The Rise and Fall of Homegrown Concepts in Global IR: The Anatomy of ‘Strategic Depth’ in Turkish IR

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 257 - 273, 30.07.2022

Ali Bakir Eyüp Ersoy

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1150360

Cited By: 2

Öz

Asymmetry of knowledge production in global international relations manifests
itself in a variety of forms. Concept cultivation is a foundational form that
conditions the epistemic hierarchies prevalent in scholarly encounters,
exchanges, and productions. The core represents the seemingly natural ecology
of concept cultivation, while the periphery appropriates the cultivated concepts,
relinquishing any claim of authenticity and indigeneity in the process. Nonetheless,
there have been cases of intellectual undertakings in the periphery to conceive,
formulate, and articulate conceptual frames of knowledge production. This paper,
first, discusses the fluctuating fortunes of homegrown concepts in the peripheral
epistemic ecologies. Second, it introduces the concept of ‘strategic depth’ as
articulated by the Turkish scholar Ahmet Davutoğlu and reviews its significance
for the formulation and implementation of recent Turkish foreign policy. Third,
it examines the causes of its recognition and acclaim in the local and global IR
communities subsequent to its inception. The paper contends that there have been
three fundamental sets of causes for the initial ascendancy of the concept. These
are categorized as contemplative causes, implementative causes, and evaluative
causes. Fourth, it traces the sources of its fall from scholarly grace. The paper
further asserts that the three fundamental sets of causes were also operational in
the eventual conceptual insolvency of strategic depth. The paper concludes by
addressing remedial measures to vivify concept cultivation in the periphery and
to conserve the cultivated concepts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Global IR, homegrown theory, Turkish foreign policy, strategic depth, Ahmet Davutoğlu

Kaynakça

• Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at Its Centenary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
• Al-Azm, Sadik J. “The ‘Turkish Model’: A View from Damascus.” Turkish Studies 12, no. 4 (2011): 633–41.
• Alejandro, Audrey. Western Dominance in International Relations? The Internationalization of IR in Brazil and India. Oxon: Routledge, 2019.
• Aras, Bülent, and Hakan Fidan. “Turkey and Eurasia: Frontiers of a New Geographical Imagination.” New Perspectives on Turkey 40 (2009): 193–215.
• Aras, Bülent. “The Davutoğlu Era in Turkish Foreign Policy.” Insight Turkey 11, no. 3 (2009): 127–42.
• Aras, Damla. “Similar Strategies, Dissimilar Outcomes: Appraising of the Efficacy of Turkey’s Coercive Diplomacy with Syria and in Northern Iraq.” Journal of Strategic Studies 34, no. 4 (2011): 587–618.
• Aydınlı, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory out of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34, no. 4 (2008): 693–712.
• Bakir, Ali Husain. “Determinants of the Turkish Position towards the Syrian Crisis: Immediate Dimensions and Future Repercussions.” Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, June 2011. https://www.dohainstitute.org/ar/lists/ACRPS-PDFDocumentLibrary/document_6BF7FC4E.pdf [in Arabic].
• Başkan, Birol. “Islamism and Turkey’s Foreign Policy during the Arab Spring.” Turkish Studies 19, no. 2 (2018): 264–88.
• Bassin, Mark, Sergey Glebov, and Marlene Laruelle, eds. Between Europe and Asia: The Origins, Theories, and Legacies of Russian Eurasianism. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2015.
• Biersteker, Thomas J. “The Parochialism of Hegemony: Challenges for ‘American’ International Relations.” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Waever, 308–27. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
• Cagaptay, Soner. Erdogan’s Empire: Turkey and the Politics of the Middle East. New York: I. B. Tauris, 2020.
• Çapan, Zeynep Gülsah, and Ayşe Zarakol. “Turkey’s Ambivalent Self: Ontological Insecurity in ‘Kemalism’ and ‘Erdoğanism’.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32, no. 3 (2019): 263–82.
• Caporaso, James A. “Dependence, Dependency, and Power in the Global System: A Structural and Behavioral Analysis.” International Organization 32, no. 1 (1978): 13–43.
• Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, and Enzo Faletto, Dependencia y Desarrollo en América Latina: Ensayo de Interpretación Sociológica. Sa: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1971.
• Davutoglu, Ahmet. Alternative Paradigms: The Impact of Islamic and Western Weltanschauungs on Political Theory. Maryland: University Press of America, 1994.
• –––. Küresel bunalım [Global Angst] İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2002.
• –––. Stratejik derinlik: Türkiye’nin uluslararası konumu [Strategic Depth: Turkey’s International Position] İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2001 . –––. Teoriden pratiğe: Türk dış politikası üzerine konuşmalar [From Theory to Practice: Conversations on Turkish Foreign Policy] İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2011.
• –––. “Turkey’s Foreign Policy Vision: An Assessment of 2007.” Insight Turkey 10, no. 1 (2008): 77–96.
• Demir, Imran. Overconfidence and Risk Taking in Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Case of Turkey’s Syria Policy. Cham: Routledge, 2017.
• Duvall, Raymond D. “Dependence and Dependencia Theory: Notes toward Precision of Concept and Argument.” International Organization 32, no. 1 (1978): 51–78.
• Ersoy, Eyüp. “Conceptual Cultivation and Homegrown Theorizing: The case of/for the Concept of Influence.” In Widening the World of International Relations: Homegrown Theorizing, edited by Ersel Aydınlı and Gonca Biltekin, 204–25. Oxon: Routledge, 2018.
• Fisher Onar, Nora. “‘Democratic Depth’: The Missing Ingredient in Turkey’s Domestic/Foreign Policy Nexus?” In Another Empire? A Decade of Turkey’s Foreign Policy under the Justice and Development Party, edited by Kerem Öktem, Ayşe Kadıoğlu, and Mehmet Karlı, 61–75. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi University Press, 2009.
• Fravel, M. Taylor. “China’s Search for Military Power.” Washington Quarterly 31, no. 3 (2008): 125–41.
• Golmohammadi, Vali, Sayyed Muhammad-Kazem Sajjadpour, and Massoud Mousavi Shefaee. "Erdoganism and Understanding Turkey’s Middle East Policy.” Strategic Studies Quarterly 19, no. 3 (2016): 69–92.[in Persian]
• Gözaydın, İştar. “Ahmet Davutoğlu: Role as an Islamic Scholar Shaping Turkey’s Foreign Policy. ” In International Relations and Islam: Diverse Perspectives, edited by Nassef Manabilang Adiong, 91–109. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013.
• Groc, Gérard. “La doctrine Davutoglu: une projection diplomatique de la Turquie sur son environnement [Davutoglu Doctrine: Turkey’s Diplomatic Projection on Its Environment].” Confluences Méditerranée no. 83 (2012): 71–85.
• Gürzel, Aylin, and Eyüp Ersoy. “From Regionalism to Realpolitik: The Rise and Fall of Turkey as a Middle Power in the Middle East.” in Middle Powers in Asia and Europe in the 21st Century, edited by Giampiero Giacomello and Bertjan Verbeek, 119–36. Maryland: Lexington Books, 2020.
• Han, Ahmet K. “Paradise Lost: A Neoclassical Realist Analysis of Turkish Foreign Policy and the Case of Turkish-Syrian Relations.” In Turkey-Syria Relations: Between Enmity and Amity, edited by Raymond Hinnebusch and Özlem Tür, 55–69. Oxon: Routledge, 2013.
• Hashmetzadeh, Muhammad Baker, Hamidreza Hamidfar, and Yasir Gaimee. “Strategy of Iran and Turkey in Crisis Management in the Region of West Asia: Case Study of the Syrian Crisis.” Journal of Politics and International Relations 4, no. 8 (2020-2021): 29–49.[in Persian]
• Hellmann, Gunther, and Morten Valbjørn. “Problematizing Global Challenges: Recalibrating the ‘Inter’ in IR-Theory.” International Studies Review 19, no. 2 (2017): 279–309.
• Ho, Tze Ern. “The Relational-Turn in International Relations Theory: Bringing Chinese Ideas into Mainstream International Relations Scholarship.” American Journal of Chinese Studies 26, no. 2 (2019): 91–106.
• Hoffmann, Stanley. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106, no. 3 (1977): 41–60.
• İnalcik, Halil. The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600. London: Phoenix, 1973.
• Jabbour, Jana. “Le retour de la Turquie en Méditerranée: La ‘profondeur stratégique’ Turque en Méditerranée pré- et post-printemps Arabe [Turkey’s Return to the Mediterranean: Turkish ‘Strategic Depth’ in the Mediterranean Pre- and Post-Arab Spring].” Cahiers de la Méditerranée no. 89 (2014): 45–56.
• Kalın, İbrahim. “Debating Turkey in the Middle East: The Dawn of a New Geo-Political Imagination.” Insight Turkey 11, no. 1 (2009): 83–96.
• –––.“Turkish Foreign Policy: Framework, Values, and Mechanisms.” International Journal 6, no. 1 (2011-2012): 7–21.
• –––. “Türk dış politikası ve kamu diplomasisi.” In MUSIAD araştırma raporları: yükselen değer Türkiye, edited by Ali Resul Usul, 49–65. İstanbul: Mavi Ofset, 2010.
• Kınıkloğlu, Suat. “Turkey’s Neighbourhood and Beyond: Tectonic Transformation at Work?” International Spectator 45, no. 4 (2010): 93–100.
• Kıvanç, Ümit. Pan-İslamcının macera kılavuzu: Davutoğlu ne diyor, bir şey diyor mu? [Pan-Islamist’s Guide of Adventure: What is Davutoğlu Saying, Is he Saying Anything?] İstanbul: Birikim Yayınları, 2015.
• Kacowicz, Arie M., and Daniel F. Wajner, “Alternative World Orders in an Age of Globalization: Latin American Scenarios and Responses.” In Latin America in Global International Relations, edited by Amitav Acharya, Melisa Deciancio, and Diana Tussie, 11–30. Oxon: Routledge, 2022.
• Köse, Talha, Ahmet Okumuş, and Burhanettin Duran, eds. Stratejik zihniyet: kuramdan eyleme Ahmet Davutoğlu ve stratejik derinlik [Strategic Mindset: Ahmet Davutoğlu from Theory to Practice and Strategic Depth] İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2014.
• Kösebalaban, Hasan. “Torn Identities and Foreign Policy: The Case of Japan and Turkey.” Insight Turkey 10, no. 1 (2008): 5–30.
• –––. “Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy towards Syria.” Middle East Critique 29, no. 3 (2020): 335–44.
• –––. Turkish Foreign Policy: Islam, Nationalism, and Globalization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
• Kristensen, Peter Marcus. “The BRICs and Knowledge Production in International Relations,” in The International Political Economy of the BRICs, edited by Li Xing, 18–36. Oxon: Routledge, 2019.
• Larrabee, F. Stephen. “Turkey’s New Geopolitics.” Survival 52, no. 2 (2010): 157–80.
• Mäkinen, Sirke. “Professional Geopolitics as an Ideal: Roles of Geopolitics in Russia.” International Studies Perspectives 18, no. 3 (2017): 288–03.
• Meininghaus, Esther, and Carina Schlüsing. “War in Syria: The Translocal Dimension of Fighter Mobilization.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 31, no. 3 (2020): 475–510.
• Meral, Ziya, and Jonathan Paris. “Decoding Turkish Foreign Policy Hyperactivity.” The Washington Quarterly 33, no. 4 (2010): 75–86.
• Murinson, Alexander. “The Strategic Depth Doctrine of Turkish Foreign Policy.” Middle Eastern Studies 42, no. 6 (2006): 945–64.
• Nordin, Astrid H. M., Graham M. Smith, Raoul Bunskoek, Chiung-chiu Huang, Yih-jye (Jay) Hwang, Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, Emilian Kavalski, L. H. M. Ling, Leigh Martindale, Mari Nakamura, Daniel Nexon, Laura Premack, Yaqing Qin, Chih-yu Shih, David Tyfield, Emma Williams & Marysia Zalewski “Towards Global Relational Theorizing: A Dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone Scholarship on Relationalism.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32, no. 5 (2019): 570–81.
• Noureddin, Muhammed. “تركيا والثورات العربية: سياسات ‘مركبة ‘ تنهي ‘العمق الإستراتيجي” [Turkey and the Arab Revolutions: ‘Composite’ Policies Putting an End to ‘the Strategic Depth].” عربية شؤون [Arab Affairs] no. 146 (2011): 77–87.
• Önhon, Ömer. Büyükelçinin gözünden Suriye [Syria through the Eyes of the Ambassador]. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2021.
• Öniş, Ziya. “Sharing Power: Turkey’s Democratization Challenge in the Age of the AKP Hegemony.” Insight Turkey 15, no. 2 (2013): 103–22.
• Öniş, Ziya, and Şuhnaz Yilmaz. “Between Europeanization and Euro‐Asianism: Foreign Policy Activism in Turkey during the AKP Era.” Turkish Studies 10, no. 1 (2009): 7–24.
• Ozkan, Behlül. “Turkey, Davutoglu and the Idea of Pan-Islamism.” Survival 56, no. 4 (2014): 119–40.
• Ozkececi-Taner, Binnur. “Disintegration of the ‘Strategic Depth’ Doctrine and Turkey’s Troubles in the Middle East.” Contemporary Islam 11 (2017): 201–14.
• Park, Bill. “Turkey’s ‘New’ Foreign Policy: Newly Influential or Just Over-active?” Mediterranean Politics 19, no. 2 (2014): 161–64.
• Pope, Hugh. “Pax Ottomana? The Mixed Success of Turkey’s New Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 89, no. 6 (2010): 161–71.
• Qin, Yaqing. “A Multiverse of Knowledge: Cultures and IR Theories.” Chinese Journal of International Politics 11, no. 4 (2018): 415–34.
• –––. A Relational Theory of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
• Saleh, Yasin Al-Haj. “The New Turkey is not a Revived Ottoman [State].” Journal of Palestine Studies no. 85 (2011): 149–57.
• Shaw, Stanford. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
• Sözen, Ahmet. “A Paradigm Shift in Turkish Foreign Policy: Transition and Challenges.” Turkish Studies 11, no. 1 (2010):103–23.
• Stein, Aaron. “I. Introduction: The Search for Strategic Depth-The AKP and the Middle East.” Whitehall Papers 83, no. 1 (2014): 1–10.
• Taşpınar, Ömer. “Turkey’s Strategic Vision and Syria.” The Washington Quarterly 35, no. 3 (2012): 127–40.
• Tayla, Alican. “Un nouveau paradigme pour la Turquie? [A New Paradigm for Turkey?]” Confluences Méditerranée no. 79 (2011): 57–65.
• Tickner, Arlene B. “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 627–46.
• –––. “Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies.” International Studies Perspectives 4, no. 4 (2003): 325–50.
• Tickner, Arlene B., and Karen Smith, eds., International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference. Oxon: Routledge, 2020.
• Tuathail, Gearóid Ó, and John Agnew. “Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in American Foreign Policy.” Political Geography 11, no. 2 (1992):190–204.
• Tuğtan, Mehmet Ali. “Kültürel değişkenlerin dış politikadaki yeri: İsmail Cem ve Ahmet Davutoğlu [The Place of Cultural Variables in Foreign Policy: İsmail Cem and Ahmet Davutoğlu].” Uluslararası İlişkiler 13, no. 49 (2016): 3–24.
• Türkeş, Mustafa. “Decomposing Neo-Ottoman Hegemony.” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 18, no. 3 (2016): 191–216.
• Waldman, Simon A., and Emre Caliskan, The ‘New Turkey’ and Its Discontents. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.
• Walker, Joshua W. “Learning Strategic Depth: Implications of Turkey’s New Foreign Policy Doctrine.” Insight Turkey 9, no. 3 (2007): 32–47.
• Yalçın, Hasan Basri. “Stratejik derinlik ve karmaşık nedensellik ağı [Strategic Depth and Complex Causality Network].” In Stratejik zihniyet: kuramdan eyleme Ahmet Davutoğlu ve stratejik derinlik [Strategic Mindset: Ahmet Davutoğlu from Theory to Practice and Strategic Depth], edited by Talha Köse, Ahmet Okumuş, and Burhanettin Duran, 147–86. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2014.
• Yalvaç, Faruk. “Strategic Depth or Hegemonic Depth? A Critical Realist Analysis of Turkey’s Position in the World System.” International Relations 26, no. 2 (2012): 165–80.
• Yanık, Lerna K. “Constructing Turkish ‘Exceptionalism’: Discourses of Liminality and Hybridity in Post-Cold War Turkish Foreign Policy.” Political Geography 30, no. 2 (2011): 80–9.
• Yavuz, M. Hakan. Nostalgia for the Empire: The Politics of Neo-Ottomanism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
• Yeşiltaş, Murat. “The Transformation of the Geopolitical Vision in Turkish Foreign Policy.” Turkish Studies 14, no. 4 (2013): 661–87.