Toprağa Bağlı Bir Milliyetçilik Teorisi Olarak Mavi Anadolu İdeali
Mehmet Fahri DanışTürkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin kurucu milliyetçiliği, yeni teşekkül eden ulus-devlete ait milli kimlik tahayyülü kurarken, Türk Tarih Tezi’nde somutlaştığı üzere Orta Asya’dan Anadolu’ya uzanan bir etnik devamlılık fikrini merkeze almıştır. Bu kapsamda öne çıkartılan Hitit ve Sümer gibi medeniyetlerin kökenlerinin Orta Asya’ya dayandırılması fikri, Türk kimliğinin çağdaş bir aidiyet biçimi olduğu savını kuvvetlendirmiştir. Cumhuriyet’in kurucu felsefesinin dayandığı bu esaslar pek çok kesim tarafından eleştirilmiş, özellikle Anadolucu çevreler tarafından alternatif açılımların dillendirilmesine sebebiyet vermiştir. Resmi söylemin Batıcı ifade biçimini daha da ileri taşıyan Mavi Anadolucular, 1940’lı yıllardan itibaren Türk düşünce dünyasında etkili olmuşlardır. Bu çalışmanın amacı literatürde genellikle salt bir edebi-estetik akım, kültürel bir duruş ya da Batılaşma ekolü olarak gösterilen Mavi Anadoluculuk hareketinin, esasında siyasi çıktılara da haiz toprağa bağlı bir milliyetçilik teorisi olarak ele alınması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktır. Nitekim milliyetçilik kuramlarının kavram setleriyle bakıldığında, Mavi Anadolucu hareketin, Türk Tarih Tezi’nin merkezindeki ‘etnik devamlılık’ fikrini ‘toprağa bağlılık’ ilkesiyle değiştirdiği ve kimliğin sıklet merkezini Orta Asya’dan Anadolu’nun kozmopolit geleneğine dayandırdığı, dolayısıyla alternatif bir aidiyet biçimi öngördüğü ortadadır. Bu kapsamda çalışmada, Mavi Anadoluculuk hareketinin erken cumhuriyet dönemindeki fikrî temelleri de dikkate alınarak, hareketin erken dönemdeki yansımaları üzerinde durulmuş ve başlıca üç isim (Halikarnas Balıkçısı, Azra Erhat, Sabahattin Eyüboğlu) etrafında şekillenen hareketin, toprağa bağlı bir milliyetçilik teorisi olarak ortaya koyduğu esaslar incelenmiştir.
The Blue Anatolian Ideal as a Theory of Territorial Nationalism
Mehmet Fahri DanışThe founding nationalism of the Republic of Türkiye, while establishing the national identity imagination of the newly formed nation-state, centered on the idea of an ethnic continuity extending from Central Asia to Anatolia as embodied in the Turkish History Thesis. In this context, the idea of basing the origins of civilizations such as the Hittites and Sumerians on Central Asia has strengthened the argument that Turkish identity is a contemporary form of belonging. These principles, on which the founding philosophy of the Republic is based, have been criticized by many circles and have led to the expression of alternative initiatives, especially by Anatolianist circles. Carrying the Western form of expression of the official discourse further, the Blue Anatolianists have been influential in the world of Turkish thought since the 1940s. The aim of this study is to reveal that the Blue Anatolianism movement, which is generally shown in the literature as a pure literary-aesthetic movement, a cultural stance or a school of Westernization, should actually be considered as a theory of nationalism based on the land (territorial nationalism) and that also has political outcomes. As a matter of fact, when looked at with the concept sets of nationalism theories, it is obvious that the Blue Anatolianist movement replaced the idea of “ethnic continuity” at the center of the Turkish History Thesis with the principle of “loyalty to the land” and based the center of gravity of the identity on the cosmopolitan tradition of Anatolia from Central Asia, thus envisaging an alternative form of belonging. In this context, by also taking into account the intellectual foundations of the Blue Anatolianism movement in the early republican period, the study focused on the reflections of the movement in the early period and examined the principles put forward by the movement, which was shaped around three main names (The Fisherman of Halicarnassus, Azra Erhat, Sabahattin Eyüboğlu), as a theory of territorial nationalism.
Every nation-state needs a historical conception that will feed its cultivated sense of national identity and give it mythological and symbolic aspects. The thought in this field is shaped, above all, around an origin myth that will provide the nation-state with a reason for existence, distinguish it from others, and give its citizens the feeling of being “ancient”. A “legitimate” history thesis outlines the official identity boundaries of the nation-state and informs its citizens about the ancestral lineage to which they belong. At the same time, it meets the standards of its time because it is covered in a scientific outfit. In this sense, the official history thesis is also a “thesis of belonging”.
It was crucial for the fledgling Turkish Republic of the 1930s to develop a historical perspective that would define its people and give meaning to their belonging. In this view, the First and Second Turkish History Congresses are crucial in terms of making the state’s official understanding of history visible. By disseminating the official history thesis, these congresses demonstrate the supremacy of the government’s own identity conception. In order to establish the geographical basis of the inhabitants of the Turkish nation-state, the fundamental content of the Turkish History Thesis is primarily shaped by the creation of the territorial genealogy of Anatolia. The idea that the existence of ancient civilizations of Anatolian origin like the Sumerians, Hittites, and Etruscans in this geography is “ancient” compared to the others - like the Greeks or Armenians - gives historical validity to the relationship between modern Turkish identity and the idea of homeland. Here, a new set of symbols, myths, and traditions supplied by the line of historical and ethnic continuity based on Central Asia can be used to replace the Ottoman-Islamic past with a legitimate one.
The goal of Blue Anatolianism is to diversify and enhance the official Turkish History Thesis rather than to depart from it. In the early republican period, Blue Anatolianists, who advocated “to bring the West here, to themselves, instead of going to the West”, became the creators of their own unique discourse. The need to define a geography that is more “local” and closer to the young Republic’s center, as a reaction to the “extreme” nature of the idea of origin that will base the nation-state identity of the Turkish History Thesis, is where this alternative perspective expresses itself most clearly. The official history theory, which based citizenship identification on ethnicity, had a “surreal” component, although Blue Anatolianists promoted a territorial interpretation of culture. In reality, the alternative discourse that Blue Anatolianism contributes to the fundamental framework of national identity gives meaning to its originality as a theory of territorial nationalism.
Intellectually, the Neo-Greekism advocated in the 1910s by authors like Yahya Kemal and Yakup Kadri forms the foundation of the Blue Anatolia thesis. This also highlights the concept of humanism, which forms the basis of the thesis’s effort to diversify the official historical narrative. The desire to link this geographical association with Anatolia has its roots in Neo-Greeks, who believe that “in order to understand Europe, we need to start from Greece” and foresee a Turkish identity facing the West. However, this Anatolia is not the generalizing Anatolia of the official history thesis, nor is it the Anatolia of the Anatolianist ideology, which would develop a conservative mystification in the years to come. Neo-Greek Anatolia is a geographical extension of the Mediterranean and Aegean seas, and unmistakably resembles European territory.
The Blue Anatolianist movement shifts the construction of belonging in the official discourse from the ethnic to the geographical. As a result, the present Mediterranean interpretation, which replaces the nomadic pathos emanating from Central Asia that serves as the foundation of the Turkish History Thesis, also becomes the focus of a secular and humanist worldview with Anatolia at its core, opening the way to multiculturalism.
The uniqueness of Blue Anatolianism as a theory of territorial nationalism lies in the fact that the identity it advances is based on geographical inheritance, and in a sense, it equates being a citizen of the Republic of Türkiye with being the heir of all communities who have lived here since the earliest times of Anatolia. The movement’s founding theorist, the Fisherman of Halicarnassus, stated in one of his writings that the core of modern Turkish identity is a singular identity that “started to flow long before the Hittites” and embodies the traits from all "Phrygian, Lydian, Ionian, Persian, Byzantine, Seljuk, and Ottoman" civilizations.
One of the most significant cultural outputs of the movement was the writings of Azra Erhat (a pupil of the Fisherman of Halicarnassus), particularly her translations from classical Greek. On the other hand, Blue Anatolianism developed into a formalized political and cultural movement thanks to the activities of Sabahattin Eyüboglu, an intellectual from the same time period.
