was emphasized by the European Commission assessment report, which regretted direct government intervention: “As a result of 2010, there is evidence that culture and art are higher on the agenda of the media and the general public than ever before and that the city’s cultural scene will be more vibrant […] But overall, the end of the title year and the demise of the agency represent a ‘missed opportunity’ in terms of changing the model of cultural governance in the city—though progress has been made, informal networks strengthened and lessons have been learned by all the different actors involved” (Ecorys 2011).
- 16.
Examples of such intellectuals are Mustafa Isen, general secretary to former President Abdulah Gül, and the editors of pro-government conservative newspapers, such as Iskender Pala and Ekrem Dumanli.
- 17.
Serhan Bali, “İngiliz Modeli Nedir ve Türkiye’nin Sanat Dünyasını Nasıl Etkiler?”. http://www.andante.com.tr/index.php?page=haberdetay&haberID=1392.
- 18.
Gattinger and Saint Pierre (2008) distinguish between two models of cultural policy: the French model of the cultural state, in which the state plays a major role promoting national culture, and the British model of the patron state, in which arts and culture spring from private initiatives, with the state supporting projects through independent agencies.
The Turkish Arts Council has 11 members: six artists and specialists in artistic activity, and five representatives of the authorities. They are all appointed by the cabinet on the basis of proposals put forward by the Minister for Culture and Tourism. The council is mainly funded by the National Lottery fund, and its level of support for artistic projects is capped at 50% of their overall cost.
- 19.
- 20.
In addition to setting up an arts council, the reform sought to question the public status of the national theater and opera.
- 21.
See the Siyah Bant (black band) website, which lists various individual cases of artistic censorship in Turkey (www.siyahbant.org). In addition to direct censorship , the artistic heads of major cultural institutions privately financed by leading industrial and financial groups admit “they are careful not to overstep certain limits” so as to avoid upsetting the authorities, which could take retaliatory measures against the economic interests of their patrons when awarding public tenders or major urban development and construction projects.
- 22.
- 23.
The Panorama 1453 History Museum is close to the Edirne Gateway in the Walls of Constantinople (through which Constantinople was conquered), and it houses a 2350 m2 circular panoramic pictorial illustration of the fall of the city of Constantinople. Both these museums are spectacularly successful at attracting crowds of ordinary visitors who are not used to attending museums.
- 24.
Speech by Hayati Develi, head of the Yunus Emre Institute , Istanbul Policy Center-Mercator Foundation-Sabanci University, Istanbul, September 4, 2013.
- 25.
For example, advisers to Thatcher and Major criticized the elitism of the British Arts Council so as to promote a cultural policy based more on entertainment, which the market could provide for, and thereby justify reduced public spending on culture.
Bibliography
Ada, S. 2013. Re-visiting Cultural Policy in Turkey: A Sense of Déjà-vu. In Cultural Policy and Management (kpy) Yearbook 2012–2013, ed. P. Dietachmair, 136–139. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.
Ada, S., and A. Ince, eds. 2009. Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.
———, eds. 2011. Turkish Cultural Policy Report. A Civil Perspective. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Aksoy, A. 2008. Istanbul’s Choice. Third Text 22 (1).
Aksoy, A., and B.Y. Seyben. 2015. Storm Over the State Cultural Institutions: New Cultural Policy Direction in Turkey. International Journal of Cultural Policy 21 (2): 183–199.
Albayrak, A. 2011. Les musées des grandes familles turques: réflexion sur les pratiques culturelles des Koç, Sabancı et Eczacıbaşı. Cahiers de la Méditerranée 82: 213–230.
Autissier, I. 2004. L’Europe de la culturel: histoire et enjeux. Arles: Actes Sud.
Baudelle, G., G. Krauss, and J.-F. Polo, eds. 2015. Musées d’art et développement territorial. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Bayraktar, S.U. 2007. Turkish Municipalities: Reconsidering local Democracy Beyond Administrative Autonomy. European Journal of Turkish Studies [Online]. Online Since 8 October 2007, Connection on 29 May 2017. http://ejts.revues.org/1103
Birkiye, S.K. 2009. Changes in the Cultural Policies of Turkey and the AKP’s Impact on Social Engineering and Theatre. International Journal of Cultural Policy 15 (3): 261–274.
Bonet, L., and E. Négrier, eds. 2008. La fin des cultures nationales? Paris: La Découverte.
Bustamente, M. 2015. Les politiques culturelles dans le monde. Comparaisons et circulations de modèles nationaux d’action culturelle dans les années 1980. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 206–207: 156–173.
Cheviron, N., and J.-F. Pérouse. 2016. Erdogan, nouveau père de la Turquie? Paris: François Bourin.
Copeaux, E. 1997. Espace et temps de la nation turque. Analyse d’une historiographie nationaliste 1931–1993. Paris: CNRS Editions.
Council of Europe. 2013. Cultural Policy in Turkey—National Report. http://www.coe.int/fr/web/culture-and-heritage/national-reviews
Dinçer, I. 2011. International Planning Studies 16 (1, February): 43–60.
Dorronsoro, G., ed. 2005. La Turquie contexte. Mobilisations sociales et régime sécuritaire. Paris: CNRS Editions.
Dubois, V. 2012. Le politique, l’artiste et le gestionnaire. (Re)configurations locales et (dé)politisation de la culture. Bellecombe-en-Bauges: Editions du Croquant.
Dubois, V., and E. Négrier. 1999. L’institutionnalisation des politiques culturelles en Europe du sud, éléments pour une approche comparée. Pôle Sud 10: 5–9.
Dumoulin, L., and S. Saurugger 2010/3. Les policy transfer studies: analyse critique et perspectives. Critique internationale 48: 9–24. https://doi.org/10.3917/crii.048.0009.
Ecorys. August 2011. Ex-Post Evaluation of 2010 European Capitals of Culture Final Report for the European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/capitals-culture_en
Gattinger, M., and D. Saint Pierre. 2008. Toward Provincial Comparative Cultural Policy Analysis in Canada: Can National Models Apply? An Analysis of the Québec and Ontario Experiences. International Journal of Cultural Policy 14: 3.
Gattinger, M., and D. Saint-Pierre. 2011. Les politiques culturelles provinciales et territoriales du Canada. Origines, évolutions et mises en œuvre. Laval: Presse de l’Université de Laval.
Girard, M., ed. 2014. Heritage Production in Turkey. Actors, Issues, and Scales. European Journal of Turkish Studies 19.
Göktürk, D., L. Soysal, and I. Türeli, eds. 2010. Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Hall, P. 1993. Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25 (3 April): 275–296.
Helie, T. 2004. Cultiver l’Europe. Eléments pour une approche localisée de l’européanisation’ des politiques culturelles. Politique européenne 12: 66–83.
Ince, A. 2009. Cultural Policies and Local Public Administration. In Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey, ed. S. Ada and A. Ince, 235–261. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.
———. 2011. Cultural Policy in Turkey Today: Introduction and Overview. In Turkish Cultural Policy Report. A Civil Perspective, ed. S. Ada and A. Ince, 191–200. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
———. 2013/1. The‘Mehter March’ of Cultural Policy in Turkey. L’Europe en Formation 367: 75–92.
Insel, A. 2008. Cet État n’est pas sans propriétaires! Forces prétoriennes et autoritarisme en Turquie. In Autoritarisme démocratique et démocraties autoritaires au XXIe siècle. Convergences Nord-Sud, ed. O. Dabène, V. Geisser, and G. Massardier, 133–153. Paris: La découverte.
Kalaycioğlu, E. 2005. Turkish Dynamics: Bridge Across Troubled Lands. New York: Palgrave.
Karaca, B. 2010. The Art of Integration: Probing the Role of Cultural Policy in the Making of Europe. International Journal of Cultural Policy 16 (2): 121–137.
Karpat, K.H. 1963. The People’s Houses in Turkey. Establishment and Growth. The Middle East Journal 17 (1/2): Winter-Spring.
Katoğlu, M. 2009. The Institutionalization of High Art as a Public Service in the Republican Era. In Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey, ed. S. Ada and A. İnce, 27–86. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.
Kiger, R. 2013. The Impact of Gezi Protest on the Istanbul Art World. In Cultural Policy and Management (kpy) Yearbook 2012–2013, ed. P. Dietachmair, 148–149. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.
Kongar, E. 2006. Kültür Politikalarının Kalkınma Stratejisindeki Yeri. In Türkiye’de Kültür Politikaları, Kültür Girişimi, ed. IKSV. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.
Lecler, R., and J.-F. Polo. 2017. Un transfert avorté. L’impossible exportation du modèle français de financement du cinéma en Turquie. In La circulation des productions culturelles: Cinémas, informations et séries télévisées dans les mondes arabes et musulmans, ed. D. Marchetti. Rabat, Istanbul: Centre Jacques-Berque. Accessed March 22, 2017. http://books.openedition.org/cjb/1201
Lindblom, C. 1959. The Science of ‘Muddling Through’. Public Administration Review 19 (2).
Losseley, D. 2011. Le Royaume-Uni. In Pour une histoire des politiques culturelles, ed. P. Poirrier, 389–409. Paris: La Documentation française.
Lovering, J., and Y. Evren. 2011. Urban Development and Planning in Istanbul. International Planning Studies 16 (1): 1–4.
Lucier, P. 2009. Les politiques culturelles: d’hier à demain. In Tendances et défis des politiques culturelles. Analyses et témoignages, ed. C. Audet and D. Saint-Pierre. Québec: Presses Universitaires de Laval.
Maisetti, N., M.E. Ökmekler, and A. Vion. 2012. Working Out Metropolitan Façades: Istanbul and Marseille as European Capitals of Culture. Paper Presented at Urban Affairs Association 42nd Conference, Pittsburgh, April 18–21.
Menger, P.-M. 2011. Les politiques culturelles. Modèles et évolutions. In Pour une histoire des politiques culturelles, ed. P. Poirrier, 465–477. Paris: La Documentation française.
Morvan, Y. 2013. Istanbul, un désir d’événementialité…. Urbanisme 389.
Muller, P. 2005. Esquisse d’une théorie du changement dans l’action publique. Structures, acteurs et cadres cognitifs. Revue Française de science politique 55 (1): 155–187.
Öncü, A. 2007. The Politics of Istanbul’s Ottoman Heritage in the Era of Globalism. Refractions Through the Prism of a Theme Park. In Cities of the South: Citizenship and Exclusion in the 21st Century, ed. B. Drieskens, F. Mermier, and H. Wimmen. London; Beirut: Saqi Books.
Palier, B., and Y. Surel, eds. 2010. Quand les politiques changent: temporalités et niveaux de l’action publique. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Pérouse, J.-F. 2014. L’État sans le Public: quelques conjectures à propos de l’Administration du logement collectif (TOKİ). In L’art de l’État en Turquie. Arrangements de l’action publique de la fin de l’Empire ottoman à nos jours, ed. M. Aymes, B. Gourisse, and E. Massicard, 173–194. Paris: Karthala.
———. 2016. Istanbul, capitale régionale et ville-monde. Introduction. Anatoli 7: 41–62.
Poirrier, P., ed. 2011. Pour une histoire des politiques culturelles dans le monde. 1945–2011. Paris: La Documentation française.
Polo, J.-F. 2015a. The Istanbul Modern Art Museum: An Urban Regeneration Project? European Planning Studies 23 (8): 1511–1528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.819074.
———. 2015b. Turkish Sports Diplomacy in the Service of Renewed Power? The Uses and Limits of Turkey’s ‘Sport Power’. European Journal of Turkish Studies [En ligne] 21. Accessed March 2, 2016. http://ejts.revues.org/5241
Polo, J.-F., and F. Üstel. 2014. Les nouvelles orientations de la politique culturelle turque sous l’AKP: néo-libéralisme et néo-ottomanisme? Pôle Sud 41: 17–32.
Radaelli, C. 2001. The Domestic Impact of European Public Policy: Notes on Concepts, Methods and the Challenge of Empirical Research. Politique européenne 5: 107–142.
Saez, G. 2012. Le tournant métropolitain des politiques culturelles. In Les nouveaux enjeux des politiques culturelles. Dynamiques européennes, ed. G. Saez and J.-P. Saez, 23–71. Paris: La découverte.
Saez, G., and J.-P. Saez, eds. 2012. Les nouveaux enjeux des politiques culturelles. Dynamiques européennes. Paris: La découverte.
Scalbert-Yücel, C. 2015. Repère culture: politiques culturelles et diversité de la scène artistique kurde en Turquie. Moyen-Orient 26 (avril-juin): 52–55.
Shoup, D.D., S. Bonini Baraldi, and L. Zan. 2014. A Centralized Decentralization: Outsourcing in the Turkish Cultural Heritage Sector. International Journal of Cultural Policy 20 (1): 54–77.
Tayla, A. 2012. L’AKP et l’autoritarisme en Turquie: une rupture illusoire. Confluence Méditerranée 4 (83): 87–97.
Tobelem, J.-M. 2011. Les Etats-Unis d’Amérique. In Pour une histoire des politiques culturelles, ed. P. Poirrier, 197–213. Paris: La Documentation française.
Urfalino, P. 2011. L’invention de la politique culturelle. Paris: La Documentation française.
Üstel, F. 1997. İmparatorluktan Ulus-Devlete Türk Milliyetçiliği, Türk Ocakları (1912–1931). Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Woodard, K. 2007. Music Mediating Politics in Turkey: The Case of Ahmed Adnan Saygun. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 27 (3): 552–562.
Yıldızcan, C., and C. Özpınar. 2013. Policing Dissent: Authoritarian Reformulation of the State in AKP’s Turkey. In Examining State and Evil: Authoritarian Slips, Past and Present, ed. C.S. Cercel and C. Özpınar. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Polo, JF. (2018). Turkish Cultural Policy: In Search of a New Model?. In: Girard, M., Polo, JF., Scalbert-Yücel, C. (eds) Turkish Cultural Policies in a Global World. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63658-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63658-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63657-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63658-0
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)