America and the Making of Modern Turkey: Science, Culture and Political Alliances 9781350985285, 9781786733931

Citation preview

Ali Erken is Lecturer in Middle East Studies at the University of Marmara in Turkey. He completed his DPhil at Oxford University.

“This book provides a detailed history of the American philanthropy in Republican Turkey from its emergence in 1923 to 1970. It is the first major study in any language on this hitherto neglected subject and will make a contribution to a number of fields including those concerned with US–Turkish relations, Turkish intellectual history, and Turkish politics. It is a well-crafted, tightly argued, and rigorously executed study. Drawing upon original archival material collected from the archives of the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, and those of Robert College kept at Columbia University, Erken maintains that there has been a persistent collaboration among Turkish politicians, intellectuals, artists and the Foundation officers in turning Turkey’s vision towards the West. As he states, this analysis provides a key insight in understanding political relations between Turkey and the United States after 1923.” M. S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu, Professor of Late Ottoman History, Department of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University

AMERICA AND THE MAKING OF MODERN TURKEY Science, Culture and Political Alliances

ALI ERKEN

I.B. TAURIS Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, I.B. TAURIS and the I.B. Tauris logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2018 Paperback edition published 2020 Copyright © Ali Erken, 2018 Ali Erken has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-1-7883-1170-0 PB: 978-1-8386-0468-4 ePDF: 978-1-7867-3393-1 eBook: 978-1-7867-2393-2 Series: Library of Modern Turkey 34 Typeset by OKS Prepress Services, Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

For my grandfathers and grandmothers

CONTENTS

Preface

ix

Introduction Research and Literature

1 10

1.

Science and Medicine: Pillars of Republic The Rockefeller Foundation and Pioneers of Scientific Medicine Advancing the Nation through Healthcare Fellows and Projects after 1945

21

Remedies of Underdevelopment Technicians of Industrial Development: Robert College School of Engineering and METU Setting up the Framework for Turkish Education Teaching of Science

51

The Age of Experts Business Development and Management Programmes in Turkey The Rockefeller Foundation and Social Sciences in Turkey The Birth of Area Studies

85 88 98 105

Humanities and Westernisation Islam in Turkey and the Creative Minority Projects, Fellows and Turkish Westernisation

117 120 125

2.

3.

4.

21 31 40

53 69 73

viii

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Conclusion

143

Notes Bibliography Index

151 205 223

PREFACE

This book examines American philanthropy in Turkey from 1923 to 1970. Through a very detailed analysis of primary sources, the author investigates the activities of the Rockefeller and Ford foundations along with Robert College of Istanbul. He demonstrates common discursive practices between the educated elites in Turkey and American institutions in shaping Turkey’s path to Westernisation. This process has involved the inculcation of Western rationality and cultural tastes through Foundation grants in medicine, scientific education, social sciences and humanities. It heavily relied on a close partnership between the “creative minority” of Turkey and key Foundation personalities. Drawing upon primary sources, the study reveals that there has been an ongoing collaboration between Turkish politicians, intellectuals, artists and Foundation officers in turning Turkey’s vision towards the West. This analysis provides a complementary insight in understanding political relations between Turkey and the United States after 1923.

INTRODUCTION

The Republican leadership in Turkey and subsequent governments until the 1970s embraced Westernisation as the ultimate vision for the country’s future. The “scientific and modern” spirit as articulated in the Republican discourse superseded ancient norms of religion and tradition associated with backwardness and bigotry. Through ideological and institutional tools, American institutions played a significant role in the making of a Western-oriented Turkey. This relationship intensified during the ideological polarisation of the Cold War, as the ruling elite in Turkey were eager to achieve “democratic freedom” and “development”. The research for this study is centred on the following questions: In what ways American philanthropy complemented the political vision of the Turkish ruling elite in the making of modern Turkey? What were the common discursive frameworks that were instrumental in establishing knowledge networks between the two countries? What were the key tools and strategies of this philanthropic contribution to the cultural and technological transformation of Turkey? The American interest in the Middle East, known then as the Near East, was not derived only from its rich energy sources, but also from the fact that it was the centre of the world’s second biggest religion in terms of population, namely Islam, and was the birth place of Christianity.1 American missionary schools successfully established a wide network of education in the Ottoman Empire during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. More than 500 schools were opened between 1824 and 1910, amassing nearly 30,000 registered students in these

2

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

institutions. Not only the numbers but also the social status the graduates of these schools attained were astounding: for instance, many of the leading intellectuals and politicians of the new Balkan and Middle Eastern countries were graduates of Robert College, the first American college established in the Ottoman Empire in 1863.2 Early American initiatives in the Ottoman Empire were driven by an Evangelical zeal to spread Protestantism among fellow Christians. The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions supervised most American missionary schools abroad, while teachers and other staff were readily available in several missionary societies based in the United States.3 These services and education the Americans offered helped them build friendly relations with the Ottoman political elites, and these relations were subsequently inherited by the Turkish Republic. Robert College staff, for example, played an intermediary role in Turkish–American relations during and after World War I. Caleb Frank Gates, who had previously served in the Mardin and Euphrates stations as a missionary, acted as President of Robert College between 1903 and 1932. He established a close relationship with Talat Pasha, Grand Vizier at the time, and managed to gain the confidence of Ottoman authorities in his institution. Robert College never suspended its activities, even after the Ottomans entered the war against the British and French Empires. Likewise, Cleveland Dodge, President of the Board of Trustees of Robert College, had a very close friend of US President Woodrow Wilson and advised the President not to declare war against the Ottoman Empire during the War.4 Nevertheless, the very Protestant nature of American involvement in the realm of education and social service faced a challenging test following the abolition of the Caliphate. This event and the Ottoman Empire’s dissolution meant that it would no longer be possible to use a curriculum with a religious basis, either Islamic or Christian. American missionary schools found themselves in an ambivalent situation, doubtful of which direction the Republican reforms would steer the country. The Republic of Turkey was declared on 29 October 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, and the new Turkish leadership would assert no political claims outside the boundaries of the new Turkey, which was appreciated by the Americans. It was important that, unlike the other great powers, the United States had not declared war against Turkey. The Turkish elites were willing to build a sustainable

INTRODUCTION

3

relationship with the United States as well, and considerable progress was achieved, partly thanks to the presence of the American High Commissioner in Turkey, Admiral Mark Bristol, who had a favourable view of the new Turkish state and its rulers.5 Bristol was concerned with future opportunities that American business could benefit from once Turkey gained its stability.6 However, the political atmosphere in the country turned bleak for American schools as the fervour of Turkish nationalism swept the political discourse and a group of Republican elites had deep reservations about the presence of foreign institutions in the country.7 After the passing of new laws and regulations, only a handful of foreign colleges were allowed to remain open, including Robert College, thanks to its historical prestige and its success in revising its curriculum. Following these initial blows, both sides seemed to lean toward finding a middle ground. The Republican leadership quickly realised their Westernisation mission would not succeed without the urgent transfer of Western technical know-how and cultural norms, whilst the Americans had a clearer opinion about the ultimate vision of the Republican leadership. Struggling with this transition, Robert College staff understood that there were still plenty of opportunities for American institutions in this new context. Frank Caleb Gates, President of the College, wrote: The impression in the United States is that the exigencies of the government make it impossible to carry on the work of our colleges in any satisfactory way. This is not at all the case, on the contrary we have an enlarged opportunity. There is in Turkey a freedom of thought and of inquiry such as has never been known before.8 The kind of relations the Muslim world had experienced with the West during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries could be described as full of conflict, tension and discontent, which was a challenge for the Americans to tackle on ideological and strategic terms. Despite these disadvantages, the activities of American missionaries in the fields of health and education helped build a more positive image.9 In an interview he gave in 1924, Mustafa Kemal Atatu¨rk praised Americans ideals as “same as the ideals of new Turkish Republic”.10 His close friendship with

4

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Admiral Mark Bristol was not only derived from personal affinity but also based on ideological concerns. Mustafa Kemal sent his adopted daughters to Robert College of Istanbul as he seemingly wanted them to become more acquainted with American culture.11 In a similar fashion I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨, Prime Minister of Turkey between 1925 and 1937, and Mustafa Kemal’s successor as President of the Republic, usually expressed a favourable opinion towards the Americans. Each time Rockefeller officers visited Turkey they had a chance to meet him, albeit briefly, and were encouraged to work more actively in Turkey.12 The Republican leadership introduced drastic reforms in politics, law and education to instill “scientific”, “secular” and “liberal” values with an intention to transform the “traditional”, “religious” and “conservative” mindset.13 Dissatisfied with the performance of universities and scholars to meet Turkey’s dire need for qualified people, he invited Albert Malche, German expert in higher education, to prepare a report on Turkish education.14 Following the recommendation of this report, he dissolved Daru’l-Funun, expelled nearly half of its scholars and established Istanbul University.15 In such a reformist atmosphere, the Republican leadership often approached American experts and scholars in Turkey to consult them. The ideological convergence worked well until the end of World War II when Turkey and the United States found themselves in a changing political and ideological atmosphere, with the rise of Communism under the leadership of the Soviet Union. The allied victory against the Germans and the Japanese Empire meant no respite for Turkey, which had stayed out of the war, as its place in the new order was still unclear.16 The allied powers held long negotiations to decide their spheres of influence and at the Potsdam Conference in July 1945 Stalin made Soviet demands on the eastern frontiers of Turkey, also calling for the revision of the Montreux treaty to have new rights on the straits.17 Turkey had to mobilise nearly 500,000 soldiers to protect itself from the Soviets, which put an enormous burden on its budget.18 Meanwhile the US Joint Chief of Staff described Turkey as the most important military player in the region against Soviet plans to expand its sphere of influence.19 To be able to thwart the danger, Turkish politicalintellectual elites had to look for foreign aid, especially in the military sphere.20 The CHP leadership had already made its decision to remain

INTRODUCTION

5

within the Western bloc, and the end of the single party regime in 1946 was a wise political manoeuvre displaying Turkey’s commitment to democracy.21 The Democrat Party was established in 1946 to compete with the CHP, and the first multi-party elections were held in the same year. In 1947 Inonu prevented the Democrat Party from boycotting byelections, just because he considered that Turkey was included in the Truman Doctrine.22 In fact, the state of anxiety among the Turkish political-intellectual elite continued until US President Truman declared in March 1947 that his country would stand against Soviet expansion in the region.23 In his speech in Congress he gave the details of an aid plan to Greece and Turkey, and referring to the civil war in Greece between government forces and Communists, Truman said in his address to the Congress: If Greece should fall under the control of an armed minority, the effect upon its neighbor, Turkey, would be immediate and serious. Confusion and disorder might well spread throughout the entire Middle East.24 The Truman Doctrine came as a relief to the Turkish leadership in military terms, and the announcement of the Marshall Plan in the following year offered at least some financial assistance to the faltering Turkish economy.25 The Marshall Plan intended to repair the war-torn economies of Western Europe, and Turkey, which had not entered the War, received only 2.6 per cent of total aid.26 Yet it was becoming clear that the United States treated Turkey as one of its geo-strategic allies in its rivalry against the Soviets. Another sign of good will was the sending of the remains of Munir Ertegun, Turkey’s second ambassador to the United States who had played a significant role in US-Turkish relations until his death in 1944, to Istanbul on the Battleship Missouri in 1946.27 The Turkish leadership hoped to capitalise on this friendly attitude towards Turkey in the United States and in 1949 submitted an application to NATO to become a member. This first application was not accepted by member countries but between 1949 and 1952 Turkey received nearly $150 million in aid from the United States.28 In 1949 the Joint Chiefs of Staff established the Joint American Military Mission for Aid to Turkey and General

6

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Horace McBride was appointed as the coordinator of the American Mission of Aid to Turkey.29 In 1950 the CHP rule of 25 years ended with a definitive electoral victory of the Democrat Party, and Celal Bayar was elected as the third President of Turkey, while Adnan Menderes was sworn in as the Prime Minister. Bayar was of the same generation as I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨, a devout Republican committed to Westernising the country and more direct in deepening geopolitical and cultural integration with the United States. Adnan Menderes was likewise a liberal-minded politician endorsing Turkey’s position via the Western bloc. The ascension of the Democrat Party to power brought a new dynamism to the Turkish-American rapprochement and the amount of military and financial assistance Turkey received from the United States started to increase significantly.30 It seems Turkey’s second application for NATO membership was a result of a joint decision by Celal Bayar, Adnan Menderes and I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨ as well.31 To secure this membership the Democrat Party government decided to quickly send Turkish soldiers to the Korean War to fight along with American troops. Turkey’s admittance into NATO in 1952 was accepted partly as a reward for this display of solidarity.32 This NATO membership angered the Soviet rulers a great deal, but the death of Stalin and ascension of Khrushchev to power in 1953 led to a change in their approach towards Near Eastern countries.33 A year after Turkey’s entrance to NATO Dwight Eisenhower, the first commander-in-chief of NATO, was elected as President of the United States, and soon after this election John Foster, Secretary of State, and Harold Stassen, Director of Mutual Security Administration, paid a visit to Turkey. It is understandable that the American government needed a strong and stable Turkey in the region as well.34 After long discussions with Celal Bayar, Adnan Menderes and other ministers, the American politicians had a clear picture of Turkey’s strategic position and were asked to increase the amount of American aid to Turkey. Aside from the military dimension of partnership, the Turkish government and US elites stressed Turkey being democratically governed, as the only country adhering to “liberal values and free enterprise” in the region.35 The following year, Celal Bayar paid a long visit to the United States, touring the country together with his family and bureaucrats. In most of the political speeches he delivered

INTRODUCTION

7

in the United States Bayar addressed the importance of common values between the two nations underpinning Turkey’s commitment to Westernisation. He described the United States as the “motherland of the free world, the leader of twentieth century civilization” and remarked: “We believe, as you do in the US, that our civilization can only progress if it is attached to free world ideals and moral values”.36 Bayar boasted about the achievements of the Turkish Revolution, its quest for the values of “humanism”, “democracy”, “freedom”, “independence”, “laicism” and “women’s rights”.37 In another speech during his visit to Cleveland, he called upon Turkish youth to dream of a new country similar to America, a “little America”, that Turkey would take as a role model.38 There was likewise a wave of appreciation among American political-intellectual elites for Turkey’s desire for Westernisation; President Eisenhower described the Turkish nation as a brave defender of “freedom in the modern world” and Robert Wagner, the mayor of New York, encouraged Bayar that there was no way for Turkey to go “backward” as it has made considerable achievement in “progress”, assuring that Americans were proud to help Turkey to stay strong.39 Turkey’s achievement, according to Dag Hammarshjo¨ld, Secretary General of the United Nations, and Grayson Kirk, President of Columbia University, would be an inspiration for other nations.40 The fall of the Democrat Party government in 1960 did not bring about a change in this relationship. After the 27 May Coup military forces reiterated Turkey’s alliance to NATO and Cemal Gu¨rsel became the first Turkish President to visit Robert College.41 Suleyman Demirel, who had been an Eisenhower fellow and previously worked for an American company, was elected Prime Minister in 1965. According to Rustow he was from the generation of “post-Ottoman and postKemalist” Turkish elites.42 In fact, Demirel advocated stronger integration with Western economies and adoption of liberal values, yet he was not a staunch proponent of Republican reforms. In the CHP I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨ still held power but Bulent Ecevit, a former Rockefeller fellow and the General Secretary of the CHP, was gaining popularity. However, neither Demirel nor Ecevit could maintain the level of amicable relations with the United States of the previous decades. Throughout the 1960s, there were moments of contention and tension in Turkish-American relations, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and

8

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Cyprus Crisis.43 This state of distrust was compounded by the start of the Opium Crisis in 1969, when the new US President Richard Nixon demanded that the Turkish government limit opium production in the country. Demirel refused this demand as opium planting was a major source of income to Turkish farmers.44 The crisis escalated on both sides very quickly and US congressmen started to question the scale of US aid to Turkey.45 Throughout all these cases public sentiment in Turkey turned against the United States and educated elites started to question Turkey’s economic and military dependency on the United States.46 Left-wing scholars and university activism increased the tone of their criticism of the American presence in Turkey. There were nearly 20,000 American citizens working in Turkey, twice as many as the total of British, French and Germans, and any kind of collaboration with American institutions started to be challenging.47 Despite all these troubles, however, the flow of US aid to Turkey and Foundation activities continued until the early 1970s. As Parmar suggests, non-state factors, namely, the US Foundations were one of the most significant components of US policymaking, and the Foundation objectives complemented ideological lines of US foreign policy.48 In overseas operations, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations acted in collaboration with local governments, bureaucracy and state agencies, developed relationships with leading civil actors and managed to adapt themselves to changing political conditions. These characteristics gave them an edge in working out long-term projects regardless of political instabilities. In a speech at Baylor University, US President Eisenhower called on private foundations to undertake education initiatives across the world: The whole free world would be stronger if there existed adequate institutions of modern techniques and sciences in areas of the world where the hunger for knowledge and the ability to use knowledge are unsatisfied because educational facilities are not equal to the need.49 Many of the trustees and high-rank directors of these foundations undertook administrative positions in state bureaucracy. Paul Hoffman, the Ford Foundation President between 1950 and 1953, had been

INTRODUCTION

9

director of Economic Cooperation Administration and run the Marshall Aid programme in Europe.50 During his presidency, the Ford Foundation launched its first fellowship programmes and opened its first international office in India.51 Henry Heald, who headed the Ford Foundation between 1956 and 1965, had been president of New York University before joining the Foundation. During his presidency, the Foundation spread its activities in Europe, Africa, and Latin America.52 McGeorge Bundy, the next president, who had been Dean at Harvard University and National Security Advisor, played a significant role in the expansion of area studies through Foundation grants.53 Dean Rusk, President of the Rockefeller Foundation between 1952 and 1961, served as Secretary of State from 1961 to 1969.54 By the early 1950s the Turkish political elite has taken strong steps on the way to fulfilling their longtime dream of being a part of Western civilisation. In response, there was a widespread acceptance and appreciation in the United States of Turkey’s civilisational shift after 1923. This sympathy gained a strategic geo-political dimension after the beginning of the Cold War, and US elites considered Turkey a buffer zone against the Soviets as well as a role model for the rest of the region. This perception reflected itself in the rising interest of American philanthropic foundations in Turkey. During the Cold War the “missionary” character of American service disappeared almost completely, and the focus of activities shifted towards the promotion of “liberal” values via the enhancement of civil tools in Turkey. In Turkey the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations operated in the fields of medical sciences, economic development, business administration, basic sciences and the humanities. The Rockefeller Foundation’s presence in Turkey from 1923 could be divided into two phases, depending on its strategic priorities. In line with its general policies, the early Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement dealt with medicine and health at large, driving the inculcation of scientific rationality in a wider segment of society during a time of profound transformation in Turkey. To this end, a lot of investment was made in the development of “scientific and progressive” education, so as to train a new group of “enlightened” bureaucrats, scholars and professionals sharing similar values. The early Turkish Republican elite enthusiastically embraced the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement at that stage, asking for greater assistance

10

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

with institutional engagements and individual fellowships. In the 1950s, the Foundation increased its funding for the study of humanities and social sciences and supported fellows who would lead Turkey’s Westernisation. The Ford Foundation started its activities in Turkey nearly 30 years after the Rockefeller Foundation. Yet the amount of funding and the scale of projects exceeded those of the Rockefeller Foundation by the end of the 1960s. The Foundation aimed to instill a culture of scientific teaching in Turkish schools and universities through institutional grants. Two of the most successful Turkish institutions of education, Ankara Science High School and METU, were started thanks to Ford Foundation grants in the 1960s. It also launched programmes with NGOs in the introduction of professional management and business administration. There were key personalities for both Foundations in planning and coordinating projects, as well as individual fellowship grants. John Marshall, Kenneth Thompson, Ralph Collins and Selskar Gunn from the Rockefeller Foundation, and Eugene Northrop and Robert Kerwin from the Ford Foundation established an impressive network with Turkey’s political-intellectual elites to work out joint projects. Likewise, some of the Robert College presidents such as Franck Caleb Gates and Duncan Ballantine, provided a lot of insight to guide American investment considering Turkey’s priorities. Both foundations prioritised working with local partners in Turkey. Turkey’s Westernised elites were likewise eager to be associated with the projects and benefit from fellowships; Refik Saydam, Nusret Fis¸ek, Kemal Kurdas¸, I˙hsan Dog˘ramacı, Kasım Gu¨lek, Nejat Eczacıbas¸ı, Ahmet Emin Yalman, Aydın Yalc
ın, Hikmet Birand, Kadri Yo¨ru¨kog˘lu and Vecdi Diker were some of these figures who facilitated the Foundations’ penetration into Turkey.55 Through these networks, they had easy access to ministers and bureaucrats, were able to explain the purpose of the Foundations and exchanged their views on modernising the country. The Foundation projects could thus proceed smoothly, regardless of changes in political power, and effected a wave of change in different fields.

Research and Literature I undertook research exploring political and intellectual networks between Turkey and the United States during the twentieth century.

INTRODUCTION

11

During my research in the Rockefeller Foundation Archives, which hold the archives of the Ford Foundation as well, I was impressed by the amount of material relevant to the social, intellectual and political history of modern Turkey. The Rockefeller Foundation Archives possess thousands of unexplored documents outlining the details of grants, scholars, programmes descriptions and country reports on Turkey. My astonishment grew more when I visited the Robert College archives at Columbia University, composed of yearly reports, curriculum papers, alumni bulletins, school curriculum, staff and student profiles, and the Peace Corps archives at John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions archives at Harvard University were likewise impressive. There are many other archives to be explored in the United States for the study of modern Turkey. The Hoover Institute, for example, possesses a rich collection on modern Turkish history and Princeton University holds various different collections of personal papers. In addition, there is a vast (auto) biographical literature of the responsible staff and students in American institutions. Only limited research has been undertaken in these archives on the experience of these institutions in Turkey. This study is a product of extensive and lengthy research in the Rockefeller Foundation Archives and Robert College Archives. The literature on Turkish-American relations explores diplomatic and economic aspects in general. In his works based on archival records, C¸ag˘rı Erhan has investigated early roots of Ottoman-American political relations.56 Investigating foreign and local sources S¸uhnaz Yılmaz covers roughly the same period, but specifically deals with the years between 1914 and 1952.57 Nasuh Uslu’s study looks at the post-1945 alliance and presents a detailed examination of particular cases, such as the Cyprus and the Opium Crisis.58 Relying on diplomatic history sources, Oral Sander and Fahir Armaog˘lu presented two of the pioneering works on US-Turkish relations.59 Along with these, in 1972 George Harris completed one of the earlier studies on the Turkish-American relations after World War II.60 George McGhee, who served as US ambassador to Turkey at the time Turkey gained its NATO membership, published his piece on Turkey, NATO and US relations in the early 1990s. In these books, one can find a large number of anecdotes and personal experiences, giving nuanced information from the inside.61 Articles in

12

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

the book of Nur Bilge Crisis and George Harris offer a micro-historical perspective in an attempt to cover selected cases and personalities in the study of twentieth century Turkish-American relations. Howard Reed, for example, discusses the report of Louise Bryant on the Turkey of 1923 and Sec
il Karal Akgu¨n examines the General Harbord Commission with respect to the question of an American Mandate in Turkey.62 Joseph Grabill’s seminal work surveying the role of missionaries in the making of US foreign policy in the Near East has opened a door combining political history with religious-intellectual actors.63 In recent years, studies in Turkish-American relations have shifted attention to cultural, intellectual and even technical exchanges. In his research on the stereotypes of the “Turk” in the American public imagination, Justin McCarthy explores the sources of “religious prejudice” and the transmission of knowledge through missionary agents in the Ottoman Empire.64 Orlin Sabev’s meticulous study of Robert College’s curriculum and students demonstrates the transformative effect of an American institution in a foreign context.65 James Goode presents an intriguing analysis on the impact of archeological excavations by American researchers on Turkish-American relations in the 1920s.66 With regard to the role of American technical assistance in Turkish modernisation, Richard Garlitz specifically examines the involvement of US experts during the foundation of Erzurum Atatu¨rk University in Turkey.67 Burcin Keskin Kozat likewise investigates the preliminary role of American experts in building a new code of business ethics based on rational norms of professionalisation after Turkey’s inclusion to the Marshall Plan.68 In his PhD study, Begum Adalet investigates techniques of modernisation through a cautious examination of American assistance in the construction of motorways and transportation infrastructure in Turkey. Adalet points to the overarching transformation of social life with the installation of motorways across the country and to the fact that American elites viewed Turkish modernisation as an example to the rest of the region.69 Regarding the activities of the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations in Turkey there were two brief articles written by the Rockefeller Centre archivist Kenneth Rose and Murat Erdem.70 Based on research at the National Archives and Rockefeller Foundation Archives, Cangul Ornek has just published the most comprehensive study so far on the intellectual connection between the United States and Turkey during

INTRODUCTION

13

the Cold War. Ornek’s study delves into a systematic investigation of the “United States Information Service” (USIS) projects in Turkey as a part of America’s “Cultural Cold War” programme to challenge communism in the developing world.71 She also examines the role of Rockefeller grants in the development of social science in Turkey and other American contract programmes in the introduction of a new public administration model.72 Ornek points to the American perception of Turkish modernisation as a role model for the rest of the Middle East and discusses the search of proWestern intellectuals for a synthesis between Kemalism and liberal values.73 The study in general argues that anti-Communism served an overarching purpose in bringing American and Turkish elites closer together during the Cold War. Available works in the study of American philanthropy largely deal with the activities of American Foundations in the twentieth century. Former Foundation representatives like Raymond Fosdick and Richard Magat offer informative historical accounts of the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations.74 One current in the philanthropy literature views the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations as fundamental networking tools in the making of the American imperial project. Parmar, for example, argues that the Rockefeller and Ford Foundation elites promoted “internationalism” in US foreign policy and demonstrates that many of their high-rank officials worked in direct collaboration with, or joined the ranks of, the American decision making elite.75 He also points to the formation of knowledge networks between US universities and foreign institutions, thanks to Foundation sponsored area studies and projects abroad.76 Prior to Parmar, Edward Berman in his pioneering study published in 1981 offered an engaging analysis of the role of the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations in the making of US foreign policy.77 Arnove and Cullather, in a similar vein, view the Foundations’ investment in health and technology as a part of American social engineering, which has facilitated the infiltration of American capital into the domestic markets of these countries.78 Ninkovich in his study on the activities of the Rockefeller Foundation in the Far East argues that the Foundation elites promoted scientific rationality through medical sciences and envisioned a cultural transformation in China where a strong tradition of natural medicine had prevailed for centuries.79 The other strand in the available literature rather implies the foundation

14

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

sponsored programmes fostered inter-cultural relations and improved basic services in health and education. Zunz, for example, demonstrates that American financial aid and technical expertise helped improve the quality of education and production in the long term.80 In one of the few works tracing the influence of these Foundations in the study of humanities, Buxton reveals the foundational networks behind the development of the humanities in Europe after 1945.81 Finally, it has been clearly demonstrated that the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations sought to promote a new scientific ethos. Krige, for example, examines the role of US institutions in the construction of US scientific hegemony over European academia and Lily Kay explores the Rockefeller Foundation’s attempts to transform scientific culture through its strategic investment in the development of molecular biology research at the California Institute of Technology.82 There are a small number of country-specific studies examining overseas programmes of Rockefeller and Ford as well, but the presence of American philanthropy in Turkey and the Middle East is still an understudied topic.83 Current literature discloses in detail the interwoven connections between policymaking, philanthropic foundations and intellectuals. Yet the involvement of American institutions in the humanities, medicine, basic sciences and engineering in Turkey remains unexplored. Contextualising the history of modern Turkey is a serious question, as it does not fit well with any area studies, and modern Turkish history has yet to be associated with current trends in modern historiography, such as transnational histories. The Turkish case, for example, stands as a prime example of the transformation of American philanthropy thanks to the longstanding presence of missionaries in the Ottoman Empire, beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. Secondly, most studies until the end of the 1990s missed the role of non-Turkish agents in the history of modern Turkey. Recent attempts to situate Turkish modernisation within a framework of international knowledge networks have at least offered an alternative to the local-centric perspective. Finally, the ideological context of the Cold War shaped basic dispositions on each side, but the modernising mission of American institutions in Turkey faced a different challenge from what they experienced in Western Europe or Latin America. It carried a strong urge to transform intellectual and social practices against the dynamic role of Islam in both

INTRODUCTION

15

realms. This process involved the installation of new values, norms and manners and the quest for a moral framework that the Republican elites sought to construct. Chapter 1 explores the inculcation of a scientific ethos in the study of medicine and the health service in Turkey. Medical research has taken a pioneering role in Western intellectual and social transformation since the seventeenth century. A similar pattern replicated itself in Turkey in the late nineteenth century, as graduates and teaching staff of the School of Medicine (Tıbbiye) spearheaded progressive discourse in the country. They played a central role in the foundation of the Committee of Union and Progress. In the early twentieth century, the level of advancement in scientific and medical research was a yardstick for a nation’s level of progress and development. From the early twentieth century onwards, there was a growing interest among teaching staff of American schools in Turkey in the improvement of medical training. This trend continued with the investments of the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations in medicine in Turkey. It can be argued that both Foundations considered medicine a very useful tool in the dissemination of scientific thinking in a society and in exercising control over social behaviour and demographics. The Rockefeller Foundation spent a considerable amount of money in public health, to the delight of the Republican leadership as the country lacked very basic health services even in urban centres. This underachievement in health services would otherwise count against the Republican discourse of “progress”. After World War II, both Foundations encouraged students to undertake further research in the United States in various areas of medical science. During the Democrat Party period and the early 1960s, the Ford Foundation funded several pieces of research into family planning and fertility. The Rockefeller Foundation increased its contribution particularly in the development of the Child Health Service in that it supported individual and institutional initiatives of young Rockefeller scholar Dr Ihsan Dogramaci. These projects no doubt helped improve productivity numbers in Turkey. Chapter 2 investigates the input of American technical and industrial expertise in the development of Turkey. As was the case in medicine, the levels of advancement in transportation, heavy industry, communication and technological expertise were the criterion for a

16

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

country’s rank in the league of progress. The promise of the Republican elite was to make modern Turkey into an “advanced” nation, but long-lasting wars had devastated the country’s already weak infrastructure and exhausted its financial resources. The ruling elite showed no hesitancy in collaborating with the American schools in Turkey to close this gap in the early years. Robert College made substantial revisions in the engineering school partly in accordance with the urgent needs of the Turkish industrial sector. Early graduates of engineering schools had no difficulty in finding high-rank positions in the state to lead industrial projects. From the 1930s onwards, the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation took the stage, especially in the improvement of agricultural and industrial production; American experts were sent to Turkey to help government officials, while young Turkish students were granted scholarships to study in the United States. During the Democrat Party government, these exchanges in the realm of technical and industrial expertise intensified. There was an obvious flattery of the “American model”, displayed as an ultimate vision for “modernized and industrialized” Turkish society, as envisioned by the early Republican elite. In the meantime, the Robert College Engineering School was granted a superior status by the Ministry of Education, thanks to its new building funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. In line with its global operations, the Ford Foundation weighted its funding on the improvement of fundamental education and scientific teaching. Almost more than 80 per cent of the Turkish population was illiterate when the Republic was founded in 1923, and there were only 23 high schools and two universities in the country. The Republican leadership sought to improve education through schooling, with hundreds of schools and village institutes opening in the countryside. The Ford Foundation provided extensive expertise to develop modern schooling, elite education, and reduce the rate of illiteracy in general. It fostered the teaching of “basic sciences” and a scientific approach to facilitate Turkey’s quest for modernisation. The development of METU as a prime institution in technical education was made possible largely thanks to Ford Foundation grants. These projects were also instrumental in the supervision of American financial aid, namely the Marshall Programme, in specific areas such as the modernisation of

INTRODUCTION

17

the Turkish army, with the help of American military expertise. The attitude of the post-coup leadership after 1960 towards American organisations was quite similar, as displayed in their friendly treatment of Robert College and its mission. Chapter 3 explores the contribution of American organisations in the strengthening of the scientific approach in management and social studies. The Ford Foundation prioritised funding for business schools to foster professionalisation in management. In Turkey they worked with private NGOs and business elites, providing education for managers in private and state enterprises. According to American experts, Turkish business development suffered from a lack of longterm planning and rational management. The Foundation sponsored programmes intended to transform business culture to facilitate Turkey’s integration with Western economies. The removal of classical Islamic sciences from the curriculum necessitated further expertise in the understanding and teaching of social sciences to produce specified knowledge in regulating society and politics. The Republican leadership thus aimed to strengthen studies in social and administrative sciences. The establishment of Political Science departments in the United States had started in the early twentieth century, towards the advancement of quantitative research on understanding social and administrative behaviour. The establishment of Area Studies was a reflection of the strengthening belief in higher education as a source of “expertise” knowledge. Turkish scholars collaborated with American institutions in the development of social and administrative sciences. New chairs were founded and financial grants were made available for researchers in Turkey, thanks to the huge amount of funding the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations provided. Chapter 4 investigates the role of American foundations in the development of the humanities. The question of cultural change had occupied the country’s elites for almost more than a century and they were quick to mobilise the country’s resources in the pursuit of a new cultural input to replace “traditional” codes based on religion. This required a new understanding of history, and engaging transformation in the realm of arts, literature and humanities. In the meantime, however, the Republican elite needed some prompt changes that would underpin its Western discourse, at least in appearance. The fundamental tool that

18

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

American philanthropy employed in facilitating cultural transmission was the promotion of the English language. Especially after the end of World War II it eased the way for Turkish scholars, artists and men of literature to travel to the United States instead of Western Europe, bringing in a widespread adoption of the American form of modernity. Political elites in Turkey tended to import Western cultural habits in appearance whereas the American institutions sought to provide substantial investment in the strengthening of the liberal arts tradition in Turkey. The Rockefeller Foundation focussed on curriculum development in the humanities in universities and funded educated elites from various backgrounds. For example, in 1961 a special model in the advancement of bilingual education was launched in Robert College thanks to the Rockefeller grant. In Turkey, venues for social gatherings and cultural attractions were no longer mosques or Sufi lodges. The cultural gap could only be filled with institutional reforms in socialisation and mass communication. The Rockefeller Foundation helped in the renovation of conservatoires and theatres in urban centres, and established institutional networks in arts and literature between the United States and Turkey. These aids were intended to support the “creative minority” in Turkey, who would lead the change in cultural habits, and promote Western tastes and practices among the rest of the population. I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Mark Mazower who offered his kind supervision during my initial research in the United States. I owe a great debt to the TUBITAK fellowship, which enabled me to visit several archives in the United States. I thank Dr Mehmet Ali Dog˘an who provided me with insight and guidance throughout this study, and Professor Martin Conway who encouraged me to undertake this research. I am indebted to Dr James McDougall and Dr Celia Kerslake for their guidance in academic precision. I also wish to thank Selimhan Yeniacun, Go¨khan Bu¨yu¨kdeniz, Abdullah Taha Orhan, Nazif Koca, Kenan Tekin, Kasım Kopuz, Murat Siviloglu, Professor Norman Stone, Abdurrahman Babacan, Anthony Grenwood, Zafer Parlak, Nurullah Ates, Yunus Ug˘ur, Nurullah Ardıc
, Abdurrahman Atcil, Professor Talip Kucukcan, Nurullah Cakmaktas, Ibrahim Murat Bozkurt, Professor Ahmet Tabakoglu, Mehmet Osman and Hatice Erken who all supported me during this study. I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to I.B.Tauris’ anonymous reviewers and editors for reading the manuscript.

INTRODUCTION

19

The Rockefeller Archives staff and especially Monica Blank, who provided an enormous amount of help from the first day, were always ready to guide me with documents. I also wish to thank Oya Arabacı and Seyfi Berk at Bogazici University Library and the librarians at ISAM Library. Lastly, I owe a special thanks to my parents, to my in-laws, and to my dear wife Betul and our children for their patience and generous support during these years.

CHAPTER 1 SCIENCE AND MEDICINE: PILLARS OF REPUBLIC

– the war is over but social, economic, and health problems are of the most urgent nature . . . Some of the diseases which plague Turkey are the result of our social standards, superstitions and systems of education. If we do not bring about radical change in our social affairs, it is impossible to advance in civilization. We cannot administer new organisms with the old mentality. We have to make our people acquainted with modern social precepts . . . We know very well that sanitary organizations are expensive and require specialists and all that, but necessity knows no law. The greatest calamity threatening our nation and public health is malaria. In some circles, it is declared that malaria is causing more destruction in Turkey than either syphilis or tuberculosis . . . Hakimiye-i Milliye

The Rockefeller Foundation and Pioneers of Scientific Medicine Frederick Gates, born in 1853, was working as a Baptist minister in Minnesota when he met John D. Rockefeller in 1888. Gates had ambitions to found a University dedicated to the training of Baptist ministers and presented his plan to John D. Rockefeller.1 As a result, the University of Chicago was founded in 1892, thanks to a considerable donation by Rockefeller.2 Soon after Frederick Gates accepted an offer from John D.

22

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Rockefeller for coordinating his charitable activities and opened an office for him in New York in 1891.3 In the 1890s, John Rockefeller Jr decided to take an active role in his father’s work, but he started with philanthropy and assumed a position at the New York office with Frederick Gates.4 John Rockefeller Jr and Gates turned their attention to the Southern states and proposed the foundation of a new philanthropic enterprise to help children living in the South. This initiative resulted in the establishment of the General Education Board in 1902 with $10 million of funding from John Rockefeller Jr.5 Gates also had a strong interest in the field of medicine and persuaded Rockefeller to set up the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in 1901.6 In charge of Rockefeller’s expanding wealth, Gates played the leading role in the establishment of the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) in 1913. The Rockefeller Foundation was to channel its resources for the improvement of education and health under its official mission: “the advancement of human knowledge and the benefit of human welfare”.7 A year later, the International Health Division (IHD) within the Rockefeller Foundation was launched and quickly became the largest civil organisation in public health.8 In the first 30 years of its operations, the IHD was primarily concerned with the eradication of the hookworm virus, malaria and yellow fever in nearly 80 countries.9 There were, however, senior critics and skeptics of the Rockefeller’s increasing interest in charitable works. For example, his donation of $600,000 to the University of Chicago10 in 1890 coincided with the passing of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, restricting monopolistic practices against competition in the market, which would hit the Standard Oil.11 Donating his money to charitable activities would help Rockefeller evade paying higher income taxes and change his public image as a self-interested capitalist businessman. Gates was obviously the mastermind behind deciding the fields of operation where the Rockefeller wealth would be distributed. He did not only seek to provide better treatment for the sick and expand the means of education, but also intended to shape social needs and preferences. As a former Baptist minister and lecturer at a Baptist Seminary, he became increasingly interested in scientific medicine, which he felt changed his approach towards the human mind and society. He seemed to be startled by the pace of scientific discoveries in medical science and the transformative force of scientific findings in human and social behaviour. In his memoirs, he wrote: “I had begun to realize how

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

23

woefully neglected in all civilized countries and perhaps most of all in this country had been the scientific study of medicine.”12 Gates began to relate the developments in scientific medicine to the changing needs of modern industrial capitalism. He believed that other methods of medical treatment such as herbal cures, osteopaths, orthodox medicine, and homeopathy had served humanity a lot, but modern science surpassed them.13 In the modern world mystical medical practices or “quacks” would no longer function well and human beings could find better ways of treatment through scientific medicine. Moreover, modern medicine tended to see the human body as an organism similar to that of an industrial force, which could work more efficiently through preventive measures.14 According to Gates, a close follower of the ideas of William H. Welch, the founder of the John Hopkins School of Public Hygiene, healthier individuals would make up a stronger work force and increase the efficiency of production.15 In a speech at the Rockefeller Institute, William H. Welch argued that thanks to the advancement of scientific medicine: Great industrial activities of modern times, efforts to colonize and to reclaim for civilization vast tropical regions, the immense undertaking to construct the Panama Canal were accomplished.16 Gates witnessed industrial transformation in his time and sought to combine scientific discoveries with social needs. He ascribed to medicine a role that would substitute for religion in social relations as he thought scientific medicine could instate “new moral laws and new social laws, new definitions of what is right and wrong in our relations with each other”.17 Scientific medicine could help repair maladies of social life, and serve as a means for accomplishing a wider social transformation. In line with these views, the Rockefeller Foundation was to serve: . . . to advance the civilization of the United States and its territories and possessions and of foreign lands in the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in the prevention and relief of suffering and in the promotion of any and all the elements of human progress.18

24

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

The International Health Board was itself undergoing a transformation after the World War under Wickliffe Rose, director of the Rockefeller Foundation’s International Health Division from 1915 to 1923. In the foundational reports, the original purpose of the IHD19 had been stated: Its immediate object was to extend measures for the relief and control of hookworm disease to countries throughout the World, and to follow up these measures with efforts to assist in the establishment of permanent agencies for public sanitation and spreading the knowledge of scientific medicine.20 In another statement, Rose remarked: . . . all-important fields of activity call for an understanding of the spirit and technique of modern science, which is the method of knowledge. It is key to such dominion as man may ever exercise over his physical environment . . . appreciation of its spirit and technique determines mental attitude of a people, affects the entire system of education, and carries with it the shaping of a civilization.21 In the following years, especially after 1928, this purpose shifted towards the “accumulation and application of useful new knowledge” and the field of preventive medicine received more attention.22 Rose was of the opinion that medical science had “outstripped” its application and for that reason the IHD had to focus its attention on the spread of scientific medicine to deliver its benefit to the people in need of this service.23 In various countries surveys were carried out as Rose insisted that the use of scientific methods and collecting different cases were essential in developing a proper treatment for diseases.24 Rose also urged that fieldwork should be done through governments so as not to undermine the authority of government officials.25 The establishment of the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health was another significant step, as it became a centre of training for American and foreign fellows. The IHD fellowships and institutional aids expanded so far that a number of new health centres in Europe, including Turkey, were established with Rockefeller funding.

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

25

The Rockefeller Foundation, as suggested by Gates and Rose, ascribed a pioneering role in the dissemination of scientific medicine to the rest of the world. The first and most serious investment was the opening of the Chinese Medical Board in 1914, just a year after the foundation of the Rockefeller Foundation. Rockefeller’s interest in China had actually started almost a decade before owing to Gates’ appreciation of the Christian missionaries who had established the Beijing School of Medicine in 1906.26 In 1908 Ernest Burton,27 appointed as the head of the Oriental Education Commission funded by Rockefeller to assist Christian missions in the region, proposed the foundation of a university in China on the same model as the University of Chicago.28 It seems that missionary activities and religious service gradually became less of a concern for the Rockefeller operations in the region. Gates himself started to treat scientific medicine as a more instrumental tool than religious missionaries in the expansion of Western civilisation, and in Wickliffe Rose’s view, science was the primary determinant in shaping people’s mental attitude. In a speech he made in 1921 at a ceremony at the Peking Union Medical College, John Rockefeller explained the Beijing School of Medicine’s cause, referring to its role in bringing the “best of Western civilization in mental development and spiritual culture”.29 Charles Elliot, President of Harvard University, and Abraham Flexner, one of the prominent officers of the General Education Board, complained of a lack of inductive reasoning among the Chinese people, which was crucial to the Chinese path to modernisation.30 The introduction of scientific medicine into “tradition-bound China” was, thus, the first step in a wider project of cultural transformation through the diffusion of scientific norms.31 The Rockefeller Foundation initiated its activities in Turkey in the fields of health and medical service in the early 1920s. The late Ottoman reforms in medicine had played a pioneering role in Ottoman modernisation. Sultan Mahmud II’s efforts to revise the study of medicine in the Empire involved the opening of the Mekteb-i Askeriye-i Tıbbiye, the first medical school, in 1837. Instructors and men of medicine from Europe were to teach at the medical school and, despite criticism, the Sultan was insistent that the language of instruction would be French instead of Arabic.32 Already incensed with these reforms, the religious elite in the Empire raised opposition to the

26

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

teaching methods at the school. The instructors were however keen to follow the applications in Europe and demanded the practice of autopsy on human corpses, strongly denounced by the Ulama as unlawful. Sultan Mahmud defied these criticisms again and summoned an imperial decree approving the medical examination of human corpses for medical teaching.33 The Ulama’s standing towards vaccination and quarantine was similar to that of autopsy, but each of these practices were later introduced to the medical school.34 Actually in the late nineteenth century intellectual circles in the Ottoman Empire were preoccupied with bridging science and religion. In Ilmihal-i Tıbbı, a famous book published in 1897 by Hu¨seyin Remzi, a graduate of the Imperial School of Medicine who was sent to France to meet Louis Pasteur for advanced training, it was strongly argued that Islamic deeds were compatible with the teaching of modern medicine.35 Religion was still the source of knowledge that needed further examination with the help of recent scientific findings. On the other hand, during his visit to Istanbul in the mid-nineteenth century, MacFarlane, a British travel writer, observed that many of the students in mekteb-i tıbbiye were reading the books of French and German thinkers, some of whom defended atheism.36 Not an admirer of the French enlightenment, MacFarlane seemed surprised by the appeal of the enlightenment philosophers of the time to the young Turkish students of the medical school.37 Abdullah Cevdet, for example, a student at the medical school, then a leading member of the Young Turks movement, was deeply impressed with the works of the French philosopher Le Bon. Born into an ulama family Abdullah Cevdet, similar to Frederick Gates, changed his views on the role of science in society and started to attribute to it a greater role in social life.38 Like him, many of the Young Turks were very impressed by German materialism and scientific Darwinism, believed in the superiority of science in society and observed the level of social progress in the Empire through the lens of medical science.39 It seems from the early twentieth century onward the conflict between religion and science gradually gained prominence among the educated elites of the Empire. It was no surprise that John William Draper’s Conflict between Religion and Science gained much popularity among students.40 Most of the students and graduates of the School of Medicine were quite sensitive to sociopolitical affairs of the time. The Ottoman Union Committee, to be

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

27

changed to the Ottoman Committee of Union and Progress, was founded at the Royal Medical Academy in Istanbul and a significant number of students joined this movement.41 Growing discontent with Sultan Abdulhamid’s rule in the early twentieth century resulted in their losing confidence in the established institutions of law, health and education. There were calls to reform madrasas, the use of Arabic letters in the alphabet and styles of dress.42 The fall of Sultan Abdulhamid in 1908 and the outbreak of the Balkan Wars, followed by World War I, brought drastic changes in the political landscape. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire provided a suitable atmosphere for proponents of reform-minded elites to promote the scientific ethos.43 Among the founding elite of the new Republic were the graduates of the Royal Academy of Medicine, including Refik Saydam, the first minister of health in the Turkish Republic. As Hanioglu suggests, Mustafa Kemal Atatu¨rk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, was a man of his generation, a close reader of the Western positivist literature and viewed science as the only legitimate source to bring progressive rational solutions to the malaises of degenerating social fabric.44 In his perspective religion in its current form had nothing to offer for social problems but only served to spread ignorance, and should therefore be reformed.45 The American missionaries had made serious investments in health services in the Ottoman Empire and the early Republican Turkey.46 The Girls’ College in Istanbul opened a branch for medicine in 1920, invited instructors from abroad and started to train health staff for ladies. Mary Patrick Mills, who acted as President of the Girls’ College for more than 20 years, was keen on developing the college’s health division and boasted the contribution of personnel graduated from the College to the health service in Turkey.47 Actually, the American Colleges had already contacted the Rockefeller Foundation for cooperation. In a letter sent by Mary Patrick Mills to the Rockefeller Foundation in 1917 it was pointed out that there was no medical college for women in southeastern Europe or in Asia Minor, while women would take on a greater role in the future of the Near East due to a great number of men losing their lives during the War. She demanded financial aid from the Rockefeller Foundation so that the colleges could offer training for midwives and nurses, introduce American ethics and standards of medicine to increase the quality of sanitation and

28

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

preventive medicine in Turkey.48 Some of these activities were not free from criticism as American institutions mostly focused their attention on Christian subjects of the Empire. The foundation of Near East relief, which provided aid for the Armenian and Greek victims of war, and the YWMA activities caused anger among the Ottoman bureaucrats.49 A relief to this strenuous relationship was the appointment of Admiral Bristol as the US High Commissioner in Turkey, who earned the confidence of the Turkish ruling elite, including Mustafa Kemal, with his clear political standing in favour of Turkish national independence during and after the War of Independence in Turkey. It took a while until the American missionary schools came to terms with the Republican demands, whereas the Rockefeller officers had easier access to the bureaucrats and ruling elite. That the Rockefeller Foundation prioritised scientific education and medical service was an advantage faced with Republican demands to Westernise the country. Thanks to previous experiences in China and Europe, the International Health Division had already established patterns in running its programmes in foreign lands. Visits, meetings and reports aimed to identify specific issues of the health service and medical education that the Rockefeller Foundation could answer. The Foundation officers were also concerned about the wider question of cultural change, and explored mental attitudes and social customs in Turkey. Alden Hoover was a medical missionary who had stayed in the Ottoman Empire for eight years; he wrote a thesis in 1915 entitled “Preventive Medicine in Turkey” and the Rockefeller Foundation officers benefited from the work during their early involvement in Turkey. The thesis contended that the pervasion of “primitive” and “superstitious” methods of healing was a serious obstacle to the development of scientific medicine. Hoover seemed surprised to see ordinary people who still considered the removal of evil spirits or the visiting of holy trees as a cure of disease.50 A general statement on the role of preventive medicine in Turkey read as follows: Preventive medicine is ever in the vanguard of development and with the building of railroads, the establishment of factories, the opening of mines, the modernizing of agriculture, we shall expect the science of preventive medicine to keep apace.51

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

29

The thesis argued that Turkey still benefits from its natural advantages, but does not invest in these resources, pointing to the lack of transportation and electricity in Anatolian towns.52 Comparing the Turkish village to American villages, the author observed the latter were far ahead with established infrastructure and ornamented houses.53 Turkey’s “backwardness”, to Hoover, lay in the “ignorance” of her common people who were in need of learning the knowledge of a “healthful” hygienic life. To this end, the level of literacy should be improved and some American institutions would offer teaching in sanitation and hygiene.54 Medical service, happiness, development and civilisation were all linked to each other and the author concluded that Turkey would regenerate when its people were provided a healthier life, a condition that would bring an appetite for “civilization”.55 Another serious report prepared by the Rockefeller officers on “Medical Education in Turkey” was written by Richard Pearce in 1924.56 Pearce had been appointed to the directorship of the Division of Medical Education in the Foundation in 1919, set up under the direction of Wickliffe Rose. Rose sought to improve the quality of medical education and public health and the Foundation officers undertook assiduous work surveying chief medical schools around the world. They visited China, Japan, New Zealand and many other countries in South America and Africa to identify important schools of medicine and public health.57 It could be understood that Pearce’s visit to Turkey was a part of this programme aiming to collect information on medical education in Turkey. Yet his report offered more than that and discussed at length cultural norms, social habits and the Turkish “way of thinking”. The report argued that “the will of Allah” prevents Muslims taking initiative as they leave things to Allah to solve and do not leave their comfort zone.58 The study of natural science and research would be “foreign” to the Turkish “mentality”.59 Pearce pointed to the defining role of religion in every aspect of life as well and made the following remarks: Religion in Turkey as a source of conduct spun out into the most refined laws and it will be hard to get the Oriental mind, especially the gifted Oriental mind of the Turks to look at medicine as a plain piece of prose, as an accumulation of uninteresting detail . . . the Germans tried to change it, but could not get the Turks to look

30

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

facts patiently in the face. The Turk holds Allah responsible for facts, changing them is Allah’s business.60 Yet the author did not see Islam as a hindrance to the development of modern medicine and public health. The lack of education, he complained, was the real cause of the current situation, and recent reforms in education, based on Western examples, would soon change people’s attitude towards health and medicine.61 The already existing system of modern Western education had triggered the political and economic renaissance of Turkey and helped the reorganisation of Turkish public life.62 Pearce found it also promising that a significant number of people among the ruling elite received a medical education and were likely to change the way people approached science.63 It was exciting to see the leaders of Turkey produce a substantial scientific literature, and exclusive publications on popular science for engineers, teachers and physicians.64 Pearce, however, complained that despite these efforts in the field of education, the wider masses were still unresponsive to the currents of Westernisation, as those people sent abroad to learn European sciences become Europeanised and did not return to villages.65 Institutions of religious education, not willing to accept Westerninspired reforms, remained strong and prevalent especially in the countryside. Attempts to Westernise the country would therefore not be likely to inculcate a new “manner of thought”, “culture of independent scientific observation or critical method of study”.66 Pearce’s report was instructive in how to approach the Turkish Westernisation. He observed that since the nineteenth century the Ottomans, then the Turkish Republic, has been undergoing an “unceasing process of assimilation of Western ideas through the amalgamation of the principles of Eastern life”.67 The dissemination of Western cultural ideas in the field of art has preceded political and economic changes in the country. Turkey’s position in the Near East was therefore peculiar: The Turk is a natural link between Western and Eastern mentality and civilization, and particularly fitted for disseminating among his Eastern neighbors of different race and mentality the product of the Western mind that will suit the East . . . 68

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

31

It can be seen that he had a favourable opinion of Turkey as a country, where the Rockefeller Foundation could establish a footing. According to him, it would be wrong to assume that Near Eastern people would be eager to remain in direct contact with Western civilisation. In contrast, such a relationship would provoke an unfavourable reaction as almost every Turk was suspicious of Western activities in their country, even in the field of education. The intended “progress” could be achieved through the activities of an already “educated and cultural class” who could combine understanding of the spirit and tradition through Western education and training.69 The Republican rulers of the country, namely the “educated westernized class”, shared these views; according to Mustafa Kemal “seeking any guide other than science is thoughtlessness and ignorance” and his inheritance would be “neither holy verse nor a dogma” but “science and reason”.70 Efforts to bring wider recognition for these ideas through popular journals such as U¨lku¨ magazine, the official paper of the Halk Evleri (folk houses), promoted principles of science against religious creeds. Modern doctors represented the novel face of scientific medicine against the “u¨fu¨ru¨kcu¨”, who treated people based on irrational methods.71 In this atmosphere it became feasible for Turkish politicians and bureaucrats to work out collective projects with the Rockefeller philosophy in the early decades of the Republic.

Advancing the Nation through Healthcare The first Rockefeller officers came to Turkey in 1925, at a time when the Republican leadership were struggling with urgent practical needs in medical service. The high mortality rate among children, widespread occurrence of malaria and lack of education in sanitation were stacking up against the Republican promises of progress. Such a poor medical service was no longer acceptable for an administration pledging to reach Western standards of living. According to Mustafa Kemal, health and population were the “indicators” of a nation’s strength, and protecting the Turkish people’s health was a “national issue” to uplift the Republican revolution.72 Reminiscent of Frederick Gates’ views, it was a matter of “civilization” to provide Turkish citizens with a better health service, reduce infant mortality and eradicate diseases like malaria and tuberculosis.

32

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Different conditions of living prevail in different sections of the country, if the figures are true how we can call ourselves civilized . . . nations which master more or loss of their destiny, do not suffer such losses73 The most urgent problem to tackle was malaria, which took thousands of lives every year. In a commentary published in the Cumhuriyet paper the situation was described: This great calamity is destroying our national existence, it is stronger than our strongest enemy . . . more graves in Anatolian villages than houses because of malaria . . . we all must lend the government a helping hand in carrying on this struggle successfully74 Refik Saydam was a close associate and medical aid of Mustafa Kemal’s since the national resistance movement in Anatolia and was appointed as the first minister of health in 1923.75 He launched a national campaign against malaria in 1926, established commissions to tour certain towns in Turkey, and with the help of German experts founded the Institute of Malaria in 1928.76 Selskar Gunn77 had run Rockefeller Foundation medical operations in China in the 1930s and had a significant role in the early Foundation involvement in Turkey. When he was the director of IHD’s European operations, Gunn made a research trip to Turkey in 1925 to investigate possible areas of activities for the Rockefeller Foundation and prepared a comprehensive report. Seeking to comprehend the Turkish mentality, he did not confine his analysis to the conditions of medical services and undertook a detailed investigation of customs and everyday life. A year later Ralph Collins, another IHD officer, later appointed as the head of the School of Public Health in Ankara, was sent to Turkey to discuss possible areas of cooperation. In their diaries and reports, they pointed out that poor sanitary conditions across the country, and the lack of laboratories and trained personnel hindered an efficient campaign against malaria.78 Gunn’s visits included public health centres and hospitals in Ankara and Istanbul; he had long talks with Dr S¸erafettin Bey who was at the head of the malaria unit and learned in great depth about the government’s fight

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

33

against the disease.79 Gunn narrates that in almost all of these places, he encountered similar requests for equipment and possible fellowships for research; I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨ and Refik Saydam, for example, complained to him about the lack of trained people and equipment to deal with diseases.80 According to Saydam, the government was doing its best, already building several health centres, but the Ministry itself had been founded just four years ago and was unable to answer current needs. Gunn also notes that Saydam asked him to add Turkey to the list of countries the Rockefeller Foundation would cooperate with.81 It seems Selsker Gunn received a warm welcome from the Prime Minister I˙smet Inonu as well; Inonu made it clear to Gunn that the issue of health was at the top of his agenda and that the National Assembly would give its full support to his efforts. Having been assured that the Rockefeller Foundation would not be involved in political activities, Inonu asked the Foundation to send a representative to Turkey and help the government with the building of a modern Central Institute of Hygiene in Ankara.82 Ralph Collins likewise met various officials including Refik Saydam, who demanded Rockefeller aid in the development of the Institute of Hygiene and a Childcare House, as well as training fellowships for Turkish doctors and nurses.83 Following these meetings, Ralph Collins84 prepared a comprehensive report on the general condition of public health in Turkey. He underscored that sanitation and provision of health services were the most serious problems in villages.85 Yet Collins was content and felt hopeful with the Turkish officials’ willingness to cooperate: “the events of the past are to us unimportant, provided the prospects for the future appear promising”.86 Appreciating the attempts to “modernize” the country, he believed that the Rockefeller Foundation projects in health could play a significant role in Turkey’s modernisation. 87 He acknowledged that Turkey already had accomplishments in sanitation and health services thanks to an enormous effort by its rulers.88 He criticised “civilized European forces” who had brought nothing to the Turks, who “have re-established themselves through their own cleverness and ability”.89 All these efforts and good spirit to improve public health services seemed to impress the Rockefeller staff. Yet it took a while for the Rockefeller Foundation to decide how to formulate its activities in Turkey. During his meetings with Turkish officials and medical staff,

34

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Selskar Gunn reiterated that the Rockefeller Foundation had yet to decide on any serious investment in Turkey. A possible option in their mind, it seemed, was to invest in the medical facilities available within the American Colleges in Turkey, especially Robert College and the American College for Girls. The College heads were understandably eager to improve the equipment and laboratories, which were already quite rare in Turkey at that time. Following several visits and meetings with the governing bodies, the Rockefeller Foundation did not find it suitable to carry out its programmes through these institutions.90 Admiral Mark Bristol, who served as the American High Commissioner in Turkey between 1919 and 1927, played a key role in mediating the relationship between the Rockefeller Foundation and the Turkish ruling elite. Bristol was aware that Turkey had been undergoing a period of transition from the Empire to a Republic under a new leadership. In 1926 the government foiled an alleged plot to assassinate Mustafa Kemal in Izmir and a campaign was launched to arrest those involved in the plan. Dozens of high-ranking bureaucrats, military men, and former CUP members were jailed and the tribunal condemned 13 people to death. This trial helped Mustafa Kemal eliminate his opponents and tighten his grip on power.91 A year after this power reshuffle the first Turkish ambassador to the United States, Muhtar Mollaog˘lu, was sent to New York.92 Bristol seemed to be quite convinced that the US institutions should establish strong connections with the educated elites and met George Vincent, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, Selskar Gunn, Ralph Collins and George Strode, to explain to them the general socio-political conditions in Turkey and possible areas of partnership for the Rockefeller Foundation.93 Foundation staff took Bristol’s favourable suggestions for long-term investment in Turkey seriously and asked to learn more about his experience with the people of the country and the way of doing cooperative business.94 In 1927 Selskar Gunn and Ralph Collins became convinced that they had arrived “at the end of the first phase of work” and that the “confidence of Turks has apparently been definitely obtained”95. Ralph Collins suggested four main areas of interest for the Rockefeller Foundation: granting research fellowships, supporting the establishment of the Institute of Hygiene in Ankara, and opening regional

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

35

laboratories and a nursing school.96 As a result, the Rockefeller Foundation released its first significant grant of $280,000 to support the Central Institute of Hygiene in Ankara in 1928.97 The school had four departments: epidemiology and statistics, sanitary engineering, parasitology, and social hygiene.98 The Minister of Hygiene was also happy with the location of the institute as thanks to the development of railways the whole country would benefit from this service.99 Saydam wanted to invite a leading expert from Europe to be the director, but Gunn and Collins advised him to make his decision based on credentials rather than nationality.100 In later years Ralph Collins would lead the CIH, and thanks to Rockefeller support the Institute offered education and laboratory services in public health.101 The IHD’s interest in the development of nursing drew the attention of the ruling elite, but it took some time before substantial aid was arranged. In a meeting with Ralph Collins in 1926, Refik Saydam urged him to be patient with nursing as the passage of new law would establish it as a “dignified” profession in Turkey and provide a legal basis for the establishment of a school for nursing.102 The first nursing school in Turkey had been founded in Ankara 1925, under the direction of the Red Crescent, and in another meeting with the Foundation officials, Saydam had complained about the lack of money to develop this school.103 Yet it seemed that the IHD considered it a more viable investment to grant training fellowships for nurses rather than investing in the school. A significant number of Turkish nurses were sent to the United States after 1930 thanks to the Rockefeller fellowship programme. The Foundation reports of the time pointed to the importance of fellowships in the development of health service in a particular country: The health of mankind depends to a very large degree on the knowledge and capacity of practitioners of all forms of medicine . . . the IHB undertook to improve the quality of medical education successively in a large number of countries, strengthening medical science, supporting clinics, aiding promising individuals through foreign fellowships, selection of certain centers of influence in medicine for intensive development . . . the best programs during the past ten years in the field of medical education and medical science have been buildings and

36

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

endowments at strategic points, fellowships local and foreign, and long term grants in aid of capable investigators104 Between 1925 and 1940, more than 30 fellowships were granted to Turkish doctors and nurses in the field of public health. They were invited to study in the United States and attended training programmes in health centres relevant to their area of specialisation. John Hopkins University, described in Foundation reports as a new hub of training in medical sciences, was a popular place for Turkish fellows as well.105 Some of these people, however, struggled with English and were unable to take advantage of the facilities available in public health education.106 Despite problems with language and culture, the IHD kept inviting Turkish fellows to the United States until 1940. These fellowships were also aimed at maximising the output of Foundation grants, the amount of which had been gradually increasing, as there were concerns about the quality of services offered in the institutions receiving Rockefeller support. Foundation reports underlined the lack of qualified personnel in hospitals and other health units who could apply the latest methods of preventive medicine, run the equipment available to them and carry out research. Unless there was enough trained staff, the quality of the health service would not be ameliorated no matter how many centres were built.107 Moreover, as Collins suggested, the Foundation was in favour of working with well-trained local talents who could take leading roles in the field of medicine rather than associating itself with American citizens in the country.108 In a report he wrote in 1930 Selskar Gunn shared the following reflections: the first step would be to grant fellowships to natives of the countries chosen for experiment . . . competent officers of the Rockefeller Foundation would provide supervision and advice but the actual work of making the studies would be in the hands of the local people . . . the second step is to provide natives an opportunity to continue their research and work at home . . . the Foundation might aid in a fundamental way a scientific attack on the problems existing in certain communities and that laying down a plan for a more scientific studying of local conditions might improve the welfare of the people concerned.109

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

37

It was obvious that the Rockefeller fellowships were instrumental in the institution building processes taking place in the field of public health in Turkey. The fellowships quickly became popular among medical circles of the time, yet the Foundation was selective, accepting candidates coming only from the Ministry and its Paris Office, and ran the programme on the lines of a strictly defined framework specifying the purpose and qualification of candidates. The Foundation report read: “ . . . these fellowships were granted for the purpose of meeting definite needs in public health service, given only to persons carefully selected for specific work”.110 In addition, scholarship fellows were expected to steer a long-term transformation in the field of medicine: “on the completion of their training . . . [these fellows] shall be appointed to pivotal positions in the health services of their own countries”.111 Accordingly, the IHD granted fellowships to those candidates suggested directly by the Ministry of Hygiene as it was more likely for those fellows to get high standing positions within important institutions when they returned to the country.112 In his report Ralph Collins suggested that the Rockefeller Foundation should offer fellowships to: Young Turkish physicians and others who are to occupy important positions upon their return to Turkey . . . no doubt opportunities would develop when fellows return to Turkey to occupy important posts in the Ministry of Health or elsewhere and then technical divisions and field work could be developed The Foundation’s general policy of securing high standing positions for the fellows has borne fruits, as they proved to be valuable assets in the development of projects as envisioned by the Foundation staff. The Foundation officers often met them, learned about their needs and gave suggestions as to the management of the institutions in which they were involved. The introduction of scientific medicine required trained personnel and Foundation officers insisted that medical staff in Turkey should receive training from these health centres run by Foundation fellows. As discussed, the government in Turkey and in particular Refik Saydam put a lot of effort in the re-organisation and development of public health service in Turkey after 1925. In 1929 Saydam and the

38

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Director of Hygiene visited the United States and other countries as guests of the Rockefeller Foundation to observe public health administration.113 From 1925 to 1937 the number of doctors rose from 728 to 1625 and the number of nurses reached 325 from almost none.114 In 1928 the law of “Hıfzıssıha Institute” was passed to describe the role of the Institute in the supervision of scientific and medical developments in the country.115 In the same year another law, Tababet ve S¸uabatı Sanatlarının Tarzı I˙crasına Dair Kanun, was introduced to regulate the practices of doctors, nurses and other health personnel.116 Following university reform in 1933, aiming to re-structure university education in Turkey, prominent scholars from Europe like Rudolph Nissen, Erich Frank and Frederick Dessauer were invited to teach at the Faculty of Medicine at Istanbul University. Prof. Schwartz, who was helping the government in this regard, relates that Refik Saydam asked him to invite leading scholars in the field to teach in Turkey.117 Despite these projects and good will from both sides, however, in a Foundation report written in 1935 cooperation with the Turkish authorities was criticised as not having been strong enough so far. The report noted that the International Health Division maintained a strong interest in Turkey but “the lack of cooperative culture” among Turkish bureaucrats was an obstacle to further investment in Turkey. After a good start with the development of the Central Institute of Hygiene, it was likely that Foundation staff expected to engage in new projects with the Ministry of Health, as especially in the field of nursing education there was an obvious dissatisfaction with the slow progress.118 It took most of the Foundation staff’s time to deal with the practical difficulties encountered on the field, which caused them to worry about the progress of the medical service in the country.119 Yet Directors of Health Centres and especially Refik Saydam were all appreciative of these efforts and, despite bureaucratic issues, continued to support Foundation staff.120 The IHD’s primary target was actually to build model institutions in health services and medical education. It decided to contribute to the improvement of Edirnekapı Health Centre in Istanbul, which would also serve as a training centre for student nurses of the Red Crescent School, and made two grants in 1934 and 1937.121 Frances Elizabeth Crowell, a senior IHD member mainly responsible for the training of nurses, paid regular visits to Turkey between 1933 and 1938. During each of these visits, he

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

39

met Refik Saydam and other top bureaucrats of the Ministry, and discussed their plans with the Health Centre in Istanbul and the appointments of Rockefeller fellows upon their return to Turkey.122 Refik Saydam was confident that not only centres in Istanbul but also centres in other cities would follow the example set by the Edirnekapı Centre.123 It seemed, however, that they could not agree on how to structure the training and service schemes, as Crowell insisted that the health centre should serve as a training field for students and nurses as well.124 Crowell also suggested that Izzet Kudsi, a former Rockefeller fellow, would serve as the director of the health centre at Edirnekapı.125 Two more projects that are significant were underway with the development of Etimesgut Health Centre and School of Public Health in Ankara.126 Crowell noted that the Ankara government had everything grouped together at Ankara (Medical School, General Hospital, Institute of Hygiene and School of Hygiene, Health Centre and Nursing School) as a centre of medical training and service.127 The only available medical school was in Haydarpas¸a,128 Istanbul, and moving it to Ankara was not a feasible option. Etimesgut was important in the sense that it would serve as a model for preventive health in a rural district, and Crowell, together with Ralph Collins, visited the centre various times to set out a development plan.129 As noted, the Foundation staff was rather concerned with the amelioration of the public health service in the countryside and keen to get Rockefeller fellows involved in the Etimesgut project. Actually, such a health centre had long been at the top of the agenda for Turkish officers as it would offer an easier access for those students coming from Anatolia as well. Following long negotiations, the Rockefeller Foundation decided to contribute $56,000 to the development of this health centre in Ankara.130 I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨ became the President of the Republic after the death of Mustafa Kemal Atatu¨rk in 1938, and a year later appointed Refik Saydam as the Prime Minister of Turkey.131 The outbreak of World War II in the same year brought an extra burden in state affairs and Saydam could no longer devote his full energy to medical affairs.132 The Turkish government, despite its success in keeping the country out of the War, suffered tough times with the provision of a basic health service during the course of World War II. Infective diseases

40

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

such as malaria and typhus started to appear again because of financial and logistical difficulties.133 Yet Saydam’s associates in the Ministry kept his goals alive and adhered to the mission of modernising medical services. In his radio speech in 1940 Zeki Nasır, who was serving as Director of Health, Propaganda and Medical Statistics, praised national campaigns to remove contagious diseases and harmful social customs leading to health problems. According to him, their efforts to teach hygiene and preventive measures were “civilized measures” to heal diseases and help people to avoid falling ill.134 The Rockefeller investment in training and equipment played its part in making it possible for the Republican administration to keep its promises in the field of health. Scientific medicine gained widespread public recognition and was upheld as a yardstick to demonstrate Turkey’s civilisational shift. Further projects in this field in the 1950s and 1960s were made possible thanks to the transformation of the medical system and personnel in the country.

Fellows and Projects after 1945 World War II brought a halt to the Rockefeller Foundation’s operations in Turkey. It was no longer easy to travel between the two countries and some of the Rockefeller fellows were stranded in the United States or Turkey.135 Ralph Collins left the country in 1940 and no other Foundation officer visited Turkey after that. The Foundation prioritised its activities in Latin America and spent its available funds on emergency health services in those war-afflicted countries.136 The two Foundation officers who coordinated the IHD operations in Turkey passed away during the War years. Selskar Gunn, vice-president of the Foundation, died in 1944 due to health problems. Gunn had prepared the first written report on medicine, public health and sanitary conditions in Turkey and been involved in Rockefeller activities in Turkey until he was appointed to China as the director of a Foundation project in rural reconstruction.137 His efforts under the IHD had considerable success in pursuing the eradication of malaria and tuberculosis in Turkey. His associate Ralph Collins, who first came to Turkey in 1926 and spent his time between Turkey and Bulgaria until 1940, died in 1940. Collins was still the director of the School of

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

41

Hygiene in Turkey when he returned to the United States.138 The closest ally of Gunn and Collins in Turkey, Refik Saydam, passed away in 1942. He was the man who opened the doors for the Rockefeller Foundation to operate in Turkey, giving them his full backing with projects and fellowship procedures from 1924 to 1940. As noted, after I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨’s rise to the Presidency in 1939, Refik Saydam had been appointed to the prime-ministership and served there until 1942. He was so close to Gunn and Collins that he sent a telegram to the latter’s wife upon his death in 1940.139 The loss of these three men of medicine, who shared similar values and a similar vision for the modernisation of medical services and training in Turkey, left a gap in Turkish-American cooperation. In a long review he wrote in 1948 on the occasion of his first year as Rockefeller Foundation President, Chester Barnard, who succeeded Raymond Fosdick, drew attention to the changing world conditions and new challenges the Rockefeller Foundation would encounter: The radical changes in world conditions since 1939, together with the change in leadership of the Rockefeller Foundation, make opportune a brief restatement of the Foundation’s program140 Barnard acknowledged that the advancement of knowledge and the promotion of its application were “too vast” a goal for the Foundation to accomplish. The Foundation needed to be much more specific about the extent of operations in various countries and concentrate on specific fields; the Foundation did not even have its own staff other than in the field of public health and remained dependent on governments or other institutions to implement projects.141 Besides, Barnard thought, there was a lack of qualified personnel able to carry out scientific research, produce substantial output and become successful in the application of available knowledge. The Rockefeller Foundation, he warned, should therefore be careful with priorities in its funding for research, which became a “slogan” to secure private donations.142 Reflecting on these Barnard asked: What comes first? What needs exceptional support? How does improving the techniques of language instruction compare with

42

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

pure research in, say, physical chemistry? Do yellow fever and malaria eradication take precedence over soil conservation and the development of disease-resistant grains?143 Following these reflections, Barnard identified three major headings: Population, Communication and Cooperation. He believed that these subjects would encompass all the activities the Rockefeller Foundation was attempting, or had attempted, to do for the benefit of “human welfare”. An uncontrolled rise in population, Barnard argued, would pose an inevitable threat to well-being and cause other social diseases and the Rockefeller Foundation should take measures to change this course of events.144 Aside from general policy outlines, the Foundation report in 1948 indicated that most of the postwar work of the International Health Division dealt with the reconstruction of public health services. It pointed to the increasing investment by local government and private foundations in nursing services and education as a promising field for the betterment of the public health service.145 In accordance with these guidelines, IHD staff embarked on research trips to such countries as India, Egypt, Turkey and Iran so as to collect information and consult with government officers. George Strode, the director of the IHD, visited Turkey in 1948 with Dr Wilson and Miss Varley, the Nursing Advisor responsible for the Africa and Asia Regions. A couple of months later Mary Elizabeth Tenant,146 assistant director of the IHD, paid another visit to Turkey. During these visits they met the Minister of Health, Behcet Uz, some of the former Rockefeller fellows such as Celal Or, Cemal Kiper Kamil, Asuman Turer, Dr I˙zzet Kudsi and Fatma Acar. They also visited the American Hospital, Red Crescent Nursing School and various other health centres in Istanbul and Ankara.147 It seems at the end of these meetings both sides felt excited about the possibilities of cooperation; in a letter she wrote to Dr Wilson, Miss Varley expressed her views on Turkey: The country of secondary importance in the Middle East is Turkey. I feel I must spend some time here; I would like you to accompany me for the next visit. In my opinion if I am sent immediately to Iran I will have let down Turkish nursing, my professional prestige and the IHD.148

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

43

The Foundation officials identified five major goals: Rehabilitation of the School of Hygiene and Etimesgut Health Centre, the development of a teaching centre, granting aid to the school of nursing, technical assistance for the development of the government’s ten-year plan and the continuation of the fellowship programme.149 These were the projects the Rockefeller Foundation had been previously involved with in Turkey, yet the development of nursing services in Turkey and in the wider region preoccupied Rockefeller staff more than the other issues. Six months after their initial trip, Margaret Varley paid another visit to Turkey and prepared a comprehensive report on the development of nursing education in Turkey. She appreciated that so far there had been a considerable cooperative effort by the IHD together with the Turkish authorities for the development of nursing in Turkey, and despite interruptions substantial progress had been achieved. The training programme in public health nursing continued under the direction of an IHD fellow, while another former fellow directed the Red Crescent School of Nursing.150 The report wrote that nearly 475 nurses were working in Turkey and that the Ministry of Health had already demanded training and equipment aid from the Rockefeller Foundation. Varley urged that a well-trained nurse adviser be appointed to direct nursing activities so that nursing would progress more rapidly. She complained that the emphasis in nursing was placed on curative rather than preventive services and because of the lack of trained personnel in hospitals, nurses were expected to do other duties such as laboratory or kitchen work.151 The Foundation would do better to provide training in preventive medicine and fieldwork, and ask the Ministry for the appointment of a nursing advisor to supervise training for the directors of nursing schools.152 Ministry bureaucrats and nursing staff were likewise very eager to cooperate with the Rockefeller Foundation; Minister Uz and George Strode exchanged telegraphs praising their work and cooperation.153 The Foundation Fellowships were still in high demand and the Foundation staff received dozens of applications from several institutions; George Strode, for example, received letters from the Director of Hygiene in Ankara about the possibility of a fellowship for graduate students.154 Eventually a number of fellowships were awarded between 1948 and 1951 in the field of nursing, yet it was not always possible to arrange

44

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

suitable positions for the returning fellows in the ranks of the health service.155 The government had opened two new schools of nursing in 1946 and 1947, and there were plans to open a new school of nursing attached to the American Hospital in Istanbul. Yet requests for financial aid for the development of this school were kindly refused by the Foundation due to programme limitations.156 Also there was another project to develop a University Nursing School, which needed a curriculum, teaching material and equipment, and experienced foreign trainers of public health and nursing, at least until enough local nurses were trained. Muhiddin Erel, the former Dean of Istanbul University Medical Faculty, wrote a letter to the Rockefeller Foundation about possible aid to this school.157 Despite these plans, wishful thinking and the exchange of letters, with the exception of the regular granting of fellowships, only limited work could be put into practice between 1948 and 1951. This slowness was mainly due to the changing organisation of the IHD and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Foundation report drew attention to ongoing uncertainties in Europe and the Far-East which hindered the Foundation from making long-term investment in the field of medicine.158 Furthermore, in the aftermath of World War II a number of international organisations devoted to the advancement of public health were established. The most important of these was the World Health Organisation, founded in Geneva in 1948 as a specialised agency of the United Nations, with 61 countries joining. In this changing conjuncture, the IHD struggled to continue as a separate entity and in 1951 was subsumed into the Rockefeller Foundation’s Division of Medicine and Public Health.159 As outlined in the Introduction, the Rockefeller investment in Turkey reached its peak in the 1950s and along with rising funding in the field of humanities and social sciences, medical sciences received substantial grants as well. In his annual review, Chester Barnard called attention to the question of population control across the world. The natural processes are modified, in the case of man, by his intelligent control of some of the conditions under which he lives. Social organization, science, technology, the accumulation of productive capital and the measures of public health have operated to change our environment. But although these factors have

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

45

modified they have not nullified the natural methods of population control. Except in a few restricted areas, improvement in food supply and the prolongation of the life span have been accompanied by constant increases in population . . . the world is overpopulated now with respect to our present knowledge, to the present availability of natural resources, to the state of the arts today, to the existing social organization, and to some of the presently held traditional and religious precepts regarding foods. In relation to present realities the world is overpopulated. In relation to present potentialities this may not be so.160 Whilst the Foundation shifted its attention towards population and infant mortality, one of the Rockefeller fellows in the 1950s, Ihsan Dogramacı, became the contact person of the Foundation in Turkey. Born in Erbil in 1915, Dogramacı attended the American University of Beirut, studied Medicine at Istanbul University and in 1955 became professor of child health and pediatrics at the University of Ankara.161 Soon after he had been appointed to the professorship he applied to the Rockefeller Foundation to visit departments of pediatrics and child health in the United States and Mexico in order to study “their organization and educational practices”.162 Between 1956 and 1967 programmes and projects Dogramacı was involved in received more than one million dollars in grants from the Foundation.163 He seemed to impress the Foundation officials in two regards; one of these was that he was considered to be someone who could reduce the high infant mortality rate through the education of medical personnel, and the other was that he was able to introduce the American model of medical education based on research into Turkish hospitals instead of the traditional German model.164 The Institute of Child Health in Hacettepe, run by Ihsan Dog˘ramacı, received its first substantial grant in 1956 when the Foundation granted an award of $100,000 for equipment and visiting instructors. Dogramacı made an ambitious start with the selection of required material, as the University administration gave him full authorisation for the purchase of equipment and supplies.165 According to John Weir, who visited the Institute, Dogramacı got advice from almost every country in Europe as well as the United States and prepared a beautiful

46

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

plan for the construction of a teaching centre. Adjoining the school there was a building for the school of nursing, which would offer a three-year course and additional three years within the university degree in nursing.166 The next goal was to arrange fellowships for promising doctors and nurses for research and training on the condition that they would work at Dogramacı’s department upon their return to Turkey. Dr Mustafa Sipahi, expert in radiotherapy, and Dr Pınar O¨zand, in the field of biochemistry, were strongly recommended by Ihsan Dogramacı and granted the Rockefeller scholarship to study in the United States.167 He also gave favourable recommendations for a nurse and four other doctors from the department of child health to receive Rockefeller fellowships.168 Another promising candidate was Dr Yavuz Renda, who wanted to study pediatric neurology in the United States, and Dogramacı recommended him for the fellowship stressing that Renda would return to the Institute of Child Health after his training.169 The ¨ zsoylu, pediatric hematology, likewise received application of S¸inasi O the backing of Dogramacı.170 A more interesting application was processed upon the request of Dogramacı insisting that he needed a full time administrator for the Institute.171 At the end of the first three years of cooperation Prof. Dogramacı was awarded a grant of $5,400 in 1959 to visit pediatric centres in the United States.172 Five years after the first grant, another significant project was brought to the attention of the Rockefeller officers. The Foundation report in 1962 praised the Turkish government for giving the “highest priority to upgrade education” and the training of competent personnel, and in the same year Ihsan Dogramacı was asked by the Turkish authorities to lead the establishment of the School of Nursing and Health Sciences “to provide a high level of education”.173 The report appreciated that the Institute of Child Health under the direction of Dogramacı had become a model establishment, not only for Turkey but also for other Middle Eastern countries who were sending students to Ankara. Thanks to the Foundation contribution, amounting to $327,000 for the development of the department Dogramaci’s colleagues in leading American universities had started teaching at the Institute of Child Health.174 Impressed with Dogramacı’s success in pediatrics, the Foundation made an appropriation of $110,000 for the strengthening of the School of Nursing and Health Sciences in 1962.175 Through this funding

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

47

Dogramacı would be able to expand its teaching fields into new areas of specialisation such as dietetics and physical therapy, and invite foreign experts from abroad. Yet the Rockefeller Foundation’s overriding concern with population control continued to predominate its funding priorities in medicine in the 1960s. The passing of “Family Planning Law” in Turkey in 1965 received appreciation from the Foundation President Jacob George Harrar: In many parts of the developing world including Turkey the governments have recognized the importance of limiting population growth as a concomitant of economic development. Many governments have officially undertaken family planning programs. Some nations, on the other hand, rely on the medical and health professions to take the initiative in family planning, working through privately sponsored agencies.176 Again, they cooperated with Ihsan Dog˘ramacı through a grant of $250,000 to the Hacettepe Science Centre for a four-year period. Dogramacı was expected to set up family planning clinics in its teaching facilities staffed by members of the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology.177 Six health clinics would be established across the rural outskirts of Ankara and Hacettepe faculty members would teach at the new Atatu¨rk University to be established in the eastern part of the country.178 Other than these, the Foundation officers paid frequent visits to Turkey between 1955 and 1960. John Weir, director of the division of Medical Sciences, spent a week in Turkey between 29 March and 7 April 1956. Former Rockefeller fellows had risen to top positions in medical administration and Dr Weir was willing to hear their opinion about medical institutions in Turkey. Kadri Olcar, Director of the School of Hygiene, Nusret Fis¸ek, Head of the Biology Control Division at the Central Institute of Hygiene, Muvaffak Ali Akman, Assistant Chief at the Bacteriology Laboratory, Tahsin Berkin, Director at the Department of Bacteriology and Dr Cemal Kiper, President of the Governing Body of the Social Insurance Institution for Workers were former Rockefeller fellows.179 Weir was able to meet the top bureaucrats of the time as well, including Dr Fahrettin Kerim Gokay, Governor of Istanbul, Dr Nafiz Uslek, Minister of Health, and Dr Robert Miner, Director of Public

48

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Health Education.180 It seems during these visits Weir focused his attention on the Medical Faculty of Ankara, which was founded in 1945, and Istanbul Universities.181 He observed that the education programme in Istanbul was largely shaped by the German model, based on lectures and didactic teaching, while little emphasis was put on research and laboratory work, with the exception of one year compulsory internships. Some of the faculty heads were either Western trained or students of Winterstein, the renowned German physicist who had taught there after his escape from the Nazi regime.182 He found the Faculty of Medicine at Ankara more promising with a younger faculty staff trained abroad. They were devising a new curriculum following the examples of other curriculums in Europe.183 Weir also paid a visit to the Etimesgut Health Centre, previously sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, which ran under the direction of Dr Bilgin, and was very impressed with the quality of service. He considered it to be the best organised rural health centre that he had visited anywhere including in the United States and appreciated the Ministry’s efforts to spread this service in other parts of Anatolia.184 A brief visit to the Institute of Hygiene, another Rockefeller funded institution, and meeting with Nusret Fis¸ek, former Rockefeller fellow, helped him learn about the training and service at the Institute.185 Despite previous Foundation aids to the Institute, Weir told the director that there would be only limited grants available in the future and advised them to apply for the Point Four Program.186 The Rockefeller Foundation’s operations in the field of medicine did more than help raise the standard of medical service in Turkey. Students of the Medical School played a crucial role in Ottoman/Turkish Westernisation, as harbingers of scientific progressivism against traditional values. The Republican leadership embraced science as an ideology as opposed to “dogmatism” inherent in “religious” codes that they were committed to transform after 1923. Thanks to the guidance of Frederick Gates, a similar perspective had long been popular among Rockefeller officers, especially with respect to the Foundation’s overseas missions. Medicine was a tool to deal with not only the body and health but also one’s approach towards social facts, human relations and the forces of nature. It was therefore not surprising that the Rockefeller Foundation launched its first programme in Turkey in the field of medicine. Investment in medicine was considered to be part of a greater

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

49

mission to transform a society through the inculcation of scientific reasoning in the country’s elites and promoting this approach to the wider masses. Finally, there was of course a direct relationship between people’s health and population numbers. Raising the quality of health services and giving basic education in hygiene control had a positive impact on population numbers, which was initially appreciated by the Turkish politicians. Yet unexpected increase in the Turkish population propelled Foundation officers and bureaucrats to take precautionary measures in the 1950s and 1960s. These concerns resulted in the foundation of the first Institute of Child Health and family planning clinics in Turkey.

CHAPTER 2 REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

The Ford Foundation was founded in 1936 in Michigan by Edsel Ford, son of Henry Ford, the founder of the Ford Motor Company, the biggest automobile maker of the United States. The successes of the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations inspired him to take initiative for scientific, educational and charitable purposes, yet the Ford Foundation was not at a level to compete with the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations.1 In the early years, Ford Foundation grants were confined to the region of Michigan where the company’s headquarters were located.2 Entering a field where the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations had already established a reputation, Foundation trustees were unsure about where to focus its operations. A new horizon emerged after the end of World War II with the changing role of the US political elite in global affairs. Edsel Ford died during the course of World War II and Henry Ford II, Edsel’s eldest son, took over the leadership of the Foundation. Soon after this change Henry Ford asked H. Rowan Gaither to prepare a report exploring possible areas of operation for the Foundation. Gaither Study Committee, composed of seven members, partly in collaboration with the Carnegie Foundation, wrote a report in 1949 and urged for broader overseas investment in economy and education.3 This new orientation also sought to reinforce ideological struggle against communism through enhancing democratic institutions in “underdeveloped” countries. Another foundation report in the early 1950s underlined that improvement in living standards was “vital

52

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

to human welfare” so that people in “free” countries have chosen the “democratic course”.4 In line with these the Ford Foundation turned its focus towards “underdeveloped” countries to enhance technical expertise, rational management and means of public education, but due to limited available resources they decided to concentrate only in certain regions such as the Near East and Southeast Asia. Nearly one-fifth of total Foundation funds were used for foreign operations to train skilled manpower and build effective local institutions in those countries of significance to the “free world” in its struggle against Communism.5 Turkey was one of the first countries into which the Ford Foundation set foot. The first Foundation team came to Turkey in 1952, yet during the 1950s, operations in Turkey were administered from a regional Middle East office in Beirut.6 The Foundation opened its local branch in Turkey in 1960, gave priority to industrial and economic development, and until 1972 spent nearly $12,000,000 on activities related to basic sciences, primary education, social sciences and business administration.7 The question of industrial development occupied Turkish leaders from the early days of the Republic. It was a mission seeking not only to bolster industrial productivity but also to build a new society based on rational principles, and Turkey needed proficient scientists as well as technicians who could apply this scientific knowledge in practice. Along with the Ford Foundation, Robert College School of Engineering made a significant contribution to technical and industrial development in Turkey. Robert College graduates had a pioneering role in cultural Westernisation, but the College’s function in technical modernisation and industrial development especially in the early years of the Republic was no less crucial. In the 1950s College heads took advantage of changing geostrategic priorities, describing the school as an ideological frontline against Communism, and gained greater confidence from American and Turkish elites. This standing helped them elevate the official status of the engineering school to an advanced school. Almost over the same period, the Middle Eastern Technical University, where the language of instruction was English, was established as a joint Turkish-American project in technical education and urban planning. The American knowhow and financial assistance made it possible for the METU project to gain credibility among politicians and bureaucrats of the time. Soon after the military coup in 1960 it started to thrive thanks to the Ford Foundation

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

53

sponsored programmes, and became a centre of advanced education, drawing the most successful students from Anatolian towns.

Technicians of Industrial Development: Robert College School of Engineering and METU Robert College School of Engineering was founded in 1912, just before the outbreak of World War I. College President Caleb Gates had already observed an increasing interest among students in engineering and the lack of available institutions to offer advanced training in engineering.8 John Steward Kennedy, the President of the Board of Trustees of Robert College, had passed away in 1909 and bequeathed $1,500,000 to the College for the development of facilities and teaching.9 Gates felt it a real opportunity to build a new department and, despite calls for medicine or law, pushed for the foundation of a faculty of engineering. He was almost sure that the need for engineers in every field would be much higher in the future and that establishing a faculty would be a timely investment for the College.10 Discussing the issue with Talat Pasha, who favoured the opening of an engineering faculty, Gates moved ahead.11 Professor John Allen from the University of Michigan was invited to carry out its foundation and he managed to set up a faculty. Dr Lyonn Scipio, formerly professor of engineering at Purdue University, led the development of the engineering faculty from the early days of its foundation. At the time he arrived in the country the engineering building was still under construction and the faculty was still in the making.12 He recounts that Istanbul, which had over a million inhabitants, was in a poor state as far as infrastructure was concerned, and even had problems with the provision of drinkable water, and he was invited to fix pumps supplying water to the city.13 There was no power plant and street lighting was made up of small oil-burning lamps, placed so far apart that the city was left in darkness.14 He shared Gates’ opinion that Turkey was an industrially underdeveloped country, which offered a wide range of opportunities for the future.15 Available numbers support the accounts of Scipio and Gates; in 1915 only 264 industrial companies with a workforce of nearly 14,000 were available in the Ottoman Empire.16 Farming and commerce as professions had

54

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

rarely attracted the Ottoman Turkish elite who had rather opted for bureaucracy and the civil service. Most industrial production had been controlled by non-Muslim businessmen, mainly thanks to their closer connections with European companies.17 The destruction of longstanding wars from 1908 to 1922 had inflicted further blows to already weak infrastructure and caused the loss of educated Turkish technicians who were already low in number. As briefly mentioned, Robert College survived the turbulent years of World War I, especially after the United States declared war against Germany. British teaching staff had left the country while the Ottoman Empire was fighting against Britain whereas American instructors had been allowed to stay. The United States’ entrance into the War sparked a reaction among Ottoman bureaucrats and German officials in Istanbul towards Robert College. There were several attempts by Ottoman military officials to seize the College properties, but Caleb Gates managed to ease the pressure thanks to the protection of Prime Minister Talat Pasha, who promised Gates Robert College would be kept open for education.18 During this period the College benefited from another special friendship between Cleveland Dodge, the President of the Board of Trustees, and President Wilson, who had been close since their studentships at Princeton University. Cleveland Dodge enjoyed a respected standing among the American political elite and helped President Wilson in his ascension to the Presidency.19 His personal request to the President to protect American institutions in Ottoman lands helped abate the tension between the United States and the Ottoman Empire.20 Thanks to these efforts, while the operation of many foreign colleges was suspended, Robert College continued its courses between 1914 and 1918. The Robert College Engineering Department likewise managed to survive during the War years and readjust itself to the postwar economy. The Engineering programme was a three years course in civil, electrical and mechanical engineering, but Scipio looked for a plan to extend it to a four-year course for lycee graduates.21 He introduced the American model of technical education based on intensive practical experience, unlike the German model relying on theoretical knowledge.22 Scipio explains that soon after arriving in Turkey he realised that he would be competing with German engineers, as they had a high standing in the estimation of the Turks. Those Turkish engineers who had studied

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

55

abroad had gone to Germany, most of the industrial plants in operation had been installed by German engineers and they were building the Istanbul-Constantinople railway.23 Scipio worked hard to gain the recognition of Turkish bureaucrats, who found their course insufficient to award a BS degree, as well as that of his own College faculty.24 He seemed to have little support from other members of the College who saw no benefit in having students work in laboratories, carpenters or blacksmiths. Despite these drawbacks, he soon enjoyed the fruits of his approach as they started to produce something to sell and made money to support the College during the War years. During this period, Scipio and his students were able to sell 53 wire high-capacity switches, 20 power hack saws, woodshop power lathes and gas producer outfits.25 These achievements did not go unnoticed by Ottoman army officers and they visited his class, asking for his help with a steam engine and generator.26 In the aftermath of the War, the popularity of the Engineering Faculty skyrocketed as there was a dire shortage of trained men in the field of engineering. Scipio narrates that whenever he talked with businessmen he was told how difficult it was to find good machinists, carpenters, plumbers etc.27 In 1926 Scipio and Gates prepared a new industrial course where they could offer the basics of engineering; this was a two- year course to teach the subjects of science, mathematics, workshops and laboratories. Yet they had to stop it by the early 1930s as the number of students rose dramatically.28 Receiving a solid training based on practical experience, Scipio thought, would help most of the graduates of the Engineering Faculty find good jobs. His predictions proved true, and Robert College graduates were in high demand in state bureaucracy as well as in private enterprise. Scipio recounts that during his visit to the Minister of Public Works he was told that 15 Robert College graduates were working at the ministry and he enjoyed a short meeting with his former students. Some of them had recently come back from the United States where they had studied for masters degrees.29 He adds that another student of electrical engineering whom he taught under difficult conditions during the time of the War served as consultant to the Minister of Public Works and designed more than a 100 power plants.30 In 1927, the population of Turkey was around 13 million, with only 16 per cent living in urban centres, and only 342 factories producing

56

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

goods, with nearly 17,000 workers. In an effort to revive the ailing economy the Republican regime backed private business, offering tax advantages and other opportunities for the construction of new industrial plants.31 To support private investment and compete with foreign banks the Is¸ Bankası, under the supervision of Mustafa Kemal, was founded in 1924, with a capital of 1 million Turkish lira.32 As an agricultural country Turkey heavily relied on imports for manufactured goods; in 1927 almost 25 per cent of gross domestic production was spent on imported goods and negative trade balance between 1923 and 1928 floated around 50– 60 million Turkish liras.33 During the early years the Republican leadership favoured a free-market economy and foreign businessmen were quick to capitalise on available conditions in the country.34 Such companies as Socony-Vacuum, Turkish-American Petroleum, American Express and American Export Company started to operate in Turkey.35 Despite favouring economic independence, the Republican leadership did not block foreign investment in Turkey as the country needed foreign capital to have an economic base.36 Almost a third of newly established companies in Republican Turkey between 1920 and 1930 involved foreign capital.37 The amount of foreign investments not only in Turkey but also in the wider region greatly increased the need for qualified engineers. Bernard Tubini, one of the oldest faculty staff at Robert College, left the school to work for a British firm that would construct a power plant at Zonguldak.38 In neighbouring countries, too, Robert College graduates performed well; Eulen Company that built the Marathon dam in Greece employed a number of Robert College graduates and Lyonn Scipio boasted about testimonials they had heard about the good character and technical competency of their graduates.39 On another occasion, he was invited by the Iraqi Ministry of Education and met many Robert College graduates, once sent to the College by the Iraqi government, working on the construction of a new railway. As Scipio narrates, there were many other graduates taking roles in the project of Kutu’l-Emara dam construction in the country.40 Despite various efforts, no serious leap in industrial development could be achieved between 1923 and 1929, and the Great Recession of 1929 compounded this failure. The negative trade deficit hit nearly $50 Million in 1929.41 These developments prompted the Republican

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

57

regime to shift its economic priorities, introducing stricter state control over the economy. The foundation of the Central Bank in 1930 was the first step to control national monetary policy and the introduction of custom duties to reduce the amount of imported goods helped turn the negative trade balance to positive in the same year.42 After 1931 the Republican leadership, mainly inspired by the Soviet model, adjusted the principle of “statism” to carry out state-led economic development. In 1932 Prime Minister I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨ paid a visit to the Soviet Union, and seemed to have a positive impression of what he saw during this trip, with Turkey agreeing to receive Soviet credit for industrial development.43 Soviet experts visited Turkey, presented a report outlining the priorities for industrial investment and in 1934 the Republican leadership launched the first five-year plan to boost industrialisation.44 Two new banks were launched; Sumerbank, established in 1933, was planned to supervise the development of the textile industry and went on to support the cement, leather, paper, iron and steel industries. Etibank, founded in 1935, sought to develop the mining industry and mainly dealt with coal mining in Zonguldak.45 Another major field of operation was railroads and motorways, as most of Anatolia, especially the Eastern parts, were devoid of proper motorways and railroad infrastructure.46 Importing manufactured goods from Europe cost less than getting the same product from Eastern Turkey, as it took almost 40 hours by train from Erzurum to Istanbul.47 The government founded the General Directorate of Railways and Ports in 1926 and from 1933 to 1940 nearly 1,405 kilometres of railroad were completed.48 Likewise between 1933 and 1938 the government managed to build more than 1,000 kilometres of motorways.49 Thanks to these efforts, despite ongoing problems with the development of agricultural infrastructure, the national product advanced at a rate of 5.2 per cent between 1933 and 1938.50 The Republican elite, struggling with the lack of competent instructors and technicians, had no choice but to make use of available human potential in Robert College. In the late 1920s the Ministry of Education had requested that at least 10 per cent of Turkish students should be admitted to the College on full scholarships and this number gradually increased over time. Other ministries such as the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Defense started to send students to the

58

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

College as well.51 It seems that during the 1930s the School of Engineering managed to adapt itself with the changing needs of the country. Faculty staff closely followed ongoing projects and updated their students with the latest developments in industrial development; the senior engineering class, for example, was taken to visit power plants so that they could learn about the projects and sectorial needs.52 Many Robert College graduates found jobs in newly established banks and other state institutions such as the Agency of Motorways and Directorate of Railways, so that they made significant contributions to the construction of motorways and railroads across the country.53 At the same time, the School of Engineering established a wellrespected position for itself in the field of engineering education in Turkey. Scipio narrates that even he himself was taken more seriously by the authorities as he was invited to attend a final examination held in other engineering faculties. The College made significant additions to catch up with the increasing demand; Karl Terzagi, world renowned professor of soil engineering,54 who had taught at the Turkish Engineering School, joined the School of Engineering after the end of World War I.55 Philip Ullyot, formerly science teacher at Cambridge, and Robert Van Niece, MIT Graduate and expert on hydrodynamics, started teaching at Robert College too. Scholars such as Henry Wolsdrof, Frank Hewitt, Fred Erdman, Earl Stivers, Waldo Smith, Edward Wilsey, Robert Fox, John King, Edward Sheiry, John Jackson, Richard Wise, Gyfford Collins, Salih Murat and John Bliss taught at Robert College after 1920.56 Moreover, Gates urged American teachers to spend a year in the United States to catch up with the latest educational developments, necessary especially for engineers because of rapid changes.57 Even Professor Scipio benefited from this opportunity and spent a year in the United States, learnt more about machine design and prepared a textbook with his colleague for university students in Turkey.58 Later on the Faculty was able to introduce a course in “Technical Turkish” for engineering students and prepare an EnglishTurkish dictionary of 10,000 words for technical students.59 These developments led successful students to prefer Robert College for advanced study over German universities.60 There is no doubt that Caleb Gates’ strategies and Lyonn Scipio’s enormous effort lifted up Robert College Engineering Faculty to be one

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

59

of the best engineering schools in the region. It maintained this prestige and popularity during World War II; there were 200 military students studying engineering at Robert College and in 1942, 52 graduates out of 85 were from the Turkish army.61 However, rapid developments in engineering required continuous investment in equipment and teaching staff, whereas the College administration was no longer able to finance increasing operational needs. Neither was it possible to invite scholars from the United States during the War.62 The Board of Trustees planned to close at least one department of the School of Engineering due to financial difficulties, and discussed the issue with the College President, but they changed their mind after 1947 in light of a possible US government aid to be awarded to the College.63 In the aftermath of World War II the Turkish government faced two urgent issues in domestic and foreign affairs. The country still lacked a proper industrial base, lagged behind in agricultural production techniques and, after long years of state-led economic management, was not able to develop a culture of private entrepreneurship. Whilst poor economy and industrial short-handedness made it further distressing to cope with the Soviet pressure, the Truman Doctrine and the inclusion of Turkey into the Marshall Plan offered at least a short-term respite for the Turkish government. The transition to the multi-party system and introduction of a new economic package in favour of private enterprise were the early steps gaining the endorsement of the American political elite. Celal Bayar, unlike I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨, was not content with state-led economic development and was a defender of free enterprise: Turkish and American nations loved their independence and freedom. . .we believe as you Americans do, that . . . capitalism based on free enterprise could be the best system to develop an economically backward country.64 Bayar’s ascension to power in 1950 brought a new dynamism in economic relations between the United States and Turkey. As Kozat suggested, the US and Turkish elites held similar views of economic modernisation, yet the Americans were more concerned with the method of development and keen to control the channels of investment.65 In the 1950s the popularity of the Taylorist view of management and social

60

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

engineering was at its peak. In this perspective it was the role of experts and professional managers to set up a scientific method of efficient production.66 Many Turkish experts were invited to the United States, so as to make the Turkish managers and institutions familiar with this orientation.67 Hundreds of American experts came to Turkey to investigate urgent needs and strategic priorities for both countries, resulting in frequent exchange visits and an increasing awareness among the Americans concerning Turkey. It seemed that they prioritised construction and development of motorways as Turkey still suffered from weak transportation infrastructure, hindering the forging of an efficient production chain and delivery of goods.68 Vecdi Diker, another Robert College graduate and an engineer at the Ministry of Public Works, had paid a visit to the United States in 1945 to carry out an investigation on US motorways and Federal Bureau of Public Roads (BPR).69 According to Diker the Turkish highway needed a “modern highway organization” and the BPR was a perfect example to emulate.70 He suggested the establishment of an autonomous department71 to run the operations of construction and a training programme for Turkish engineers.72 In another visit Diker met officials from the US Ministry of State and Ministry of War to discuss the material to be bought from the United States under the Marshall Aid and both sides agreed on $5 million aid to Turkey.73 Soon after this second meeting Harold Hilts, Deputy Commissioner of the US Public Roads Administration, paid a visit to Turkey in 1948 to explore the general condition of motorways in Turkey and prepared a report outlining a scientific plan for the following steps to be taken.74 Similar to Diker’s recommendation, the report suggested the foundation of an independent agency solely responsible for the coordination and running of motorways. According to Hilts, a number of experts from Turkey should be sent to the United States to receive training at Railroads Administration in Washington.75 During these negotiations some of the leading CHP cabinet members advocated direct US involvement in the planning and construction of motorways; for example Kasım Gulek,76 another Robert College graduate, Minister of Construction in 1947 and Minister of Transportation in 1948, declared his willingness to work out a collaborative plan with the Americans in road and water infrastructure.77 As a result, an agreement listing the areas of cooperation between Turkey and the United States

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

61

was signed between Kasım Gulek and Harold Hilts.78 In the light of this report, the Turkish Directorate of Highways (KGG) was established in August 1950 and Vecdi Diker was appointed as the head of the Agency.79 It can be said that the Democrat Party government capitalised on the already established networks. Unlike the Republican People’s Party, however, the Democrats encouraged private enterprise to take initiative in industrial production. A new class of Turkish businessmen was emerging along with educated university graduates working in private companies.80 The Industrial Development Bank of Turkey, aiming to distribute industrial credits to private enterprise, was founded in 1950.81 Similar to the industrial leap of the 1930s, engineers and technical know-how were high in demand and Robert College graduates played leading roles in various industries. For example, from 1950 to 1956 the number of tractors rose from 14,000 to 44,000, increasing the scale of cultivated land and the area that peasants could plough.82 Early attempts to produce tractors were ¨ zakat and Vecdi Diker led by Robert College graduates such as Melih O who founded the first tractor production company in Turkey.83 Indeed, the US political elite had been keeping a closer eye over military and industrial development of Turkey as it gained further strategic importance in its expanding manoeuvres across the Middle East, and Robert College capitalised on this tightening connection between the two countries. The appointment of Duncan Ballantine, previously a Professor of History at MIT, to the College Presidency in 1955 was a turning point in the development of the Engineering Faculty. It seemed the selection of Ballantine was a well-thought out choice, and after long years of stagnation and uncertainty with the College administration and future plans the Board of Trustees opted for moving ahead rather than downscaling the faculty. Concomitant with this, direct American aid to the College was approved in 1956 and the US government released $1.5 Million for the construction of the School of Engineering building.84 Stewart Kennedy’s inheritance money had been used for the construction of the first Engineering Faculty building in the 1910s and the College enjoyed another considerable aid from the United States. Right after his arrival to Istanbul, Ballantine proposed a thorough plan to renovate the School of Engineering, and invited MIT experts to offer a general review of his faculty. He appointed Dr Howard Pickering Hall, from Harvard

62

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

University, as the head of Engineering and 12 out of 39 instructors he appointed during his Presidency had PhD degrees.85 In August 1957 the Turkish Ministry of Education authorised the Yuksek Mu¨hendis (High Engineering) degree of Robert College which was the equivalent of the MS degree in American terms. In September 1958 courses leading to masters degrees in civil and mechanical engineering were started.86 In 1959 enrolment in the School of Engineering reached 400 students, along with 20 faculty members.87 Ballantine was a keen observer of recent trends in Turkey’s economy and the latest developments in world affairs.88 He paid a series of visits to Ankara and the United States, going back and forth to explain to the US and Turkish elites how Robert College could best serve the needs of modern Turkey and the United States. Attending various meetings in the United States he gave talks to the political and intellectual elites, seeking to convince the audiences of the importance of Robert College in Turkish-American relations and American interests in the Middle East during the Cold War: With the appearance of totalitarian dictatorships in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia that America began to realize the world was a smaller place than it had been and that its own survival and well-being were linked with the survival and wellbeing of other liberty loving nations of the world. One nation could not live securely while others lived in poverty and hopelessness, we call it enlightened selfishness, and well-being depends on the well-being of other peoples.89 In another speech he asserted: The US presence in the Near East was crucial, yet it must have US aid in order to remain strong in her stand against Communism, which could only be achieved with the strengthening of American institutions in the region.90 In a report he presented to the Ford Foundation for the development of the School of Engineering, American schools in Turkey were described as “the most significant enterprise of any kind . . . making an influence

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

63

that no amount of money could buy and no ‘crash program’ could secure”.91 To Ballantine these Colleges would do a “quality job” and bring in American ideas for adaptation to Turkey and he states that “Turkey has taken the West, particularly the United States, as her model for technological development”.92 In another report the College Administration prepared for the Olin Foundation, it was noted that almost two-thirds of the engineering graduates regularly went to the United States for graduate study and on their return became a vital force in the industrial development and economic progress of Turkey, which was crucial for it to remain strong in its stand against Communism: As a bulwark against Communism Turkey has now become an important factor in World relations, the area which Turkey occupies has been of strategic importance since ancient times but perhaps never more so than today because she stands in the way of further Soviet expansion toward the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Premier Adnan Menderes on his recent visit to the United States to attend the CENTO conferences made it clear that the Turkish people are determined to maintain that bulwark at all costs.93 Indeed, the US Political elite held a view no different than that of Ballantine or the other Robert College administrators. During Celal Bayar’s visit to the United States in 1954 Robert Nixon, then the Vice President of the United States, praised Turkey’s key role in ideological resistance to the Soviet Union: Our aid to Turkey is a result of the fact that we understood that any threats against Turkey’s freedom are a threat against our freedom. We did not help Turkey to make them dependent on us, but to help them avoid being subjugated to any other nation’s chain.94 Ballantine noted that the government was “anxious” for the expansion of the College as Deputy PM Fatin Ru¨s¸tu¨ Zorlu requested the College award a masters degree in Engineering and increase the number of

64

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

students.95 He referred to Dr Thomas Benner, curriculum consultant to the Turkish Ministry of Education, who predicted that liberal tendencies in Turkish education would become a stronger force. Ballantine shared the story of Vecdi Diker, whom he applauded as being a patriot and dreamer with a full commitment to Atatu¨rk’s progressive vision, and praised his performance in his capacity as the Director General of the Highways.96 When the United States offered its help to Turkey in its defense against Soviet demands over the Eastern frontier, there were no highways between Ankara and the Eastern frontier. Diker undertook the project and, with some help from American engineers, managed to build 350 miles across mountains from Ankara to Erzurum, so that men and logistic supplies could be moved.97 Ballantine also referred to the Atomic Research Reactor under Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace Program and the government’s interest in seeing a research reactor established preferably in connection with Robert College.98 As discussed, increasing American aid to Robert College was indicative of the United States’ changing priorities in global affairs. In a report by the Committee on the University and World Affairs it was underlined that the undeveloped world needed “educated leadership” and “competent” human capital to solve its problems.99 The Point Four, the first technical assistance programme aimed to help developing countries, was launched by President Truman in 1949.100 To implement the Point Four Program, the Technical Assistance Group (TCA) was founded in 1950 and three years later foreign assistance programmes were re-organised under the Foreign Operations Administration (FOA).101 Harald E. Stassen, former Governor of Minnesota and President of the University of Pennsylvania, was appointed as the first director of the FOA, which would oversee all international aid programmes, and under his directorship American universities were encouraged to be involved in international projects.102 As a result, in partnership with US governmental agencies scholars started to visit developing countries as part of technical assistance programmes.103 Stassen boasted the transfer of technical know-how to the developing world through universities and cultural benefits of joint projects.104 The most serious FOA project in Turkey was started in 1955 between the University of Nebraska and Erzurum Atatu¨rk University, located in Eastern Anatolia, on the development of agricultural production.

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

65

Building a new university in Eastern Turkey had long been a dream for Turkish politicians and Nebraska University experts, and despite practical barriers and disagreements with the Turkish government, provided a great deal of help in the establishment of Erzurum Atatu¨rk University.105 Many Atatu¨rk University graduates visited the United States for training and many scholars from Nebraska visited Turkey to help students working on the field.106 It is understood that Harold Stassen encouraged scholars from his former university to take part in some other projects in Turkey as several professors from the University of Pennsylvania contributed to the foundation process of the Middle Eastern Technical University between 1956 and 1960.107 The fact that Turkey became a frequent destination for American experts bore fruit in terms of the country’s technical development. The foundation of the Middle Eastern Technical University was made possible thanks to a series of expert reports by the American technical assistance missions. One of the primary concerns of the Turkish Government in the 1950s was the rapid pace of urbanisation and the housing problem. Actually inviting foreign experts for technical assistance in architecture and urbanisation was not a novel idea for the Turkish political elite. The early Republican rulers had invited Clement Holzmeister, renowned Austrian architect, and Henri Prost, French architect, to draw up a new urban planning scheme for Istanbul and Ankara.108 Nearly 20 years later, Professor Charles Abrams, from the University of Pennsylvania, visited Turkey in 1954 as a part of the UN mission under Technical Assistance Program (TAA) to investigate problems of urban planning and architecture in the country.109 At the end of this trip the Committee prepared a report, “The Need for Training and Education for Housing and Planning”, and proposed the foundation of an institution of education in the field of urban planning and architecture.110 According to Abrams, Turkey lacked technical and professional competence, but importing foreign experts would not be of help in the long term as bureaucrats and the small number of experts were still unable to formulate how to deal with the problem.111 A local institution would therefore help train competent people and could offer training for students from other Middle Eastern countries.112 A year later, another UN mission, led by Prof. Holmes Perkins, head of the School of Fine Arts at the University of Pennsylvania, visited Turkey to investigate the feasibility for the

66

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

foundation of a school of architecture and community planning.113 During this visit they met scholars from universities and political leaders including Celal Bayar, Adnan Menderes and Celal Yardımcı, Minister of Education.114 As a result of this visit the commission wrote a comprehensive report recommending the foundation of a university.115 Prof. Perkins envisioned a research university located in Ankara to work with government agencies, offering consultancy in urban planning in light of up-to-date approaches in architecture.116 The School of Architecture was to offer solutions to the housing problem caused by mass migration to the cities in Turkey. It seems Perkins and Abrams argued that the university should be established in Ankara as in Istanbul there were three faculties of engineering, whereas in Ankara, to which the rest of the country would have easier access, there was only one faculty.117 As the university was intended to train future educators of the Middle East it was essential to maintain academic credentials of a high standard and Perkins and Abrams planned to invite prominent people with such academic status to teach at METU.118 Thanks to these efforts, several prominent scholars from abroad accepted teaching posts at the university during its foundation years.119 As the United Nations considered it to be a regional project that served as a model in the Middle East, the international character of students, teaching staff and the diversity of the curriculum was preserved in the following years.120 The idea of founding a new university attracted Turkish politicians and bureaucrats as well. It seems Ahmet Tokus¸, Democrat Party MP from Antalya, and Vecdi Diker, who had been appointed as the first head of KGB, took leading roles in persuading the Democrat Party leadership to take part in the establishment of METU.121 Abrams met Vecdi Diker during his first visit to Turkey and Diker offered to establish a training institution for planners and technicians for him. He arranged a meeting for Abrams with Fatin Ru¨s¸tu¨ Zorlu and Celal Yardımcı, two of the leading cabinet members, and during these talks they decided to set up the aforementioned committee to investigate the feasibility of opening a new institution in Turkey.122 In 1956 the Middle East High Institute of Technology started teaching in Ankara, and unlike other universities METU was administrated under the regulations of a specific law.123 In the following two years Harold Stassen and Prof. Willis Raymond Woolrich, the founding President of

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

67

METU and previously dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Texas, worked hard to prepare a new draft, drawing inspiration from the charter of American state universities.124 This new law proposing the foundation of METU defined it as an international university attached to the ideals of freedom and aimed to “carry out research in economical, technical and other areas having significance for Turkey”.125 After the law was passed in 1959 a Board of Trustees was established and Tokus¸ convinced Adnan Menderes to assume the Presidency of the Board of Trustees of METU.126 Seeking to find an American counterpart, John Eisenhower, son of US President Eisenhower, was offered the Rectorship and he came to Ankara to discuss the matter with the university administration, but declined the offer.127 Initial promises given by the FOA did not materialise as Harold Stassen left his position to be replaced by William “General” Riley, who was not sympathetic to the idea of founding a new university in Turkey.128 Struggling with a sponsor crisis between 1956 and 1958 the university administration found respite at least for a certain period through the backing of the Turkish government and the United Nations. After 1959 the financial situation recovered as the UN Special Fund Program released a grant of $1.5 million for equipment and fellowships, followed by subsequent grants from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and CENTO.129 The UN’s support included the appointment of foreign scholars to the university; Ug˘ur Ersoy,130 another Robert College graduate and the first Turkish vice-dean of METU, narrates that for each faculty there was an advisory committee, composed of Turkish and foreign experts including UNESCO representatives, closely observing the three other engineering faculties’ curriculum and the quality of engineers in Turkey.131 As the only school of engineering outside Istanbul, METU quickly gained a reputation. It would also provide enough time and supervision for specified research that could hardly be feasible under a university structure. For example, the School of Architecture under the Directorship of Professor Thomas Godfrey, from the University of Pennsylvania, became a respected venue of education where prominent scholars from abroad started lecturing.132 Likewise the faculties of electrical and mechanical engineering employed leading foreign experts and promising Turkish scholars. Despite notable successes with the Faculty of Architecture and other Engineering

68

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Faculties, there seems to have been a relative failure for the Faculty of Agricultural Engineering. Official reports had pointed to the lack of technical expertise in agriculture in Turkey and across the Middle East, and suggested the establishment of a Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, not available elsewhere in Turkey. This faculty was expected to specialise in soil science, agricultural economics and farm management as there was a great demand in Turkey, where agricultural machinery was developing, for trained people. Yet despite assiduous efforts the university did not manage to open a faculty of Agricultural Engineering.133 In 1959 Professor William Woolrich was replaced by Professor Edwin Burdell, who had been the Rector of Cooper Union College in New York. Nevertheless, the political situation in Turkey dramatically changed after the 27 May Coup. The National Union Committee, composed of 38 soldiers from different ranks of the army, took over the government and General Cemal Gursel assumed the Presidency of the Republic. Considered to be a Democrat Party project since its inception, METU came under scrutiny and some of its Board members were arrested. In a letter from Edwin Burdell to Dean Penn the political atmosphere after the Coup was described: We heard all foreigners closely associated with the Menderes government were being taken in for questioning. As METU had been established by the Menderes government and represented Westernisation in all of its hideous forms, we came in for every kind of attack. The school of Administrative Sciences was the area most suspect and resented by the University of Ankara.134 With its tiny but handicapped campus at the centre of Ankara, METU remained within the eyesight of political and military circles. Ersoy recounts that he met Alparslan Tu¨rkes¸, one of the powerful members of the National Union Committee, and gave Tu¨rkes¸ some insider information about the Middle Eastern Technical University and its Board of Trustees.135 He thought this was a useful meeting and Committee members started to show interest in the University’s affairs. Following this meeting, Professor Turhan Feyziog˘lu, a prominent politician of the time, was appointed to the Rectorship, aiming to bridge relations between the METU administration and the new political

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

69

leadership.136 In Ersoy’s words, Feyziog˘lu’s presidency helped the University regain the confidence of the political leadership of the time so that METU could expand its courses and faculties. Yet Feyziog˘lu had problems with Edwin Burdell, as the latter sent letters of complaint to the United Nations about Feyziog˘lu’s policies and as a result of this rupture Burdell issued his resignation from the University administration.137 Despite this political turbulence, METU started to draw the attention of Ford Foundation officers in Turkey. In the meantime, the US presidential elections took place and John F. Kennedy was elected as the President of the United States in 1961. This change of administration had an impact on US overseas operations as well; Kennedy prioritised improving human resources for a more efficient foreign policy. In a report presented to him it was suggested that the United States would need almost 100,000 trained personnel to continue its foreign operations and maintain its status as a superpower.138 In 1961, Kennedy announced the Peace Corps Program, which would send young Americans to foreign countries to offer basic services and to gain experience with technical skills.139 As a result of mutual agreement with the Turkish government,140 nearly 1,000 Peace Corps came to Turkey and many of them taught English courses at METU, where the Ford Foundation awarded serious grants for language teaching.141 The Ford Foundation preferred long-term partnerships with elite institutions to raise the quality of advanced research, and METU, with its young faculty members trained abroad, stood as a promising centre of education in science and technology. That the Foundation opened a head Office in Ankara was a strategic choice in forging an institutional partnership with METU.

Setting up the Framework for Turkish Education The present state of natural and physical sciences in Turkey needs care, having served for several years as a member of the board of Education at the MEB, I know the state of scientific instruction in our schools, attention to science faculties would promote scientific research in this country, but will also vitalize intellectual awakening, and will be of great consequence in replacing dogmatic

70

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

reasoning by positive thinking . . . My request is for Faculty of Science. Various efforts made in Turkey to raise standard of living but more than that raise the intellectual level and enable people to benefit from the advantages that science offers to humanity . . . I hope these efforts have not escaped your notice. As in all the eastern countries in Turkey physical and natural sciences have not developed as they should, importance was recognized by various Republican governments, but deficiency in ways and means was a barrier. The foundation of Science Faculty is an indication of the seriousness of our intents (during war years) . . . remember well your emphasizing the importance of science in the progress of western civilization, I cannot help thinking that in the field of natural sciences there is much to be done in Turkey which would agree well with the aims of the Foundation.142 As noted, the first Ford Foundation team to visit Turkey took off in 1952. This trip intended to get primary information about the country and investigate possible areas of cooperation.143 Yet it took a while to figure out where to channel available funds and with the exception of limited grants (for research and translation), the Ford Foundation was not able to launch a major project in Turkey. In 1957 the Foundation received a formal request from the Turkish Ministry of Education for the improvement of primary and secondary education. Three leading experts from the Ford Foundation were sent to Turkey: Champion Ward, appointed as Ford Foundation’s Deputy Vice President for Education and Research in 1963, Philip Coombs, a director at Ford Foundation and later appointed as assistant Secretary of State for Education and Culture in 1961, and Louis Smith, advisor to the Ford Foundation in education. The Ministry of Education has been struggling with the rapid increase in urban population and requested the Ford Foundation to offer a long-term plan to meet the educational needs of the country.144 The Foundation experts met scholars, teachers and bureaucrats and prepared a concise report for the Ministry of Education. The report pointed to the interdependence between the growth of education and Turkey’s general strength, suggesting that investment in education would have “long-run dividends” in economic development.145 The quality of education was poor as the population boom in urban centres resulted in a serious shortage

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

71

of qualified teachers in primary schools with overcrowded classes.146 Besides, the report contended, there was soul-searching in Turkey concerning the purpose and content of secondary education. Despite these flaws, Foundation consultants praised the good will, energy and motivation among Turkish educators and were hopeful about educational progress in the country.147 The Foundation consultants suggested the foundation of a National Commission on Education, a unified “charter” led by the Ministry of Education, composed of school teachers, ministry bureaucrats, academicians and foundation experts to set out a pathway for the development of education in Turkey.148 This commission would explore “characteristics” of the Turkish educational system, the quality of teaching staff and the fundamental values to define the framework of education in Turkey.149 Shortly after the submission of this report, the Ministry of Education set up a Turkish National Commission on Education, whose members included: Prof. Fehmi Yavuz (Chairman), Fahir I˙z, Professor of Turkish Literature at Istanbul University, Prof. Mukbil Go¨kdog˘an, Dean of the Faculty of Architecture at Istanbul Technical University, Dr Semin Sinanog˘lu, Lecturer in Philology at Ankara University, Hasan Acar, Member of the Executive Committee of the Ministry of Education, Nihat Saydam, Head of the Machinery Department at Yıldız Technical School, Howard Wilson, Dean of the School of Education at the University of California and Pierre Guillon, Professor of Classical Civilisation at Aix-en-Provence. Champion Ward, Harvey Hall, Kenneth Iverson and Prof. Sloan Wayland from the Ford Foundation acted as consultants to the Commission.150 Between 4 January 1959 and 2 February 1959 the Commission members visited schools, universities and educators in various cities such as Trabzon, Rize, Erzurum, Diyarbakır, Adana, Mersin, I˙zmir, I˙stanbul, Bursa and Ankara. Then they embarked on a trip to Japan, followed by visits to the United States, Germany, France, Italy, England and Austria.151 They met with school heads, scholars and official representatives of institutions of education in these countries, and collected their views on education. The Commission arrived in Vienna on 1 April 1959 and wrote the final report to be submitted to the Ministry of Education. Before the official report was published, rumours and criticism about the project and the report’s content were circulated in mainstream media.152 During these developments Celal Yardımcı, who had initiated this project, resigned

72

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

as Minister of Education and soon after 27 May the NUC appointed Prof. Fehmi Yavuz to this position. The report was published on 15 July 1960 and in his preface Yavuz wrote: The report starts with a remark that modern civilization in the democratic understanding of humanity, which works in the very involved activities of industrial and agricultural technology, calls for highly qualified and educated citizens . . . Education is both a work of progress and cause of development.153 The report concluded that every country has its own priorities in developing an educational system and, thus, none of the countries visited would be taken as a model. It discussed the place of religion in modern education and contended that Islamic tenets demand people do their best to seek knowledge as a sacred duty, stand against blasphemy and promote values of justice, mercy and love.154 Despite these fundamental values, the report asserted, due to misapplication and the spread of “false ideas” religious morality degenerated into fanaticism.155 It criticised the fact that institutions of religious education, namely medrese and tekkes, did not transform in accordance with the changing needs of the time caused by persistent bigotry among religious scholars. Today medrese, the report complained, can no longer produce outstanding scholars such as Ghazali and Ibn Sina.156 Muslims, firmly confident in their superiority against Europe, ignored the Western cultural renaissance and scientific advancement. It was too late once the Ottomans faced military defeats against the Europeans, and inviting military experts from the West was only of little help, the report criticised.157 This negligence, the report concluded, hindered the progress of Islamic countries and crippled their ability to compete with Western states.158 After the foundation of the Republic, the Turkish leadership had chosen to follow the Western scientific path, but still there was no clear vision in Turkey about the development of science and scientific study.159 The country needed a proper programme in scientific education, the report suggested, with Turkish education leaning to the West at all costs without leaving its Eastern roots. This would be an arduous endeavour, as Turkey was still in a process of adaptation to Western civilisation without losing its Eastern elements.160 It added that technical skills should be improved, which

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

73

could only be achieved through Western science, but still there was no proper understanding among Muslim countries of scientific research. In the West even the “most pragmatic questions” were approached through the lens of science, whereas in Turkey “the guidance of science” remained as a slogan.161 The report read: Relief from the crises of cultural transition in which we find ourselves and attaining national and social stability within the Turkish civilization of tomorrow, which will be created from the most valuable elements of the Eastern and Western civilizations, necessitates energetic, zealous work . . . we must define the character of knowledge and it should be science, a product of the thoughts, observations and experience of generations of men throughout history, is the highest level of human knowledge, and certainly carries greater significance than any kind of personal experience, thought or philosophy.162 In light of these reflections, the report recommended that educational institutions in Turkey must instill the scientific attitude, along with a strong sense of duty and responsibility, so that the “ideal of great Turkey” could be achieved.163 Only ten months after the submission of the report, the Democrat Party government was overthrown, yet the NUC administration did not ignore it and the report was officially published by the Ministry of Education just three months after the Coup. It was not easy to assess the extent to which suggestions written in it materialised in the following decades, but Turkish bureaucrats and politicians continued to reaffirm their commitment to the improvement of secondary education and the teaching of science. Ford Foundation projects in the 1960s clustered around the development of scientific education, with specific grants in support of institutions of advanced training for instructors and researchers.

Teaching of Science The Ford Foundation appointed Eugene Northrop, professor of mathematics at the University of Chicago, as representative director in

74

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Turkey in 1960. This was his second stint in Turkey, as Northrop’s uncle had been teaching at Robert College and after finishing his school Northrop had attended Robert College where he had decided to study mathematics.164 Before moving to Turkey again Northrop acted as consultant to the National Science Foundation and Fund for the Advancement of Education. He, together with his colleagues from the University of Chicago, was involved in a project to revise the math’s curriculum and remarkably changed the way mathematics was taught in the United States.165 One of his colleagues was Champion Ward, who served in the Ford Foundation in different capacities for more than ten years and who was a member of the Foundation team who visited Turkey.166 Northrop narrates that upon the request of the Turkish Minister of Education to send a representative for Turkey the Ford Foundation contacted him for the position.167 Northrop’s appointment to Turkey testified the foundation’s focus on scientific education, which had received almost the highest amount of funding under a specific division established within the foundation in 1957, expanding the scale of domestic and international projects. 168 Similar to the Ford Foundation, international agencies such as UNESCO became more concerned with the development of scientific and technological education. This enthusiasm was partly a result of the success of Soviets in launching Sputnik, the first earth satellite, becoming the first country to send a satellite to space, ahead of the United States. American scientific circles were galvanised to catch up with the Soviets in the space race, and sought for a new policy in scientific teaching to boost education and research in high schools and universities.169 The choice of Eugene Northrop by the Ford Foundation, in other words, reflected a wider concern related to the Cold War rivalry in technology and not just the mere practical needs of Turkey. Nevertheless, Northrop’s career as Foundation consultant in Turkey started with a challenge, as just two months after his arrival the Turkish military forces toppled the Democrat Party government. It seems Northrop was unnerved by this political turbulence and spent his early days in a series of meetings with scholars, men of science and bureaucrats about the general conditions of scientific education in

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

75

Turkey.170 As a professor of mathematics he believed in the priority of scientific education before training in technical skills and considered basic sciences fundamental to the development of industrial production. 171 Northrup quickly realised that educators and politicians in Turkey were enthusiastic about scientific education, partly thanks to the ideological commitment of the Republican founding elite, but observed the fact that scientific education in the country was still far removed from Western standards.172 He did not find it a hopeless situation as Turkey “has been a developing nation for more than a generation” and almost “doubled its level of material living since the 1920s.”173 Northrop decided to start his job with defining the boundaries of the Ford Foundation grants to Turkey. The Ford Foundation grants to Turkey amounted to a small percentage of its total foreign aid, and Northrop thought that Turkey, which had received nearly $1 Billion in US aid by 1961, had no problem with budget to spend.174 According to him, the current state of troubles was rather a result of the inability to identify the specific needs of the country, and Turkey still lacked the sophistication of advanced countries and suffered: an inadequate reservoir of concepts, information skill and professional talent to bring to bear on the specific problems in hand.175 To be able to make progress it was required that: business, professional and academic people participate sufficiently in the processes of discovery, application and discussion that characterized the modern world, to keep abreast of the essentially modern instead of the traditional problems which have to be faced in Turkey today.176 In a determined attempt to raise the quality of scientific education, Northrop came up with a rather peculiar project in terms of its focus and scope. He proposed the foundation of the National Science High School ( fen lisesi) for gifted students, where the best science teachers in the country would teach a new curriculum of basic sciences.177 He shared

76

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

this idea with the Ministers and then Kemal Kurdas¸,178 the Rector of METU, and agreed that the school would be located on the METU campus.179 Professor Turhan Feyziog˘lu, who was appointed as the Minister of Education by the National Union Committee, espoused the idea of founding a new high school and General Cemal Gu¨rsel strongly endorsed the project.180 In 1962 the Ministry of Education set up a committee to prepare a feasibility report and in light of their suggestions the construction of a school building for 300 boarding students was launched.181 It was planned that each year the most successful 100 students would be selected by a national examination to be enrolled in the lise.182 There was a short period of delay due to the change of Ministers, but in 1962 a new government was founded between the Republican People’s Party and the Justice Party and Hilmi I˙ncesulu, the new Minister of Education, approved the foundation of the lise in 1962.183 In the ministerial documents, it was stressed that gifted children need better education to excel in their area of interest and the lise would offer the necessary courses to improve the quality of scientific education in the country.184 The Turkish government accepted that it would provide the required funding for the construction of the building and other operational expenses, while the Ford Foundation agreed to support the training of teachers, preparation of course curriculum and purchase of fundamental equipment. Kemal Kurdas¸ was adamant about connecting this project with METU as he thought the university would attract successful students, and despite opposition from other universities, he managed to convince the Board of Trustees of METU to accept the provision of land and some other facilities for the lise.185 In 1963, the agreement was signed between the Turkish Ministry of Education, the Ford Foundation and METU for the development of the National Science High School.186 Shortly after this, the curriculum development and teachers training programme was started. A group of selected teachers and university scholars were sent to the United States to observe latest trends in science education, and visited universities.187 Northrop noted that nearly 20 high school teachers and more than ten university scholars participated in this programme.188 Florida State University acted as the official partner of the project in the United States, offering consultancy and coordination through experts from the university.189 The Bronx High School of Science

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

77

in New York was taken as an exemplary model and a training group from Turkey visited this school to learn about the curriculum.190 As a result, the lise accepted its first students and started its courses in October 1964. In the early years, problems occurred with curriculum development, teachers’ performance, administrative power-struggles and bureaucratic difficulties. Yet the Turkish government and the Ford Foundation maintained their belief in the project; the Foundation released an additional grant in 1964 and the Turkish administration, despite criticism towards the school’s elitist character, kept funding operational costs of the project.191 The atmosphere among students, it seemed, was enthusiastic, as university scholars held regular talks at the school and on one occasion James Watson, Nobel Prize winner, gave a lecture to students.192 The latest developments in American education were being closely followed and courses like PSSC physics, CHEM study, BSCS biology and SMSG mathematics were introduced to the school’s curriculum.193 In addition to these, between 1965 and 1967 summer institutes were held for science teachers in Turkey to bring them wider acquaintance with the latest curriculum material in the United States.194 According to Northrop, these summer courses made a real impact on the way school teachers taught science courses in their schools.195 A final extension was the establishment of a Commission on Science Education Development to spread new class and laboratory materials prepared during the lise project to other pilot high schools and teachers’ training institutions.196 The number of schools involved in the programme rose from 9 to 470 and a grant of $150,000 was released in 1968 to meet the foreign exchange requirements during this campaign.197 Another major project Eugene Northrop pushed forward was the foundation of a higher council of scientific research. During his earlier visits and meetings in Turkey Northrop observed practical obstacles discouraging scholars from carrying out scientific research: Lack of guidance, brain drain, bureaucratic foot dragging in universities and poor salaries.198 Similar to his position vis-a-vis the science lise Northrop was concerned with the improvement of the quality of scientific research and in the early 1960s there were three committees supporting scientific research in Turkey: The Advisory Committee on Research and Development in the Ministry of Defense, the Atomic

78

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Energy Commission and a NATO Science Committee. According to Northrop, none of these organisations were capable of setting out a welldefined scientific research policy for Turkey.199 His initial idea was to establish a specialised Council of Scientific Research akin to the National Science Foundation in the United States, where he had worked as a consultant in the 1950s.200 Northrop brought this issue to the Turkish government and persuaded them of the necessity for an independent institution that would help science researchers go abroad for training, especially in basic sciences.201 Northrop presented available information about similar organisations in Western countries and managed to get Kemal Kurdas¸ involved in the formulation of a legal framework for such a research institution.202 The law establishing the Turkish Scientific and Technical Research Council was passed in Parliament in 1963 and the Council started working in 1964. An amount of $250,000 over a fiveyear period for 50 Turkish students to study abroad was awarded by the foundation in 1964.203 These fellowships continued in the following years and nearly 200 post-doctorate researchers were supported by the Scientific and Technical Research Council (STCR).204 Universities benefited from these fellows when they wanted to add new faculty members, because especially Bogazici University and METU, where the language of instruction was English, found it difficult to find scholars trained abroad to teach in English.205 The STCR maintained its independent status but mainly acted in line with the general policies of the Ministry of Education and provided human resources for ongoing projects.206 During his tenure, Northrop was aided by Robert Kerwin, who had been a Ford Foundation fellow in the Middle East, then worked for Mobil Oil and USIA offices in Turkey in the 1950s and 1960s. Northrop appointed Kerwin as his full-time programme advisor in 1964 and Kerwin worked in the Foundation’s Istanbul office until 1970.207 According to Kerwin, research fellowships enhanced the quality of teaching, but the STCR was not able to provide scientific know-how to industry in Turkey. Foundation grants helped the development of the theoretical studies of the faculty but did not help applied issues. The STCR was composed of scholars from universities who prioritised the needs of their own institutions and, Kerwin complained, were not willing to revise the university curriculum.208 As a flexible organisation, the STCR could have developed its own projects that would connect

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

79

scientific research and industry, but the governing body was satisfied with its present role of being a supporting institution.209 The other notable project in the field of scientific and technological education during Eugene Northrop’s tenure in Turkey was the development of the Middle Eastern Technical University. John Howard, who acted as director of the international training and research division in the Ford Foundation in the late 1950s and 1960s, shifted the Foundation’s focus from short-term individual projects to long-term funding for elite universities. Before joining the Foundation, Howard had served as senior adviser in the United States Department of State and regional adviser to the Bureau of Near Eastern, South Asian and African affairs.210 This background helped him develop a new strategy for domestic and international programmes and the Ford Foundation started to release “institutional block grants” for specific universities in the development of area studies.211 The largest recipients of these grants in the United States were Columbia, Harvard and California Universities.212 In Turkey the Foundation allocated most of its sources for the development of METU through different projects.213 As previously discussed, METU had had an established faculty staff and course curriculum before Northrop’s arrival, but political turbulence in the aftermath of the 27 May Coup has shaken off the university administration and worried the American scholars involved in the project.214 It took a while to restore the system and gain the confidence of the political leadership of the time, but it seems Northrop had a high opinion of this new institution for the future and quickly prepared a joint project plan with the METU.215 Northrop noted: “there is a good chance that METU can accomplish a breakthrough in the conventional university climate that prevails elsewhere in this country”.216 He thought that with its current faculty composed of promising young Turkish scholars and foreign professors METU should expand the scale of its programmes and offer graduate training.217 He discussed this issue with Turhan Feyzioglu, Minister of Education and previously the Rector of METU between 17 August 1960 and 8 February 1961, and agreed upon the foundation of graduate programmes. The Ford Foundation pledged to support the introduction of new courses in mathematics, chemistry, and theoretical and experimental physics, and an initial grant of $282,500 was awarded in 1961.218

80

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

To choose METU, which had already received a substantial amount of foreign aid, instead of older and more established universities was mainly due to METU’s special law. One thing that impressed Northrop about METU was its flexible administrative structure as the Board of Trustees had ultimate authority in university affairs, independent of political and bureaucratic foot dragging.219 The rector and faculties were likewise given relative autonomy and it was possible in METU to influence the composition of a faculty.220 In other universities established faculty members and bureaucracy left no chance for the joining of successful Turkish scholars trained abroad to the science and engineering departments.221 Northrop felt somewhat worried about the rising competition between METU and other universities and possible jealousy that might arise. He had questions in mind about the political instability and lack of a permanent campus in Ankara as well, but did not show hesitancy to channel foundation grants to the university.222 The Ford Foundation aids to METU continued during and after Northrop’s presence in Turkey. In 1963 a supplement of $280,000 and in 1965 another additional grant of $1,003,000 was awarded to support university programmes in basic sciences.223 The Justice Party’s victory in the 1965 elections brought Su¨leyman Demirel, the leader of the party, to power. Kemal Kurdas¸ had worked with Suleyman Demirel, who had been an Eisenhower fellow, in a project for METU and enjoyed good relations with him. It seems the early years of the Justice Party under the leadership of Demirel provided a more stable atmosphere for the Ford Foundation. In 1967, another grant of $300,000 was awarded for the development of teaching and research in biology as it was thought that the lack of biology teaching was also a setback for the development of teaching in physics and chemistry224 This funding intended to enable METU to attract successful scholars trained abroad and start the programme in three years.225 Kurdas¸ maintained productive contacts with other foreign institutions as well; for example, he had a good friendship with James Grant, head of the American Aid Agency, who asked Kurdas¸ to apply for a high amount of aid from the agency. In response, Kurdas¸ submitted an application to the AID for a five-year grant amounting to $15,000,000 and Caroll Newson, an AID expert, came to Turkey to investigate METU.226 Similar to Northrop’s reflections, the Newson’s report underlined METU’s flexibility with choosing faculty members and the advantages of offering

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

81

instruction in English.227 It appreciated that METU was different from other universities and, emphasising the university’s potential to contribute to regional development, suggested the establishment of a research centre to attract incoming students.228 Another recommendation was to prepare course material that would cover Turkish and Middle Eastern civilisations, as Newson found the METU curriculum too inclined towards the West.229 In conclusion, Newson seemed satisfied with the five-year plan and wrote a favourable recommendation for the AID grant.230 In 1969, the Foundation made another grant of $590,000 to help invite foreign professors, the training of Turkish staff, and library materials in the field of basic sciences.231 During that period the number of Turkish staff and number of research papers published significantly increased, and METU faculty members won half of the special SCTR awards in eight years.232 METU produced more than 1,000 theses in ten years, and the number of graduate students rose from 40 to over 75 between 1965 and 1968, which made a significant contribution in staffing available faculty positions in the following decades.233 Many businessmen prioritised METU graduates as they were better specialised and could speak English well.234 In another UN report METU was described in the following way: The students are basically trained for the future rather than the present Turkish industry and economy, at present there seems to be no problem regarding the employment of graduates.235 In his own account, Northrop boasted that during this period of five years between 1961 and 1966 the quality of scientific research in Turkey has advanced significantly. He gave the example of the prolific contribution of Turkish scientists in an OECD Meeting where they delivered a successful presentation.236 Yet Northrop had to leave Turkey in 1966 due to health problems and passed away in 1968. His death, according to his aide Kerwin, was a big loss and made it unviable to complete his comprehensive projects in Turkey. Kerwin claimed that after Northrop’s leave the Science lise did not integrate well with the university curriculum, which was a crucial part of the project, and the lise graduates faced a simple curriculum designed for ordinary high

82

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

school graduates even in METU and Hacettepe University.237 The project of curriculum development for science teaching in other schools faltered due to bureaucratic issues and political pressures within the Ministry of Education. The curriculum was so loaded that there was no available spot for a new science or mathematics teaching, nor was it possible to find laboratory equipment advanced enough to conduct experiments.238 Kerwin considered lack of industry connection as one of the major failures of the Foundation projects in Turkey, as the original concern underlying Foundation support to science education was to strengthen industrial technology and economic development. That there was no concrete objective identified in industrial development hindered substantial progress in these fields.239 During his six years of service in Turkey Eugene Northrop managed to undertake three major projects and initiate several other programmes to enhance the study of basic sciences in Turkey. He worked with three different governments and seven different Ministers of Education, witnessed two abortive coup attempts along with terrifying military pressure on parliamentary politics and bureaucracy. In 1964 the US President Johnson wrote a disparaging letter to Prime Minister I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨ threatening the Turkish government because of its decision to deploy troops in Cyprus, and this tension, later called the “letter crisis”, resulted in almost the worst crisis for Turkish-American relations since 1923.240 Despite this political turbulence, Northrop found himself partners within the bureaucracy and university administration enabling him to carry out projects in science and education. He benefited from solid commitment among these classes, regardless of political affiliations, to the development of scientific education in Turkey. General sympathy towards working with the Americans counted as another advantage. Northrop sometimes struggled with the control of projects but never chose to work with Americans as teammates, and relied on Turkish partners who he found accommodating. Kemal Kurdas¸ was such a person who gained the confidence of political-military elites as well as American experts. He had worked at IMF between 1956 and 1959, made a reputation for himself among intellectual, political and military elites and had been invited back by the National Union Committee to Turkey to work as Minster of the Treasury. Following a short stint at the Ministry, he was appointed as the Rector of METU to

REMEDIES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

83

replace Turhan Feyziog˘lu.241 In his quest for overseas aid, Kurdas¸ contended that foreign know-how and financial aid were fundamental to building a modern university. He thus sought hard to restore the confidence of Americans in the METU project and managed to reassure Northrop to continue his support for the university project.242 In the early years of the Republic, Turkish leaders needed foreign expertise to achieve technical modernisation of the country. Robert College graduates provided valuable human capital that would connect Turkey with American technical expertise in the state and private sector. The METU was likewise designed to train competent engineers from a wider student pool. Turkish elites and some American officers working in Turkey managed to convince their American counterparts of the importance of Turkey’s industrial and transportation infrastructure serving as a buffer zone against the Soviets. The Ford Foundation started its operations in Turkey with a comprehensive programme in fundamental education and teaching of basic sciences. They observed that Turkey could not achieve sustainable industrial progress unless it carried out a reform in its culture of education and approach towards science. Thanks to the collaborative attitude of bureaucrats and politicians, the Foundation initiated projects with state institutions and universities. Yet it shifted attention to the private sector and cooperated with the leading business elites to run programmes through NGOs. This seemed to be a reasonable choice considering political upheavals in Turkey in the early 1960s. Schools and foundation sponsored programmes helped Turkey train a considerable number of engineers and scientists well-equipped to work with their Western colleagues. This nexus among the trained elites worked well to boost the pace of Turkey’s Westernisation in the 1950s and 1960s.

CHAPTER 3 THE AGE OF EXPERTS

The Ford Foundation’s interest in the question of development reflected itself in other fields of learning other than basic sciences and engineering as well. Rowald Gaither, who served as President between 1953 and 1956, drew attention to the need for the improvement of management education in the United States and Thomas Carroll, the vice President of Ford Foundation and previously a fellow at the University of Harvard, underlined that in the postwar context professionalisation gained importance in business administration.1 In fact, from 1950 onwards, management education in the United States underwent a transformation; in a Foundation report it was stressed that despite increasing numbers of students enrolling in these departments, business education was still poor and measures to tackle this problem needed to be taken urgently.2 In 1953 a “Program in Economic Development and Administration” was set up within the Ford Foundation under the guidance of leading experts in economics and business administration.3 The Foundation’s programme in business education mainly aimed to improve the organisation and performance of economic development with regard to the role of government in economic life.4 The Foundation started to provide funding for business schools to improve the quality of business management in the United States.5 In order to strengthen graduate training and research, leading social scientists were asked to prepare reports examining the practical application of their relevant research.6 In general, the Ford Foundation chose to work with elite institutions such as Harvard, Columbia

86

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

and Chicago, but in business administration there was a stronger connection with the University of Harvard as Donal David became chairman of the Foundation’s executive committee after leaving his post as the Dean of Harvard Business School.7 Indeed, there had been no kind of example like the model of “Graduate School of Business Administration” before it was first opened in the United States. Foreign students started to register in these graduate schools and American scholars went abroad to give management training for instructors and researchers whilst special contract programmes were initiated with universities in Europe and Asia.8 The University of Istanbul was one of the first universities to sign a partnership agreement with the University of Harvard to start a joint programme in business administration and management. In 1949, the Government of Turkey had requested that the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development send a mission to Turkey to investigate channels of investment, priorities, methods and measures to raise Turkey’s agricultural and industrial production.9 During their visit Turkish bureaucrats and politicians were of great help in gaining access to available data, and the Commission, headed by James Baker, prepared a comprehensive report.10 The Commission observed that the private sector was gaining some ground in Turkey, but the economy was still predominantly under state control with limited space for free-enterprise. It advised that the government would better refrain from using resources available for private investment and distribute public investments accordingly.11 At this stage it was still the responsibility of government to support business administration and private enterprise in coordinating the efficient use of resources along with administrative and managerial personnel.12 Yet the report underlined that there was a great shortage of skilled professional managers in Turkey and called for the improvement of specialised training.13 It pointed to the leading role of professionals in economic development and advised universities to introduce new courses in business administration and industrial management.14 The Commission held that private business should be run through rational management under the leadership of professional managers with no interference even from family members.15 It named the University of Ankara as a suitable institution to start such a faculty, but suggested that Turkish

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

87

universities would need the advice of foreign specialists to prepare the curriculum of these faculties.16 A similar trend of transition has been underway in the field of social sciences. In a report in the 1930s Edmund Day, the first director of the Division of Social Sciences, remarked that the Rockefeller Foundation would seek to enhance “scientific tradition” in social sciences.17 In the aftermath of World War II, US elites started to question the destructive force of scientific knowledge and sought new perspectives for controlling its social consequences. In a report in 1951, Foundation President Fosdick stressed the importance of social sciences in the study of human behaviour as it combined economics, population studies and different fields of sociology.18 To be able to understand human behaviour, relevant knowledge should be applied into social facts, but this method might not work in social sciences exactly as it works with biological or mechanical sciences, Fosdick contended.19 The Rockefeller and Ford Foundations aimed to get other cultures acquainted with the “norms of Western social science”. Projects in social sciences helped educated elites apply a social scientific method in public administration and social life.20 This vision encouraged a small number of university scholars and technocrats to take the leading role in a country’s path to modernisation. Through local partnerships US elites exerted greater influence on the formation of universities and institutions of public education.21 The Ford Foundation, for example, introduced a new curriculum scheme based on the scientific method in graduate education, urban research, public policy, international studies and business education.22 In Turkey the Rockefeller Foundation awarded significant donations for social sciences and area studies, whereas the Ford Foundation made a limited contribution. This was not a general policy of the Ford Foundation as it took a very large share in the development of social sciences in other regions such as Latin America.23 It was possible that there was a division of labour between the two and the Rockefeller Foundation strategically intensified its activities in Turkey. Several officers paid frequent visits to the country in the 1950s and 1960s to formulate Foundation projects and benefited from the insight educated elites provided them concerning the people and institutions relevant to their area of

88

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

operation. In a short period, the Rockefeller sponsored fellows and institutions elevated the study of social sciences in Turkey to a position of respectable standing.

Business Development and Management Programmes in Turkey In a speech he made in Cleveland in 1954 Celal Bayar decried the statist economy and encouraged Turkish businessmen to follow the principles of free enterprise. Through free trade and private investment, he stated, productivity in mines and other energy sources in Turkey increased.24 Bayar claimed that after the War Turkey had made the decision to uphold individual freedoms when it had to choose between free enterprise and Communism.25 The Turkish parliament passed two laws in 1951 and 1954 easing official requirements for foreign investors in Turkey.26 This favourable atmosphere towards foreign investment was of course an opportunity for American companies. Yet business culture in Turkey as yet lacked professional norms of management and trade, making it unfeasible for international companies to form joint ventures with domestic partners. Early attempts to inculcate a culture of professional management in Turkey started in the 1950s, thanks to the Ford sponsored project in conjunction with business elites and universities. John Fox,27 Assistant Dean at Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, and Stanley Dick Robinson, who had stayed in Turkey for four years and then served as a fellow at the Institute of Current World Affairs, paid a visit to Turkey in March 1953. The purpose of the mission, as explained to Walter Rogers, director of the Institute of Current World Affairs, was to investigate the feasibility of a proposal for the establishment of a School of Business Administration in Turkey.28 Before moving to Turkey, they consulted UN representatives, US agencies and the World Bank about the current needs of Turkey.29 Fox and Robinson met scholars, leading businessmen and American officials working in Turkey to discuss available facilities, curriculum development and possible institutional arrangements.30 At the end of this trip, they prepared a report recommending the foundation of an Institute of Business Administration at the University of Istanbul.

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

89

They underlined that the new economic policy of the Democrat Party government supported private industry, after long years of a state-driven model, and Turkey would need talented professionals who could help increase the efficiency of private enterprises.31 The report pointed out that Turkey already got aid from the United States Mutual Security Administration, but it would be good to train a number of selected Turks in the United States in the field of business administration.32 The University of Harvard would act as a partner institution for the project and agreed to host the director, assistant director and five faculty members from Istanbul University for training. It would also offer assistance in research techniques, teaching methods, and library services and would provide a general review of the process.33 In almost the same year the Ford Foundation developed a new scheme of grants for the development of business education in the United States. As previously discussed, in his evaluation, Thomas Carroll, President of the Harvard Business School Association and vice-president of the Ford Foundation, explained that the Ford Foundation’s involvement in business education was a result of the gradual expansion of business schools.34 There was a lack of trained personnel and the Ford Foundation initiated serious reform to “raise the academic respectability of business education, reorient higher education in business to serve the needs of American management and achieve a greater efficiency in the use of educational opportunities”.35 The initial plan was to establish “centers of excellence” and Harvard Business School received nearly five million dollars from the Ford Foundation, becoming the best institution of education in business administration.36 Kenneth Iverson, the Ford Foundation Near East Representative, who enthusiastically supported the Fox-Robinson report, proposed a Foundation contribution of $256,000 over a period of three to four years.37 He was pleased that the Rector of the University of Istanbul was very much interested in working out a joint project with the Ford Foundation and asked the Dean of the Faculty of Economics to draft a plan for the Institute.38 In his meetings with several other prominent scholars and businessmen in Turkey, Iverson got the impression that such an Institute in the field of business administration in association with an American organisation was highly appreciated.39 He also discussed the project with Marshall Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary of

90

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Commerce and Herbert Cummings, Department of Commerce, and both were happy to see: . . . the Ford Foundation would support the Turks in the development of concepts and materials which could be used to interest foreign investors, primarily American investors, in Turkey.40 Marshall Smith urged that such help would be better from the Ford Foundation rather than the United States government, which could draw criticism, and suggested that further talks on the project could be held with certain Turkish businessman and Fuad Ko¨pru¨lu¨, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.41 The project was first approved by the Ford Foundation Programme Committee in November 1953. Shortly after that, the Senate of the University of Istanbul approved the plan and the Ministry of Education gave official permission for the opening of the Institute of Business Administration.42 The Institute would provide basic education in management for those aiming to pursue a career in business; it offered a one-year graduate programme and middle management courses of three months for working in the state and private sector. The Board of Directors was composed of prominent scholars and businessmen of the time: Professor Sabri U¨lgener, Nejat ¨ mer Celal Sarc, Eczacıbas¸ı, Professor Hazım Atıf Kuyucak, Professor O Professor Robert Stone, Professor Orhan Tuna, Bu¨lent Yazıcı and Nezih Neyzi.43 It took a while to decide whether to find a Turkish or American director for the Institute and finally Professor Celal Sarc, who had helped the American team with the project, was appointed as director in 1954.44 Professor Robert Stone, who was teaching at the University of Istanbul under the Ford Foundation programme, was appointed as the co-director of the Institute. The Turkish business elite put a lot of effort into the establishment of the Institute. Nejat Eczacıbas¸ı, a pioneering businessman in the field of health products, and Vehbi Koc, the owner of the biggest industrial manufacturing company, sought to promote the necessity of such an institute among Turkish businessmen. Eczacıbas¸ı contended that with the expansion of the private sector Turkish companies would need qualified managers who could do a better job than company founders.

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

91

In the early 1950s there was a serious shortage of professional personnel in business management and along with State Investment Finance the Institute of Business Administration served as the only source to provide trained human resources.45 Turkish manufacturing industry was in a state of transition after the first generation of businessmen were stepping down to be replaced by their family members, but according to Eczacıbasi most company founders found it useless to employ professional managers. Criticising this tendency Eczacıbasi argued rational management in a company should be based on specialised professionalisation so as to avoid unpredictable failures in different realms of investment.46 Another prominent advocate of the Institute was Bu¨lent Yazıcı, a Robert College graduate and the head of the Turkish Industrial Development Bank, favoured transition of family-run companies to professional management. Nezih Neyzi, another Robert College graduate who had completed his PhD in Management at Harvard Business School of Administration, pointed to the transition of the Turkish economy from a “closed” system to an open-market and held that companies would henceforth need a rational organisation so as to distribute their produce in domestic and foreign markets in the most efficient way.47 An official paper of the Institute likewise drew attention to the increasingly complicated process of management in modern companies, insisting that middle-rank managers would be able to handle it if they received training in relevant fields.48 The Institute’s intention to train managers and carry out research on “business management” to deal with the basic problems of management in Turkey were outlined.49 As a result of these efforts, more than 70 companies registered with the Institute of Business Administration and started to pay an annual membership fee for teaching and other expenses. The General Board, which would elect the Board of Trustees, was composed of those members chosen by the registered companies.50 Nejat Eczacıbas¸ı, Bu¨lent Yazıcı and Nezih Neyzi were among the Institute’s Board of Trustees. Companies started to send their young and promising managers to the school and in 1956 more than 30 students were enrolled with the Institute of Business Administration.51 The next step was to select a group of Turkish scholars and businessmen to send to the United States for a training programme run under the control of the Harvard School of Business Administration. The

92

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

first group was composed of Ali S¸akir Ag˘anog˘lu, Mu¨kerrem Hic, Zeyyat Hatibog˘lu, Nezih Neyzi and Afife Sayın, while Professor Robert Stone, James Hagler and George Husband were the American partners of the group.52 They were expected to acquire familiarity with the latest teaching material and to set out a plan for the Institute’s Management Programme to meet Turkey’s changing needs.53 It seems these exchanges were not in vain as Sabri U¨lgener, the Director of the Institute, praised the application of the “case study” at Harvard as a new method of teaching that would bring a fresh understanding to the teaching of business management. He expressed his satisfaction with the introduction of the same method at the Institute and hoped that it would serve as a model for other Near Eastern countries.54 Professor Robert Stone was likewise content with the start of management courses in Turkey soon after they had been introduced in the United States.55 The Ford Foundation officers and Istanbul University staff often consulted with Rockefeller Foundation representatives over the development of the Institute. In a letter he wrote to Norman Buchanan, the head of the Social Sciences Division at the Rockefeller Foundation, Robert Stone gave a brief summary of the Institute, and praised the merits of a 13-week programme designed for young Turkish businessmen. Students would come from all over the country, be asked to live in dorms to attend the whole programme and receive financial support from their companies. According to Stone, this programme turned things on their heads in terms of educational exchange, as Turks had long been willing to leave their countries to study abroad but only rarely chose to attend a school in Turkey for advanced education.56 On the other hand, soon after the opening of the Institute, basic administrative problems occurred between the Turkish and American partners. The director, his assistant and Turkish scholars involved in the programme received frequent criticism over their lack of “administrative skills” and “cooperative spirit”.57 The Turkish side were likewise not happy with the commitment of their American counterparts to the project; the Harvard School of Business Administration was already under fire due to their delay in sending their faculty staff to Turkey.58 Another major problem was the lack of connection between the Institute and industry, in contrast to what had been envisioned, and the businessmen raised serious objections. The Institute did not produce any

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

93

practical solution for urgent problems industrialists encountered and failed to offer the guidance businessmen needed, Bu¨lent Yazıcı and Hazım Atıf Kuyucak complained.59 Similar to Robert Kerwin’s criticism over the lack of liaison between the university and industry in the field of science, Yazıcı and Kuyucak were not happy with the lack of field research and the scholars’ inability to tackle contemporary problems.60 It is understood that soon after this cooperation Istanbul University staff contacted Rockefeller Foundation officers as well. When Sabri Ulgener visited the United States to observe the work of Harvard School of Business Administration, he met John Marshall and Norman Buchanan to discuss possible research grants for Turkish scholars to allow them to visit archives in the Middle East, and also asked that certain American scholars be sent so as to stimulate research at the faculty.61 So too Robert Kerwin, then US Cultural affairs officer, was ¨ lgener for a seminar project on the economics of approached by U underdeveloped countries and Kerwin forwarded this request to John Marshall. Marshall found it an appealing plan to invite foreign scholars and was willing to incorporate Robert College in the ¨ lgener wanted to confine it to the University programme, but it seems U of Istanbul. Shortly after this dialogue Buchanan paid a visit to Turkey and observed an increasing scientific interest among scholarly elites in Turkey, particularly with regards to the question of economic development. He found it useful advice to bring Western scholars together with their Turkish colleagues so that Turkish scholars could increase their familiarity with new trends in research in the West.62 A total of seven to eight lecturers could be invited successively to spend ten days at Istanbul and Ankara universities. Eventually Buchanan supported the project as a preliminary step to engage in advanced research and the Rockefeller Foundation approved an amount of $4,500 in August 1956 to support seminars by “distinguished European and American economists” at Istanbul and Ankara Universities for a period ending in July 1957.63 These lecturers were: Ragnar Nurkse, Pasquale Saracenc, Sauvy, Carl Iversen, Habakkuk, Iversen and B. Lary. In a letter he sent to Norman Buchanan, Turhan Feyziog˘lu, then Dean of the Political Science Faculty at Ankara University, proposed that these lectures should be published by both universities.64

94

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

The Rockefeller Foundation received another request from Duncan Ballantine concerning the development of a Business Administration Faculty at Robert College.65 In the application proposal, Ballantine referred to the achievement of the Engineering School, again pointing to its notable graduates in engineering and architecture. The Commerce Department was no less important than this as it helped train competent people in banking, industry and commerce to fuel economic progress in Turkey.66 Ballantine contended that Turkey was still a developing country, private enterprise started to take a larger share in industrial development and there was a growing need for trained men in the fields of financial administration, communication, personal relations, marketing and merchandising. Recognising this need, the Ministry of Education approved the College’s application for the opening of a new School of Business and Economics.67 Robert College would offer training in light of the country’s needs for future leadership in business administration, technical knowledge and professional qualities. The curriculum would include a good offering of courses in science, mathematics and statistics to help them gain a background in the scientific approach in business life.68 It would offer four majors in General Business Administration, Industrial Administration, Public Administration and Economics. Students would be ready to work as executive directors in industrial and mercantile, banking, advertising, accounting, insuring, finance and civic administration, technical knowledge they would be provided with as well as an understanding of current regulations in Turkey.69 Despite all these efforts, however, it seems that the Rockefeller Foundation did not make a grant for this project. Robert Kerwin’s tenure in the Foundation started in 1963. He was responsible in Istanbul and largely dealt with the IBA and non-profit organisations. Kerwin had a long career in Turkey, first taking part in the World Bank Economic Survey mission in 1950– 1951, and then working at the US Information Office. He helped the Foundation’s survey mission in Turkey and assisted John Fox and Richard Robinson in the development of early Foundation plans for Turkey.70 Later on, he worked in different capacities in the Ford Foundation, taught at Dartmouth College and Bogazici University, and took part in other projects abroad.71 Of course, this helped him in forming a close

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

95

association with Turkish businessmen and elites, just as Northrop did within university and science circles, and in working out collective projects. During his tenure, the Ford Foundation supported the Turkish Management Development Centre, Economic Development Foundation, Turkish Education Foundation and Management Education Foundation.72 In his lengthy evaluation of the Ford Foundation’s activities in management and business development in Turkey, Robert Kerwin pointed to the different character of the programmes applied in Turkish. Kerwin indicated that in its overseas operations the Ford Foundation normally worked with government agencies and state institutions whereas in Turkey it relied on private organisations and leading members of the Turkish business community, especially after 1960.73 This shift in the Foundation strategy was partly a response to the political and economic crisis of 1960, marked by sharp inflation and heavy external debt, and partly a choice of Eugene Northrop.74 The early projects in the 1950s had been developed in cooperation with the Ministry and university, but in the following years the Foundation shifted its focus to non-profit organisations.75 The Institute of Business Administration educated more than 2,000 people in business management and became a source of inspiration for other business schools in Turkey, Kerwin praised, but there was a problem in the industryacademy connection and a general dissatisfaction among businessmen with the Institute’s lack of contribution to the practical field.76 Eugene Northrop was a pro-business person, closely followed the IBA grants, and had a close relationship with businessmen in Turkey. He was the man behind the establishment of the Economic and Social Studies Board in 1961 and supported the Turkish Management Association.77 The Board intended to stimulate discussion in the field of business and development, organised seminars and conferences addressing the issues of industrial investment, growth in planned economies and social aspects of economic development.78 The first conference organised by the ESSCB on capital formation in industrial development took place in 1962, and was attended by leading businessmen, bureaucrats and politicians, including the Prime Minister of the time.79 From then the ESSCB held annual conferences, and papers written for seminars were distributed to those interested bureaucrats and businessmen.80 The Ford Foundation released nearly $80,000 between 1962 and 1965 for the

96

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

activities of the ESSCB and a serious donation from private businessmen helped the Board extend its outreach.81 In 1962, another initiative was launched and the Turkish Management Association was founded by a group of prominent businessmen. Small and medium industrial companies had been developing in Turkey but university scholars were not able to offer practical assistance for these firms. The Turkish Management Association intended to provide guidance in management, especially for these small and medium sized companies.82 As a first step, the Ford Foundation awarded a travel grant for seven board members of the TMA to attend the International Council for Scientific Management in the United States in 1963.83 Another grant made it possible for the TMA board members and director Kerwin to pay a visit to Europe to observe management training organisations in Europe.84 The Turkish Management Association conducted extensive research to determine the urgent needs of management in Turkey and the level of management training at Turkish universities.85 These visits and this survey sparked a new idea of founding another organisation, a Management Development Centre, which would be supported by the government and private sector. The Management Development Centre would offer a consultancy service and training for medium-sized companies under the scheme of “training for management development on the job”. Nearly 40 people worked for the organisation giving basic training in management for more than 9,000 people, including state officers.86 Aware that the Turkish people were not used to attend courses at a university, the TMDC offered courses during their working hours.87 Between 1965 and 1971 the Ford Foundation donated more than $900,000 to the TMA and TMDC.88 For another project, a group of experts from a British Company and the OECD visited Turkey and held interviews with ministers, bureaucrats, bank managers, industrialists and manufacturers.89 The survey indicated that the proliferation of small, “uneconomic enterprises” was hindering the development of business in Turkey and most managers lacked knowledge of investment planning, project management and the courage to run business in new sectors.90 The experts suggested that a specific organisation to give consultancy in development planning would answer this need and the Turkish Management Association decided to launch the Economic Development Foundation in 1966.91

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

97

The Economic Development Foundation would focus on the private sector’s role in Turkey’s association with the European Economic Community and Common Market membership.92 Along with the Ford Foundation grants a significant donation from the Members of Istanbul Chambers helped the EDF continue its services.93 The latest of these organisations was the Management Education Foundation, founded in 1967, which drew inspiration from the Industry-University Foundation of Belgium. The Management Education Foundation’s Board of Directors were selected from businessmen and focused on the improvement of management education at business schools in Turkey.94 It helped PhD students get training abroad and established a fund to increase the salaries of management teachers in Turkey. The Ford Foundation grant to the MEF made it possible for the MEF Board to visit business schools in the United States.95 Robert Kerwin found it noteworthy that the Turkish government allowed an NGO to run these activities and offered partnership in various fields.96 The Ministry of Education, for example, run managerial courses under the Turkish Management Association for industrial school teachers and Turkish workers returning from Germany.97 Yet Kerwin underlined the fact that these organisations were often led by ambitious individuals; Nejat Eczacıbas¸ı, for example, was the Chairman of the Board of the Economic and Social Studies Conference Board, and acted in various other capacities in the TMA and MEF. S¸ahap Karatopcu was the chairman of the TMA and Behcet Osmanoglu, President of the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce, served as the chairman of the EDF. Vehbi Koc was the chairman of the TEF since it was first established.98 Aside from their leadership there were only a few young businessmen involved in these initiatives, partly because of the fact that many able managers were still working in state companies. Kerwin also noted that senior businessmen in Turkey attained their standing at a young age and would be likely to maintain these positions for a long time.99 On the other hand, the Foundation was encouraged by the generosity of Turkish businessmen towards “non-profit” organisations, especially the contribution they made to Ford-sponsored initiatives, and aimed to increase the share of private donations. In this way, businessmen became more involved in the organisational processes and worked out more efficient projects. In terms of funding, the Ford Foundation enjoyed the backing of other US agencies

98

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

such as the US Special Fund and the Agency for International Development, who committed nearly $1,000,000 for Ford-sponsored associations.100 AID, likewise, awarded grants for the improvement of business education and supported the Turkish Management Association and the Management Development Centre.101 In general there was a great deal of appreciation among Turkish industrialists towards the Ford Foundation’s contribution to managerial education and business administration in Turkey between 1952 and 1971.102 These programmes gave training to a significant number of talented managers and professionals and helped Turkish companies to employ these staff. The Foundation’s productive cooperation with leading business elites stood as an exemplary achievement for other overseas programmes as well. As mentioned, in most of the Foundation’s overseas operations, working with governments had been prioritised, but thanks to Eugene Northrop’s pro-business attitude especially, in Turkey the Ford Foundation established solid connections with private capital.103 In a different fashion from other Foundation programmes Northrop was able to build an area of operation independent of “any direction” from the Turkish government.104 In the fields of business development and managerial education, the appointment of Robert Kerwin as the head of the Istanbul office testified Northrop’s strategy and priorities.105 Another Foundation strategy was the continuity and succession of supplements, releasing small grants so as to observe development, change or revise priorities and negotiate through the processes. There were seven grants awarded for the Turkish Management Development Centre, six grants for the Economic and Social Studies Conference Board, and four grants for the Institute of Business Administration.106 Yet in 1970 the Ford Foundation decided to phase out its activities in Turkey, mainly because of its changing geographical priorities. The Foundation officers, it seemed, became convinced that Turkey had reached a level of development, and that those people and institutions they had helped so far could carry on with activities.107

The Rockefeller Foundation and Social Sciences in Turkey Before 1950 Rockefeller Foundation activities in Turkey in the field of social sciences were limited to a small number of research grants and

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

99

individual fellowships. One of the earliest Rockefeller fellows in social sciences was Hazım Atıf Kuyucak, a Robert College graduate, then legal adviser to Standard Oil and MP in the 1940s.108 In later years Kuyucak became a professor of economics at the University of Istanbul and a contact person for the Foundation officers visiting Turkey.109 Another prominent social sciences fellow of the Foundation was Kasım Gu¨lek, who became the youngest minister in cabinet in the late 1940s and later became general secretary of the Republican People’s Party. Gulek was likewise highly regarded by John Marshall and other Foundation officers, and acted in a consultant role regarding various Foundation activities in Turkey.110 In a letter he wrote to Raymond Fosdick in 1948, upon the visit of George Strode, Director of IHD, to Turkey, Gulek asked the Rockefeller Foundation to extend its scholarship opportunities for social scientists in Turkey.111 After John Marshall paid his initial visit to Turkey, Foundation activities in the field of social sciences started ¨ lken, to proliferate. In 1951 Marshall was approached by Hilmi Ziya U Professor of Sociology at the University of Istanbul, who expressed his desire to study immigration, pointing to the coming of thousands of refugees of Turkish origin from Bulgaria. Ulken had recently worked at the Scientific Social Survey and Research and prepared a report with some other leading social scientists of the time such as Herbert Klumer, Mumtaz Turhan, Cahit Tanyol and Fahrunnisa Acar.112 Ulken pointed out that Turkey has an impressive history of immigration along with its well-known recruitment of man-power, and it would be significant to learn more about the patterns of settlement of those migrants from the Russian-Turkish War of 1876, the Balkan Wars and Greece-Turkish population exchange. It seems Marshall was fairly satisfied with Ulken’s proposal and thought that his work might be of universal interest as well as having a direct bearing on “wise planning” for Turkey.113 Another notable Foundation fellow was Professor Alexander Rustow, who taught at the University of Istanbul after leaving Germany because of Nazi policies, being granted a visiting fellowship to teach at the University of Heidelberg, one of the German universities the Rockefeller Foundation had previously supported. This grant also gave $6,000 to allow him to stay at the New School of Social Research for two years under the “former refugee scholar” programme.114 Another fellowship was awarded to Hıfzı Timur, one of the influential members of the law

100

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

faculty at the University of Istanbul, to study in the Turkish Studies Centre at Columbia University. Timur gave courses on recent developments in Turkey and was surprised to see general ignorance of university students about Turkey.115 Timur also wanted to visit some other universities to learn about university operations so that he could offer help in this field on his return. Marshall advised him to visit MidWestern universities such as Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, which would be more helpful in terms of comparing with the organisational patterns of Istanbul University.116 Following these individual fellowships, Foundation officers considered it more feasible to draw a general framework for its future funding schemes in Turkey in the field of social sciences and humanities. To this end, the Foundation sponsored a conference to hear from leading scholars and bureaucrats about the urgent needs of the country and possible areas of cooperation in Turkey.117 The Turkish American Association initiated the Yalova Conference; among the participants ¨ mer Lu¨tfu¨ Barkan, Hikmet Bayur, Fahri were: Ekrem Akurgal, O Fındıkog˘lu, Afet I˙nan, Mehmet Kaplan, Enver Ziya Karal, Fadıl Hakkı ¨ lgener, Hilmi Ziya U ¨ lken, Hıfzı Veldet Sur, Mu¨mtaz Turhan, Sabri U Velidedeog˘lu, Aydın Yalcın, Ahmet Emin Yalman, Lewis Thomas (Princeton University), Albert Gabriel (College de France), O¨mer Celal Sarc, Hasan Refik Ertuc, Robert Kerwin, Osman Okyar and David Garwood.118 The results of the conference would be distributed to universities, scholars and research centres in the United States. In his opening speech, Omer Celal Sarc pointed out that there was an increasing interest in the United States in the Near East, and in particular in Turkey. Yet he noted that this was not only derived from the intensifying partnership between Turkey and the United States in the fields of economic and military operations, but also came from genuine efforts to gain a better understanding of the “Cultural Revolution” in Turkey. According to Sarc, the “Turkish Revolution” was a unique achievement, bringing about a transformation from traditional social patterns to a total adaptation of Western civilisation, whereas other underdeveloped countries were still in “a state of hesitation” as to how to deal with this social change.119 Sarc called for deeper scientific research of the success, problems and results of this “revolution”.120 Other participants had their own priorities in study and research;

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

101

Mehmet Kaplan stressed the importance of research on sources of resistance in Turkish villages towards Republican reforms, while Aydın Yalcın pointed to the centrality of religious and social beliefs in villages. Yalcın also raised the question of urbanisation in big cities and the characteristics of those attending Mosque services in large cities. Ziyeddin Fındıkoglu and Hıfzı Veldet Velidedeog˘lu discussed the effects of laws on Turkish development and Velidedeog˘lu proposed research on Ottoman fetwas. Hikmet Baydur and Ahmet Emin Yalman addressed the importance of secularism and religion, civil law, and the equality of men and women. Afet Inan focused on the role of women in changing social life and Osman Okyar suggested research on oral and written sources regarding the Turkish revolution.121 As can be seen, participants shared a common belief in the achievements of Republican reforms and put emphasis on various aspects of this “Cultural Revolution”.122 They thought this revolution deserved extensive research from different points of view to be understood better as a model of Westernisation for the rest of the Muslim world. It seems, however, that the Yalova Conference was not able to set out a clear research path for the Foundation. In his letter to Aydın Yalcın, Kerwin made the criticism that the Conference “only scratched the surface” and in another letter to Marshall Yalcın he expressed his disappointment, complaining that the Conference did not produce any substantial research projects.123 Marshall stressed that Turkish scholars should learn how to formulate a formal inquiry before applying for a Foundation grant and Robert Kerwin suggested that he educate Turkish scholars in this field.124 Eventually after a meeting with the Research Committee of the Turkish American University Association, John Marshall asked for a list of American and British individuals and institutions to which the report of the Yalova Conference should be sent.125 Soon after the Conference, Aydın Yalcın and Osman Okyar, two promising scholars trained in the West, applied for individual research grants to study the economic development of modern Turkey.126 John Marshall had a high opinion of Osman Okyar, son of Fethi Okyar, former PM and close associate of Mustafa Kemal, and Robert Kerwin was in close contact with Aydın Yalcın, head of the Turkish-American University Association. The Foundation declined to support both projects on the grounds that as a first stage it would be more sensible to

102

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

give limited research fellowships to Okyar and Yalcın rather than awarding long-term research grants.127 In the following years, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to support individual research projects in social sciences, but there was an obvious focus on the question of economic development and the economic structure of Turkey. As an example of this, the Foundation offered a grant of $1,900 to Afife Sayın, from the Institute of Business Administration, to study American labour history and collective bargaining in American development, aiming to cast light on Turkish development.128 A more substantial grant was made for the research by Professor Omer Lu¨tfu¨ Barkan from the Institute of Economic History at the University of Istanbul. Barkan contacted the Rockefeller Foundation for a research grant on the “Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire”.129 Inspired by the works of Professor Fernand Braudel, Barkan undertook an extensive study on the socio-economic history of the Ottoman Empire with the intention of demonstrating similarities between European and Ottoman experiences.130 Many European historians claimed that social troubles in Eastern Europe were a reaction against the Ottoman Turks, but Barkan underscored the fact that similar turbulences took place in the Ottoman Empire as well and the Turkish population in Anatolia were suffering severe economic difficulties.131 His previous works based on the Ottoman archives pointed to a marked decline in the number of the productive population and the increase in the “consumer class” of civil servants.132 It seemed that Barkan’s extensive research in the Ottoman archives impressed the Rockefeller officers aiming to have a stronger understanding of the social and economic structure of the Ottoman Empire.133 He was awarded research grants by the Foundation and extended his research into archives in the Balkans and European capitals.134 A more comprehensive project on the development of the Turkish economy was initiated under the auspices of the University of Ankara. Norman Buchanan paid frequent visits to Ankara University where he met Turhan Feyziog˘lu and Fadıl Hakkı Sur from the Department of Economics and Advisor to the Central Bank of Turkey to discuss various topics. At the end of these visits, Professor Fadıl Hakkı Sur proposed Buchanan turn the Institute of Public Finance at Ankara University into a research centre in the field of economic development to train promising

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

103

government officials.135 Sur thought there was no need for a new Institute to be established, as the current Institute of Public Finance, which had a legal status, could meet this function. The Institute enjoyed the backing of a Board of Trustees composed of high-ranking government officers and run under the directorship of Professor Sur with a group of enthusiastic young scholars.136 As Sur looked to establish formal connections with foreign institutes, Buchanan recommended a travel grant to him and research funding was awarded in 1956 to Sur to allow him to visit social science research institutes in Scandinavia and Western Europe to investigate possible areas of cooperation between the Institute of Public Finance and similar European organisations.137 It seems that no substantial agreement came out of these visits, but the Rockefeller Foundation maintained its interest in the Institute, where previous Rockefeller fellows were employed.138 Buchanan had already urged the faculty to undertake a serious study of economic development in Turkey after 1923.139 When Kenneth Winfred Thompson, the Foundation officer, paid a visit to the Institute in 1959, he learned about an ongoing research project and that the Institute staff was preparing a proposal on this topic. The Institute staff held that economic development in Turkey had its peculiar characteristics differentiating it from the Western and Russian experiences, and that a study exploring the course of development in Turkey would offer a valuable insight to the rest of the region. Pleased with these efforts, Thompson recommended that research would better focus on “something in between planned economy and the free market”.140 The proposal would require arduous empirical work, Sur explained to Thompson, and deal with problems of relevance for the whole “free world”. It would serve as a reference piece for foreign scholars interested in Turkey as there was only limited work available, especially for the post-1945 period.141 The Rockefeller Foundation approved a grant towards the completion of this book project. Professor Sadun Aren, a former Rockefeller fellow, was appointed as the director of research and Nejat Bengu¨l, another Rockefeller fellow, was to be his assistant for three years.142 “A Study of Turkish Economic Experience since the 1920s” would cover from 1923 onwards, dividing it into two sections, covering 1923–1948 and post-1948 respectively. Many of the people involved in the making of economic policies in these periods were still alive, and

104

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

this project would allow their experiences to be heard, as some young Turkish economists knew less about their country “than they knew about the Western states”.143 It was planned that several other young Turkish economists might join Aren and Bengul as the book would include 24 papers in addition to 35 working papers. However, several complications occurred after the study started and the Institute applied to the Ford Foundation for an extension of the grant. Fadıl Hakkı Sur had to leave the Institute as he was among the 147 scholars expelled from universities by the NUC in 1960.144 In one of his visits to Turkey in 1961 Gerald Freund, the Rockefeller Foundation’s representative, met scholars and Eugene Northrop to discuss ongoing projects, and observed a general disappointment with the progress of the “Economic Development Project” and the directorship of Sadun Aren. Aren, on the other hand, complained about the slowness of researchers, claiming that only 11 out of 40 papers were completed.145 Freund was not sure about the extension of the project under this framework and demanded Aren assure the Foundation about his position within the Institute of Public Finance and Economics and responsibilities towards the project.146 A similar project about the economic development of modern Turkey was undertaken in association with Robert College. In a meeting in 1957, Norman Buchanan discussed with Duncan Ballantine and Abraham Hirsch, instructor of economics at Robert College, the possibility of preparing course material in English to teach developing Turkish economy better.147 This idea was turned into a formal proposal and the Rockefeller Foundation released a grant of $10,000 available for the period ending 30 April 1959 intending to “harmonize” the work of Robert College with the “developing local institutions of higher learning”. A number of prominent Turkish economists would be asked to join American economists from Robert College to prepare a volume on Turkish economic development, with special reference to its “past difficulties, achievements, present problems, and those that lie ahead”.148 Such a course book would fill a gap in the Middle East as well. The textbook written in the United States was offering a framework only of little use for Turkish students as they could not benefit from illustrations, data and concepts only relevant for the United States. Just translating an American text into Turkish would not solve

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

105

the problem; Turkish students were, for example, very much interested in the problem of economic development and it would be appropriate to choose it as a core topic for the textbook.149 Students would thus gain a solid understanding of Turkish institutions and problems encountered during the process of economic development in a comparative framework. Such a book would require an ample amount of primary material in Turkish, but also be expected to connect the Turkish experience to the wider literature on economic development. As Buchanan suggested, intellectual and editorial directorship would better rest with the Turkish economists from Istanbul and Ankara universities while the joint advisory committee would assist them with statistics and other data available in agencies, banks and private sources. Eventually the advisory committee was composed of: Osman Okyar, Zeyyat Hatipog˘lu, Res¸at Aktan, Bu¨lent Yazıcı, Sabri Ulgener, Sadun Arel, and Abraham Hirsch.150 Professor Omer Celal Sarc from Istanbul University would act as the Chairman of the committee to supervise the study, and Abraham Hirsch would be responsible for the preparation of the text. It took slightly longer for Abraham Hirsch to write the first draft for various reasons, but the book was finally sent to the committee members for review and published in English to be used as a textbook in 1961.151 This textbook was a good example of what the Rockefeller officers envisioned through Foundation grants in Turkey: to combine local perspectives with the latest currents in Western academia. Eventually they produced a reliable source to understand the nuances of the Turkish economy, its fundamental problems and the experience of economic development in English.152

The Birth of Area Studies The isolationist perspective prevailed among the political elite of the United States until the late 1930s. President Wilson had struggled to convince his colleagues and fellow politicians to enter World War I and even after the end of the War many US politicians were not willing to intervene in European and Near Eastern affairs.153 This culture of isolationism was reflected in bureaucracy and academia. There had been a small number of experts in academia who had specific knowledge in foreign cultures. When the first Rockefeller teams went off to visit the

106

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Far East and the Near East they had to consult with missionary associations rather than university scholars. During the course of World War II American elites started to question this, possibly because the tide of war had turned against the Germans and the great European powers had been almost exhausted. The Rockefeller Foundation acted fast in drawing new lines of operation for its foreign missions. In a report written in 1941, it was stressed that the United States needed competent people who knew local languages to deal with Latin American, Asian and even European affairs.154 It pointed to the ongoing dictionary project sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation to publish technical terms in Japanese with English equivalents.155 In a report written in 1948 David Stevens, director of the Humanities Division, complained of the lack of available experts and informative material in the United States on foreign cultures such as those of Russia, China and Spain. The same report argued that this deficiency in understanding foreign cultures outside Western Europe “weakened” the diplomatic presence and participation of the United States in world affairs.156 Stevens called for institutionalisation in area specialisation and appreciated the steady awakening since 1941 in US universities and colleges, offering courses related to foreign languages and cultures.157 He suggested that the United States had to provide better training in foreign languages for its citizens and train many more “internationally oriented” people, so that it could establish a stronger connection with the rest of world.158 Charles Fahs, who was appointed as the head of the Humanities Division in the Rockefeller Foundation after David Stevens, played a major role in the development of area studies.159 He considered area studies an interdisciplinary field combining humanities and social sciences to foster intercultural understanding.160 In fact, right after the end of World War II area studies started to be established in prominent US universities. An initial grant of $250,000 by the Rockefeller Foundation for the development of the Russian Institute at Columbia University was followed by a similar grant of $740,000 by the Carnegie Foundation to Harvard University for the foundation of the Russian Research Centre.161 The Rockefeller Foundation had long kept an interest in the development of Chinese Studies at Chicago University and seriously increased its grants after 1945. Likewise, the Rockefeller Foundation made a significant grant to Harvard and Stanford universities for the

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

107

development of Slavic Studies.162 Soon after these, the Ford Foundation stepped in to extend the scale and diversity of area studies in the United States. In a report prepared by Carl Spaeth, director of overseas activities in the Ford Foundation, it was suggested that America should increase its knowledge of foreign cultures so that it could influence regional developments more effectively.163 The Ford Foundation divided overseas operations into two complementary lines; it made financial donations to the centres for area studies in the United States and in 1953 launched a new programme for specialisation, the International Training and Research Programme, to train area fellows.164 These area fellows were expected to learn native languages, make publications and take part in governmental positions. In the late 1950s and 1960s, the Foundation made significant grants to elite universities such as Boston, California, Chicago and Harvard, which helped increase the number of PhD students in area studies.165 The Ford Foundation spent nearly $15 million just on the development of Middle Eastern and African Studies and its total grants exceeded $100 million.166 The Foundation also supported the Social Science Research Council as a sub-organisation to support area studies, and overall provided funding for more than 100 area centres out of 191 in the United States.167 Strengthening area studies was not only intended to foster scholarly research. Through several means of communication it would provide the United States “greater control over foreign ideas” and an “ideological defense” against Communism.168 Foreign area fellows were also expected to offer assistance to government agencies and other state institutions in dealing with foreign cultures.169 In his annual review in 1951, Chester Barnard boasted of the success of the Russian Institute at Columbia University in providing the United States Army, the Department of State and other state agencies with more than 100 experts in just five years.170 Plans and projects for the development of area studies relating to Turkey were mostly sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. The Foundation had made a small grant to Princeton University in 1939 for the “development of advanced studies in Turkish history and language”. It seems that the Foundation officers became preoccupied with area studies in Turkey in the 1950s and intended to support local centres. After his initial visit to Turkey John Marshall aimed to encourage Turkish scholars to establish area research centres in Istanbul and

108

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Ankara. During one of his early visits to Turkey, he met Zeki Velidi Togan, prominent historian and Turkologist, to discuss the establishment of a centre for oriental studies.171 In a similar attempt following the Yalova Conference a “Research Committee”, run by Robert Kerwin, was established under the auspices of the Turkish-American University Association. The Turkish American Association had been established thanks to Robert Kerwin’s initiative with the intention of fostering collaboration between Turkish and American scholars. In a letter Kerwin wrote to Aydın Yalcın, he explained that the basic goal of the Committee was to stimulate research on modern Turkey’s present-day cultural and social problems.172 It seems that they focused on the improvement of the quality of Turkish studies in the United States, and to identify available fields of study and scholars interested in Turkish history, Kerwin asked Yalcın to pay a visit to the United States. Thanks to a Rockefeller grant Yalcın visited the Middle East Institute, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Social Science Research Council, the Ford Foundation, the IMF and FOA, and the Universities of Princeton, McGill, Harvard and Columbia. He met directors, various other specialists and bureaucrats interested in Turkey. Yalcın was pleased to hear that Edward Pendleton Herring, the President of the Social Science Research Council, encouraged studies in socio-economic development and cultural change in Turkey. He also learned about Ford Foundation’s long-term goals for the study of the Middle East through research fellowships and university grants.173 During his talks with various professors Yalcın stressed that Turkey should have a larger place in the study of the Middle East. Overall Yalcın felt content with the interest of the American institutions and scholars in the study of Turkey, but found it not specialised enough, especially in terms of modern developments. He thought that modern Turkey, especially the “Turkish Revolution”, deserved special attention, rather than being studied as a continuation of the Ottoman Empire or as part of the wider Middle East.174 According to reports, Yalcın did not visit the Hoover Institute, but soon after his visit John Marshall received a letter from the Institute indicating their interest in the study of the Turkish revolution. In his letter to Marshall, Eleanor Bisbee, a librarian at Hoover, explained that the Hoover Library had a special interest in the study of social revolutions and held a special collection on Turkey, which included some

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

109

unique material not available even in Turkish libraries, even to the extent that it impressed the Turkish President Celal Bayar when he visited the Hoover Institution.175 Aside from the Centre of Turkish Studies at Princeton, there was no other institution for area studies in the United States and the Hoover administration proposed that a new Centre for Turkish Studies should be built on the Western Coast.176 Referring to the Yalova Conference report, Bisbee offered that the Hoover Library could better specialise in the study of modern Turkey and the Turkish revolution so that scholars from Turkey and America could find a place to study Turkish history in the Western part of the United States.177 Available records indicate that the Rockefeller Foundation did not offer a grant for the Hoover Institute to build a new centre,178 but in 1956 a research fellowship was awarded to Dr Tarık Zafer Tunaya, from the University of Istanbul, to study the Turkish revolution at Hoover Institute Library for seven months. John Marshall appreciated the works of Tunaya, and the Rockefeller Foundation had already granted him a research fellowship to visit European countries. In his frequent exchange of letters with John Marshall, Tunaya shared his findings about the history of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey.179 Out of his research at Hoover Library another proposal was developed, and the Institute applied for a Rockefeller grant to host a conference on the Turkish collections available at Hoover for the study of modern Turkey. The Institute was to invite 11 scholars from the United States and Canada to discuss how to best use available collections in the study of Turkish history.180 A final grant was made to Professor Enver Ziya Karal, from the University of Ankara, to study the Turkish revolution at the Hoover Institute. Karal had long had an interest in the study of the Turkish revolution and had been in touch with John Marshall since his work at the University of Istanbul.181 Karal arrived in the United States in 1957 and undertook research at the Hoover Institute for nearly three years in collaboration with Professor Frederick Latimer.182 The development of area studies in Turkey started at a slow pace in the late 1950s. In 1959, Fahir Armaog˘lu, from the University of Ankara, was awarded a scholarship to study contemporary Russian domestic and foreign politics at Columbia, Harvard and Berkeley Universities. In his fellowship application, Armaog˘lu stated that his aim was to improve his Russian and establish a centre for Russian studies at his university.183

110

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Another Rockefeller fellowship of $10,000 was awarded to the University of Ankara to buy books and equipment for the Centre for Soviet Studies, to be run by Professor Ahmet S¸u¨kru¨ Esmer, under the Institute of International Relations.184 A group of Turkish scholars including Seha Maray, Turkkaya Ataso¨v, Guniner Okgun, Ilhan Unat and Mehmet Gonlubol got the approval of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to establish a Centre for Soviet Studies. These scholars wished to meet prominent American Sovietologists to study various aspects of the Soviet Republic.185 However, these efforts to establish a Centre for Soviet Studies did not progress well. During his visit to Turkey in 1961, Gerald Freund met several scholars in Ankara and Istanbul to discuss this project, yet was cautioned about ideological and legal barriers to running such an institute in post-1960 Turkey. For example, Ahmet Emin Yalman, Professor Celal Sarc and Fahir Iz underscored the need for a Soviet Research Centre, yet raised concerns about the ongoing political turbulence in the country.186 The Rockefeller Foundation tried to get the government involved in this project, securing official permission and financial assistance to proceed with the University of Ankara.187 Despite all these steps, the Centre for Soviet Studies could not be opened and the project was suspended.188 In the meantime, a research fellowship was awarded to Professor Akdes Nimet Kurat to carry out research in the United States, France and the United Kingdom on the relations between Turkey and the United States in the early twentieth century. Kurat was an expert on Russian politics, and had been working on Russian politics and Russian-Turkish relations, especially the impact of Russian technical assistance on Turkish development. He also had done some work on the involvement of the Soviet Empire in the third world and its support for nationalist movements taking place in the new states.189 Yet it could be seen that attempts to stimulate Soviet and Russian studies were limited to a few research fellowships and could hardly produce a substantial output. This was partly due to the lack of qualified scholars interested in the study of Russian history and the Soviet Empire, as well as the fact that Foundation officers devoted most of their energies to the development of Turkish studies in the United States. The study of the Middle East in Turkey likewise did not make substantial progress. The most serious Rockefeller sponsored project was

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

111

undertaken in 1955– 1956 by Professor Hıfzı Timur and Dr Osman Okyar, with the intention of building an Institute of Near Eastern Studies. The Rockefeller grant allowed Timur and Okyar to visit Arab countries, particularly American run universities, and meet scholars.190 It was more than a coincidence that in 1953 US Secretary of State Foster Dulles had demanded that Turkey assume a more direct role in Middle Eastern affairs. The establishment of the Baghdad Pact between Turkey and Iraq in 1955 pulled Turkey into regional politics further. Meanwhile the declaration of the Eisenhower Doctrine in 1956 confirmed a strengthening US presence in the Near East. Yet in Turkey there were only a limited number of regional experts, and even the Turkish bureaucrats did not know Arabic. Timur and Okyar’s attempt to build a Near Eastern Institute was a strategic step to close this gap. In their fellowship application it was underlined that contact between Turkish scholars and Arab institutions had been limited after 1923 and this visit would help them to become familiar with recent developments in the institutions of higher education in the Arab world. Before leaving, Timur and Okyar contacted Robert Kerwin to discuss possible contact points to visit and to prepare an itinerary.191 It seems, however, that the visit did not go well, due to technical and personal issues as Timur and Okyar found it difficult to find the right people to talk to.192 At the end of the visit they prepared a brief report summarising their findings; Timur and Okyar stated that Arab countries and Turkey already share a “common cultural and historical heritage”, but Turkey had already made its way towards the path of Westernisation and democratisation, whereas the Arab countries were still struggling with Westernisation. Turkey had had similar problems and its experience could be a model for the Arab world. To this end, they urged that cultural relations between the Middle East and Turkey should be strengthened.193 According to Okyar and Timur, Turkey’s foreign policy choices, especially on the issue of Israel, political apathy towards the Arab world, and the fact that Arab countries did not understand well the nature of Kemalist reforms in Turkey, were serious obstacles in developing cooperation.194 In the field of education, the level of universities was still weak in both regions and there was a serious language barrier in scholarship. On the other hand, practicing a common religion, the widespread use of the Turkish language among people, and the sympathy towards Turkey due to its

112

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

achievements during the War of Independence, would contribute to a closer relationship.195 Exchange of scholars, and teaching of Turkish and Arabic, would strengthen cultural relations between Turkey and Arab countries. Most importantly, Timur and Okyar stressed, studies in the Ottoman archives should be stimulated to discover the social and political histories of the former Ottoman lands.196 Actually just a year before this visit, Robert Kerwin had shared the details of another project asking an American university, the School of Advanced International Studies at John Hopkins University, to provide a training programme for Turkish and Middle Eastern students. In the same letter, Kerwin mentioned the possibility of building a research Centre under the auspices of Robert College.197 Soon after this, a proposal was prepared for the establishment of a Middle East Research Centre in Istanbul in conjunction with the Institute of International Law of Istanbul University. Nevertheless, political developments in Syria caused the Turkish government to fall out with its neighbour, followed by souring relations with Egypt. The dethronement of King Faisal II in Iraq in 1958 as a result of the military coup ended Turkey’s limited connection with the region.198 According to Foundation records, Timur and Okyar’s project did not proceed well after 1956 and did not bring about anything of consequence. It is likely that this change in political conditions discouraged scholars and Foundation staff, as no other project relating to the Near Eastern studies in Turkey materialised after 1956. Finally, John Marshall had the intention of establishing a chair for American Studies in Turkey and put a lot of effort into promoting studies in the field of American history and culture. It seems at first Marshall picked Robert College as the host institution for the American Studies Centre and Kerwin suggested the appointment of a Turkish director, chosen from the qualified Turkish faculty staff from the Department of English at Istanbul University.199 Then Marshall considered proceeding with another option, as the Faculty of Letters at the Istanbul University decided to have a chair for American literature.200 Neither of these projects, however, materialised. Another opportunity arose at the University of Ankara to appoint two professors in the field of American literature and history. In 1953 a grant of $21,000 was awarded by the Rockefeller Foundation to the University of Ankara to enable these professors to teach until 1955.201 Professor

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

113

Robert Hamilton Ball in the field of literature and Professor Mack Buckley Swearingen, who taught history, served at Ankara University for nearly two years. They helped establish American history and American literature as regular courses at Ankara University, and the administration proposed the establishment of permanent professorships in both fields. Yet there were no qualified Turkish scholars to take up this post and the Foundation was asked to provide financial assistance for two more years for foreign professors to teach at Ankara University.202 A similar grant was awarded to the University of Istanbul to host American professors in American literature. In 1953– 54 Dr Howard Key spent a year in Istanbul as a visiting professor.203 A year later the Foundation awarded Professor Robert Kelly a fellowship to teach at Istanbul University as a visiting lecturer in American literature.204 In the fellowship application it was stressed that despite close relations between the United States and Turkey, in academia there was only little interest among Turkish intellectuals in the United States in comparison with European or Russian studies. These grants were thus expected to stimulate interest in Turkey towards the study of American history and culture.205 In the 1950s and early 1960s numerous research fellowships in various different fields of social sciences were awarded for university scholars. Dr Yılmaz Altug˘, from the University of Istanbul, was given a fellowship by the Foundation in 1960–1961 to study in the United States to structure a lecture and seminar on the “diplomatic history of Turkey” with Professor Jacob Coleman Hurewitz.206 In his proposal, Altug˘ explained that his aim was to carry out research on the political history of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey in order to introduce a lecture course and seminar in the field of diplomatic history. To Altug˘ such a course would “fill a serious gap” in the university curriculum.207 ¨ zbudun, from the University of Ankara, was given a Dr Ergun O fellowship to explore “party systems and the function opposition” of different countries at Harvard University in 1963. In his proposal Ozbudun underscored the importance of opposition parties in Western democracies and explained his intention to write a book on the Turkish experience.” 208 Dr Suna Kili, who taught at Robert College, was given a fellowship in 1962 to explore the influence of Western Political Ideas on Turkey and proposed to study Westernisation after 1923, especially the

114

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

impact of the views of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Voltaire in Turkey. In his proposal, Kili gave a brief summary of her views on Republican reforms, contending that old Islamic institutions and Western institutions had existed together until 1923, but after that Western institutions took over the old ones. During the Republican period the “modernist” camp won the competition against the “traditionalist/conservative groups”, she argued, as conservatives were “intellectually” not able to compete with the others.209 Another fellowship grant was awarded to Mete Tuncay, then a young fellow from the University of Ankara, who would study political theory and British socialism at LSE.210 Dr Arif Payas¸lıog˘lu, from the University of Ankara, was given a fellowship in 1958 to “study methodology in social sciences” at Columbia University. He visited several other centres of learning in the United States, and met leading scholars of the time such as Daniel Lerner, who studied modernisation theory. Payas¸lıog˘lu was asked to develop a new curriculum for research methodology at the University of Ankara with Professor Herbert Hyman, who had already been invited by the faculty within the ICA technical assistance programme to help prepare courses and lectures. This course had actually been introduced in 1954 but there was a lack of textbooks, teaching material and instructors. Students of the faculty would assume positions in government agencies and bureaucracy, and be expected to develop scientific thinking in dealing with social problems.211 Another notable social sciences fellow was Deniz Baykal, then assistant at Ankara University Political Science Department, who went to Columbia University to study developing countries.212 In his fellowship application Baykal discussed his intention to study the theories of elites and the role of leading elites in the Republican People’s Party.213 Finally, in 1963 the Rockefeller Foundation approved a grant of $350,000 towards the training of Turkish personnel for the faculty of Robert College and the American College of Girls. The programme would include 15 fellowships for four or five years for Turkish graduate students.214 President Ballantine wanted to improve the quality of teaching staff at Robert College and proposed a programme allowing Turkish candidates to spend three years in the United States to take doctorates. They could also be of help to institutions of higher education in Turkey and “exercise leadership” in Turkish education. Ballantine

THE AGE OF EXPERTS

115

observed that finding competent American staff to work at Robert College would become more difficult and therefore there would be a greater need for qualified Turkish faculty.215 In his proposal to the Rockefeller Foundation he wrote that there was a serious shortage in Turkey of trained personnel for higher education but also “a large untouched reserve of talent” that could be encouraged to choose to become academics. Robert College, according to Ballantine, could take a leading role in this mission.216 Robert College could no longer proceed under the leadership of “imported” people, and needed local staff trained in English who could preserve its “Western” and “liberal” spirit. Students selected in social sciences, history and literature could run a bi-cultural approach in these courses, as in Turkey there was a dire need for humanists and social scientists trained in Western methods.217 John Marshall and Norman Buchanan talked to various people in Istanbul to hear their opinions on such a project and predominantly received encouraging feedback. Moreover, the project enjoyed the backing of Kadri Yorukoglu, who helped the Rockefeller and Robert College staff overcome bureaucratic difficulties.218 The Foundation and College officers eventually decided to proceed with the project, but they found it difficult to find eligible candidates with a strong command of English. After a careful process of selection, the first group of scholars was sent to the United States and the United Kingdom to attend PhD programmes at prestigious universities such as Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge and MIT.219 Along with the Rockefeller grants, Turkish universities and scholars benefited from ICA contracted exchange programmes to improve the quality of teaching and research in social sciences. An agreement was signed in 1954 for a three-year programme between New York University and Ankara University under the ICA contract. New York University was to assist Ankara University in the development of the curriculum, teaching materials, teaching methods and research tools so as to help Ankara University offer better training for “future public servants” and “those in government services” in Turkey.220 In the programme report it was noted that Turkey had made some significant progress in modern agriculture and industrial production whereas its government bureaucracy could not match this improvement.221 Several scholars from the University of Ankara were sent to the United States for research to study different fields in social sciences and American scholars came to Turkey to

116

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

teach at Ankara.222 Bedri Gu¨rsoy, Dean of the Faculty of Political Science at Ankara University, was among Ankara University staff who spent a year in the United States under this programme.223 Aside from the ICA sponsorship, as discussed in previous chapters, the Ford Foundation supported a specific programme for the development of social sciences and population studies at Hacettepe University. The Ford Foundation had previously made awards to a number of area fellows to study Turkish history and society in the 1950s; among these fellows were Robert Kerwin, Howard Reed, Huey Kostanick and Nicholas Helburn.224 From 1950 onwards, Turkish business elites and politicians favoured professionalisation in business management as a part of Turkey’s transition to a liberal economy. A new code of business ethics was promoted through Foundation sponsored management associations and university programmes. Increasing investment in social sciences and development programmes complemented this changing conception of business life and society. American experts helped formulate a framework in management making it possible for Turkish economic development to proceed along the lines of western norms. Studies in social sciences were also useful for providing Americans and other Westerners a better understanding of socio-political characteristics of the Republican Turkey and its quest for Westernisation. In the context of the ideological polarisation of the Cold War, US elites sought to understand Turkey’s transition to Republicanism and democracy, which could be a model for the rest of the Near Eastern countries. As a non-Western country Turkey adapted modern values, upheld rational sciences and chose to remain in the liberal-Western bloc. Area fellowships in Turkey and in the United States facilitated this integration in different fields, so that scholars in both countries were given an opportunity to learn about the other context.

CHAPTER 4 HUMANITIES AND WESTERNISATION

The Humanities Division of the Rockefeller Foundation was established long after the foundation of the Divisions of Medicine and Social Sciences. The General Education Board, founded in 1902, was primarily concerned with the advancement of education within the United States, and the Foundation decided to re-organise it in 1928.1 Some board members demanded a more direct involvement with humanities and as a result of these discussions the Humanities Division was established as an independent department within the Rockefeller Foundation.2 David Stevens, formerly the Dean of the College of Arts, Literature and Science at the University of Chicago, and a member of the General Education Board since 1929, was appointed as its first full-time director in 1932.3 The General Education Board had made significant grants for the maintenance of liberal arts colleges in the United States and in its early years the Humanities Division, in collaboration with the American Council of Learned Societies, funded several projects for the teaching of American culture and history.4 In a report he submitted in the 1940s, Stevens explained that the purpose of the Humanities Division was to: “help all humanists get the material needed in their work, and to make humane learning and creative expression useful to a general public”.5 In line with these reflections, the Humanities Division launched a programme to enhance “international understanding” and under this framework gave support to US universities in the development of

118

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

language teaching, studies in foreign cultures, publications and research. Most of the dictionaries in foreign languages published in the United States during this period were sponsored either by the Rockefeller Foundation or by the ACLS. It was intended to help scholars and students produce new sources in English on Russian, Chinese, Latin American or Near Eastern cultures.6 According to Stevens, libraries were “a resource for accumulated knowledge” and crucial in the transmission of humanistic knowledge. The division set out a long-term programme for the development of library infrastructure, techniques and capacities within and outside the United States. The introduction of microfilm technology was largely made possible thanks to Rockefeller funding. Microfilms were “the most unusual source that we were able to put into the library service”, Stevens praised, as this technology would provide a vast amount of resources for humanists.7 The Humanities Division funded the development of several European libraries as well, especially during and after World War II to provide “better understanding of human history”.8 In his discussion on the Foundation’s mission in the humanities, Steven quoted a story Francis Bacon narrates in his New Atlantis, where delegations have had to stay at least 12 years abroad for the acquisition of necessary knowledge in understanding and invention.9 Stevens contended that thanks to Rockefeller grants humanists would only need to spend “twelve months away” for a field study “even in a country that is ‘terra incognitia’ to the study of humanities in the United States”.10 The scale of destruction during World War II stirred a new exploration within the Foundation as to the role of the humanities in the hierarchy of sciences. Raymond Fosdick in a letter he wrote to Chester Barnard, his successor at the Foundation, asked: “is the ultimate gift of the natural sciences to man universal destruction?” and added: “we cannot save ourselves without aesthetic and moral standards . . . at last the Rockefeller Foundation is beginning to realize what the humanities can do for men”.11 In his review, Barnard questioned the “advancement of knowledge” and how far it would be useful for the human being, calling for a more “refined” knowledge in understanding human behaviour.12 Stevens shared similar concerns with the Presidents and expressed the opinion that the humanities had necessary tools to deal

HUMANITIES

AND

WESTERNISATION

119

with advancement in technological knowledge that would otherwise be a potential threat for the destruction of “civilization”: the reach of humanities should be as great as the sciences in discovery or in application of knowledge . . . thanks to those expelled scholars brought to the US mankind could stand against “war” and “barbarism”.13 During this period the Foundation took steps to rejuvenate the study of the humanities in the United States and abroad. Even in a Foundation report written during the War it was suggested that humanistic studies should be reorganised to enhance liberal values in education. The study of history would have a central role as it “would offer techniques of operation rather than a body of knowledge”.14 Another report underscored the importance of humane values and the role of history, philosophy and arts for an individual to “create, restructure and integrate” these values. It called for Foundation aids to foster the “creative activity” of each individual.15 Stevens held that the Rockefeller Foundation should expand its support for institutions abroad and as a first step launched projects in collaboration with the relevant institutions in Western Europe.16 The “International understanding” scheme under the division offered programmes similar to that of the Division of Social Sciences, but it was confined to support humanistic subjects. He was aware of the fact that the Humanities Division lacked competent staff trained in the humanities to deal with its expanding operations. The Foundation supports would also involve the study of geography, history and literature in any particular region. In a report he wrote in the late 1940s Stevens discussed possible regional areas of interest and urged young humanists to shift their attention towards the Near East, which had been one of “the most neglected areas of study” in the United States.17 The Ford Foundation did not show an interest in the field of humanities in general. As an exception, it funded a couple of dictionary projects and tried to improve the quality of English teaching.18 During the METU project, the Foundation helped build an outstanding language centre on campus for preparatory students. In certain cases, the Foundation sponsored area fellows who undertook research of humanistic interest and published their findings. Robert College had

120

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

a more central role in the development of the humanities in Turkey. Despite financial difficulties, it maintained a strong faculty in the arts and humanities. College graduates became pioneers in different branches of the humanities and took part in many Rockefeller sponsored projects. The curriculum was unique in the sense that it offered an extensive reading list in Western classics and encouraged students to engage in Western arts.19 This framework helped students gain acquaintance of Western cultural tastes, especially American manners and habits. Some of the Republican elites in Turkey were willing to enforce a total adoption of Western culture, yet unable to grasp the fundamentals of Western thought and history. Critical of this approach, Rockefeller representatives and Robert College staff seemed to seek for a synthesis that would incorporate local values into the Western patterns of the arts and humanities.

Islam in Turkey and the Creative Minority John Marshall (1903–80), a graduate of Harvard University, was the first Humanities Division officer from the Rockefeller Foundation to visit the Near East. Marshall had taught at Harvard until 1930 and started to work in the Humanities Division as assistant director in 1933. He served in the same Division until 1958 and during this service of 25 years he maintained a rather low profile attitude, focussing his attention on the individual development of scholars, young talent and researchers.20 In fact, his director David Stevens prioritised the training of promising young talent instead of supporting renowned scholars, which would require careful selection of fellowship recipients. Stevens was in favour of providing grants for talented artists, historians and humanists who had “individual potential” and “institutional position”.21 Marshall pursued the same method, and spent most of his time picking up potential leaders in arts and humanities in several countries. Marshall’s main interest had been in the development of libraries, microphotography, and radio facilities and he had paid several visits to Europe in the early 1930s. As a result of these visits, the Rockefeller Foundation sponsored the renovation or expansion of Europe’s leading libraries, such as the University of Oxford’s Bodleian Library, the British Library, Bibliotheque Nationale and the Prussian

HUMANITIES

AND

WESTERNISATION

121

State Library.22 One of his considerable achievements was to improve the quality of microphotography in European libraries so that public education gained wider recognition in Western Europe.23 Marshall was very much concerned with the individual training of young librarians, offering them research visits to the United States so as to strengthen the partnership between the United States and European libraries.24 It is understood that he had had no experience with the Near East until he made his first trip to the region in 1948. It was no surprise that David Stevens picked Marshall for this initial navigation, as he had experience of how to use American cultural assets in a foreign culture, thanks to his previous visits to Europe. This was, however, a new trial for the Humanities Division in which no officer had previously established contacts with the educated class interested in the field of humanities in the region.25 It would therefore necessitate an initial phrase of discovery and recognition of people, circles and institutions that could be worked with. Soon after his first trip in 1948, Marshall paid another visit to Turkey in 1950 – 51. It seems that Marshall sought to understand political parties, ideological fringes, university structures and attitudes of scholars towards Turkey’s Westernisation and politics. Concerned with the role of religion in Turkish social and political life during his early visits, Marshall carefully followed a parliamentary debate about this topic.26 He noted that to be able to win electoral victory some DP members had pledged for a stronger presence of Islam, and in one of his recent remarks Prime Minister Adnan Menderes had admitted Islam still had a powerful role in Turkish society. These comments, Marshall believed, were exploited by opportunists as the current liberal government allowed a “latitude of thought and action”, which Atatu¨rk’s CHP had never allowed.27 Marshall acknowledged that most DP members were strongly committed to the Republican ideology and stood firm against any possible return to an Islamic state, yet he still did not feel assured about the possible consequences of this liberal attitude towards religion: would it be possible to return to Arabic script in writing Turkish, return to traditional dress, return to the Friday holiday instead of Sunday, return to Muslim law in family life and inheritance?

122

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Could a program so evidently irrational possibly have an appeal in Turkey after 25 years of Westernisation? One never could be sure28 Soon after his second visit to the region, Marshall prepared a comprehensive report on Near Eastern people, cultures and political structures where he discussed possible strategies for the Rockefeller Foundation to penetrate into the region. The report starts with a general discussion of the role of Westernisation and religion in socio-political life in the Near East. At the outset Marshall acknowledges the “pervasive” influence of Islam in Near Eastern societies and that Islam is not a religion only but “a way of life” for nearly 300,000,000 people.29 He observes that Islam, unlike Christianity, as a doctrine and way of life is still able to regulate social norms and patterns, but the process of Westernisation in its essence poses a major challenge to this way of life. He thinks that the eventual success of Westernisation in the Near East would be determined by how the tension between the two would evolve.30 Marshall finds it inevitable that the advancement of Westernisation in the region will continue, but feels perplexed about the nuances of social transformation. He roughly divides Muslim societies into two; one is “the great majority”, composed of uneducated people mostly living in rural areas deprived of any means of access to the Western life style and tools of communication, and the “creative minority”, who adopted secular Western values. Marshall has no hope of changing anti-Western attitudes among the “great majority”, whose minds are shaped in Friday sermons, and called it the “impregnable majority”.31 These people could only change if the content of Friday sermons could be administered, but there was no institution to control these speeches except in Turkey. He thus attributes great importance to the establishment of a Theology Faculty in Turkey to train preachers. It is no surprise that during one of his later visits he went to meet the Dean of the Theology Faculty to discuss his future plans about this training programme.32 Thanks to these institutions, Marshall believes, the dissemination of anti-Western views among a wider community of believers could be prevented.33 Yet Marshall was still worried about the wider region in general, quoting the rise of antiWestern movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.34 It seems Marshall was a close reader of Arnold Toynbee, who wrote extensively on the question of social change and civilisational

HUMANITIES

AND

WESTERNISATION

123

transformations. The term creative minority had been first coined by Toynbee in his discussion on social change.35 According to Toynbee creative minorities could go beyond established norms in a society, challenge static social forces and make inventions. They were the makers of industrialisation and transition to democracy in the West, whereas the “great majority” could only follow them.36 Marshall borrows the term from him and offers a long discussion about how to approach “the creative minority” in Muslim societies. He identifies scholars, professionals (law and medicine) and liberal minded Muslims as members of this “creative minority”, who had grown up in the Muslim world and could lead constructive change within Islam.37 If I am right in discerning the emergence of a new hierarchy of leadership in the educated minority of the Near East, it is possible that from this time on they will exercise a larger measure of leadership.38 With the help of these people Marshall offers a change in Islam “from within” building a more conciliatory paradigm with Western norms.39 Their openness to Western culture and ability to retain certain elements from their native culture gave them an edge, a comparative advantage, in dealing with local needs. In comparison to the political and religious leaders of the “great majority” Marshall finds “the creative minority” more competent to assume responsibility for guiding social change in the region.40 There was a growing tendency among them to control this change in their own way, a quest to use traditional scholarship to solve the issues of contemporary modern life.41 To a very considerable degree it represents the brains of the Near East. If brainpower carries, it seems destined to go on to win influence and increasingly to wield it. Unless the anti-Western forces in Islam take control throughout the Near East, time is on its side.42 During his trip to the region, Marshall visited Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran and Egypt; he observed that only in Turkey did such a group really exist, whereas in other Near Eastern countries it was still

124

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

half way through.43 He thought that so far Turkey had made its choice and in various respects had a European character rather than a Near Eastern one.44 The country itself therefore deserved their attention as much as many other European countries, whereas in the rest of the Near East there was still a significant “reserve for Communist revolution”.45 The framework Marshall presented resembled Daniel Lerner’s conceptualisation in his study of modernising societies. Similar to Marshall, Lerner identifies a group of people as “traditional”, longing for the Ottoman past, fatalistic, reactionary, living in Anatolian towns and unwilling to connect themselves with the outside world.46 In contrast, the “creative minority” were mostly urbanised, educated, and openminded and raised as global citizens.47 Lerner adds one further category to these, transitional, who prioritise religion in shaping their lifestyle choices but do not make their decision on Islamic creeds.48 He, nevertheless, observed that “ultra-modern Turks” are less in touch with Turkey’s realities and in denial of religious codes. They observe European etiquettes only artificially, partly as a result of radical Kemalist reforms in daily life.49 Lerner thought it was a problem for the West to “recruit” Westernised elites in the Middle East, as these people are most of the time not able to build a synthesis between their own culture and that of the West. Despite these problems, Lerner felt, similarly to Marshall, that Turkey managed to offer a balanced model combining local and Western values in social life and manners.50 John Marshall describes in detail the characteristics of Turkey’s “creative minority”. According to him, this minority face the challenge of Westernisation firstly in secular schools where they encounter a different lifestyle from the Muslim one.51 In this context, Marshall observed the emergence of a new hierarchy of knowledge, from teachers to their teachers, and “to those who have the highest level of Western education”.52 Not all of these people received education from Western institutions of education in the Near East such as Robert College or the American University of Beirut, as there were others who attended traditional institutions. Marshall was overtly critical of the general Western outlook towards the Muslim World and expressed his disappointment at how the West had learned so little about the functioning of Islam in social life despite long years of expeditions and exchanges with the Muslim World.53 The West should comprehend the

HUMANITIES

AND

WESTERNISATION

125

“real role” of Islam and how it works in governing the social manners of Near Eastern peoples, but this could not be achieved through Western eyes.54 Marshall questions the method and strategy in dealing with the “creative minority” and complains of “the widespread condescension” among Westerners towards Near Easterners, which needed to be addressed seriously if the West wanted to repair its relations with the region.55 Another misleading assumption is that there was a deep hostility towards the West and thus Westerners should endeavour to achieve the “winning of minds”.56 Westerners did not know the right way of approaching people and institutions in the region, Marshall thought, and should not think that they had “a monopoly of wisdom” with respect to the Near East.57 The creative minority in the Near East had a different understanding of Westernisation than Westerners did, and developed their own way of dealing with social transformation.58 Marshall believed that these mistakes caused a general reluctance among the creative minority to accept any kind of Western help, but the Rockefeller Foundation, as a private agency, had a chance to change this perception. According to him, the “creative minority” had so far received only limited support and needed wider recognition at home.59 Therefore Marshall encouraged institutional and individual grants under the heading of “intercultural understanding”, so that successful Westernised elites of the country could develop their own projects.60 This could be made possible through long-term grants at home instead of ordinary scholarships asking local individual students to stay in the West for a long time. Marshall quotes an anecdote with a rector in one of the Turkish universities: When Marshall talks about Foundation activities in Mexico, the rector quickly comes up with his own research idea in environment and genetics at his own university.61 Near Eastern people could come up with their own ideas, Marshall concluded, once they were given the right advice with small grants.

Projects, Fellows and Turkish Westernisation The Rockefeller projects in Turkey in the 1950s proceeded in accordance with the vision of John Marshall. Between 1950 and 1960 Marshall became a frequent visitor to Turkey as he became acquainted with scholars, intellectuals and institutions. He spent hectic weeks in Turkey;

126

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

in each of his frequent visits Marshall had to run a very tight and busy schedule to be able to meet with bureaucrats, prominent scholars, and the men of literature and artists of the time. In a letter he wrote to the Rector of Ankara University in 1951, for example, Marshall explained that his purpose was to develop the humanities in Turkey through selective grants to support studies undertaken by Turkish scholars. The Foundation sponsored works would be expected to offer a better understanding of “Turkish tradition, thought and outlook”.62 Again during one of his early visits to give clearer information about the Foundation, Marshall attended a meeting where the leading scholars of the time, such as Kurat Nimet Akdas, S¸inasi Altundag˘, Necati Akder, Ekrum Akurgal, Sedat Alp and Halil Demirciog˘lu came together. Appreciating the “achievements” of the educated class in Turkey, compared to the rest of the Near East, in the adoption of Western ideas in education and technology while protecting favourable elements of the indigenous culture, he explained that Rockefeller Foundation’s main purpose was to foster studies in “intercultural understanding”.63 In line with these general outlines, one of the major Rockefeller projects in Turkey was to develop a “bilingual course in humanities” under the directorship of the humanities department at Robert College. This course would fit well into the Humanities Division’s “intercultural understanding” programme. Duncan Ballantine, as discussed, had initiated several programmes aiming to transform the College into an institution of higher education more compatible with the changing realities of modern Turkey.64 He and David Garwood, a long-time Dean of the Humanities department of Robert College, held talks with John Marshall about devising such a programme. Ballantine himself had had previous experience in the development of humanities’ courses during his tenure as a professor of history at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.65 According to Garwood, this programme would offer Robert College a perfect model “arisen neither out of a Protestant missionary college nor an institution shaped under the nationalist Turkish education system” but of a joint Turkish-American vision equipped with a new curriculum and teaching staff.66 In 1957 the Rockefeller Foundation made an initial grant for academic conferences where scholars gathered to discuss the content of courses, and in 1958 a subsequent grant of $115,000 was awarded to the trustees towards the

HUMANITIES

AND

WESTERNISATION

127

development of general education in the humanities for Robert College for five years.67 Ballantine believed that a Western scholar should lead the programme, and considered Howard Reed the most eligible candidate as the director, but was not able to persuade him to take up the position.68 Geoffrey Lewis, professor of Turkish at Oxford University, was appointed as the director of the programme in the first year, to be replaced by David Garwood upon Lewis’ return to Oxford.69 In his inauguration speech to students, Geoffrey Lewis castigated those Eastern people pretending to be Western without understanding Western intellectual history. According to Lewis, ignorance of Eastern civilisation’s achievements was a great mistake.70 This mindset would distance individuals from their past, ancestors and the society they lived in, causing a severe identity crisis in culture and thinking.71 Likewise David Garwood complained about the superficiality of modernisation reforms in Turkey and criticised the Turkish elite for their failure to understand their own tradition or Western civilisation.72 Garwood argued that this bilingual course in the humanities could offer a healing for this identity crisis.73 The ultimate goal of the course was to develop a curriculum comparable to general education courses offered in American colleges.74 Two conferences were organised, with the aid of the Rockefeller Foundation, and prominent scholars of the time on the history of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires were invited to discuss the course scheme.75 They worked together with American and British colleges and UNESCO officials in preparing a proper syllabus along with an up-to-date bibliography of publications about the relationship between Eastern and Western cultures.76 Efforts to prepare a new anthology of source material for the Eastern tradition required the translation of Arabic and Persian sources into English and sources in Ottoman Turkish into modern Turkish. Along with articles and excerpts from various different sources, three major books were selected to be used as primary texts: William Dampier’s A Shorter History of Science, William McNeill’s History of World Civilization and Crane Brinton’s The Shaping of the Modern Mind.77 The course was to last three years in which students were expected to learn the histories of Western and Eastern civilisations, with a closer look at historical interplay and comparisons between the two.78 It would thus enable students to follow the connections between similar developments taking place in Eastern and

128

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Western contexts, such as the Reform Movement in the United Kingdom and the Tanzimat reforms in the Ottoman Empire.79 Another significant project was Ebu’l-Ala Mardin’s study on “the interpretation of the Quran by the Sultan’s Religious Council”. Mardin had collected scattered documents on the council of men of religion80 who gathered with the Sultan to interpret the meaning of the Quran. Each year a leading scholar was asked to speak on the interpretation of the Quran during the first week of Ramadan in the presence of the Caliph and 15 other scholars, who would ask him questions about the verses. After learning of the Rockefeller Foundation’s support for Lutfi Barkan’s work, Mardin contacted Robert Kerwin to talk about his own research and requested aid. In consultancy with Kerwin Ebu’l-Ala, Mardin wrote a letter to Marshall about the project.81 Mardin was a prominent professor of civil law and there was a personal dimension to this work in that Mardin was secretary general to the last “Sheyku’lIslam” before the foundation of the Turkish Republic. He had also compiled a volume of fetwas and writings of each Sheyku’l-Islam.82 Kerwin explained to Marshall that Mardin, who was 75, devoted his time in order to finish this book before his death to extensive research in the Istanbul archives. In his own proposal Mardin stressed that these scholarly gatherings continued for nearly 200 years, and despite the lack of sources it was a duty upon him to complete a serious study on this subject. Marshall consulted with Professor Hamilton Gibb about the proposal and received a very positive response, saying that the work would shed light on “the state of Islam in Turkey in the nineteenth century and official relations of the Sultan with the religious leaders”.83 Soon after this exchange of letters, Ebu’l-Ala Mardin passed away in 1957, and his students, Afife Sayın and Ismet Sungurbey, contacted John Marshall about the completion of the work. The work would cover biographies of the participants, and debates and discussions that took place during their meetings as well. John Marshall met Ismet Sungurbey on 14 October 1958 to discuss the future of the project and received an encouraging letter about the work from Hıfzı Timur, dean of the faculty law. The Rockefeller grant of $33,000 to complete this project was approved in 1959 and the research work was finished in 1965.84 Between 1954 and 1965 a significant number of Turkish historians, men of literature and philosophers benefited from Rockefeller research

HUMANITIES

AND

WESTERNISATION

129

fellowships. A research scholarship was awarded for Halil I˙nalcık, who was then a prominent professor of history at the University of Ankara. Inalcık was an Ottomanist but had an expanding interest in the study of American history and wanted to visit the United States, especially Harvard University, to learn about recent studies in the field.85 In 1956, Inalcık went to the United States, visited archives and attended courses on American history.86 It seems Inalcık had a prolific period at Harvard and Professor Hamilton Gibb, quite impressed with his performance, asked Marshall for permission to ask Inalcık to lecture on Turkish history “to a large and interested class of students”.87 Another research fellowship was awarded to Kemal Karpat, then assistant professor of Political Science at Montana State University. The scholarship would allow him to buy necessary research material from Columbia University about Turkish modernisation. Karpat had already written several pieces on political and social changes in modern Turkey since 1923. His study was one of the first works on the political history of modern Turkey and, in comparison to Tunaya’s work, dealt more with social and cultural aspects. Karpat was a child of a refugee family from Bulgaria and was interested in the study of migration as well.88 His next plan was to study Turkish society “through the lens of Turkish literature”, major writers and poets, to trace the impact of Western ideas on the Republican period.89 Karpat stressed that one could observe the influence of nationalism, the “realism of the French” or the humanitarianism of American literature in literary works in Turkey and in Turkish literature as an “agent of transformation”, instrumental in shaping the minds and goals of a society. He also noted that prominent scholars like Bernard Lewis and Geoffrey Lewis were enthusiastic to hear about this project. Likewise, John Marshall appreciated his vision and recommended he look at Leo Lowenthal’s Image of Man in European Literature.90 Another significant fellowship was awarded to Howard Alexander Reed in 1952, who proposed to visit Turkey to meet young Turkish leaders and learn about their views on Turkey’s future. The child of a Levantine in Izmir, Reed grew up in Turkey, pursued an academic career and took part in Ford Foundation’s area fellowship programme.91 The Rockefeller Foundation awarded scholarships to important bureaucrats as well. Kadri Yorukoglu, the President of the Council of Education in the Turkish Ministry of Education, offered to help John Marshall in finding

130

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

promising fellowship candidates and developing projects. Yorukoglu was responsible for planning in education at the primary and secondary levels, published a book on democratic education, and had the intention of learning more about recent developments regarding education in the United States. In 1958 Yorukoglu was awarded a fellowship to visit the United States and purchase the books for his research.92 Another noteworthy project was brought to the attention of the Humanities Division by John Marshall during his visit to Ankara in 1954. He met Mehmet Karasan, recently appointed as the Dean of the Faculty of Theology, previously a lecturer of philosophy at the Faculty of Letters, and appreciated his philosophical approach towards the study of religion. Karasan had translated almost all the works of Descartes into Turkish and had some translations from Bergson. Marshall listened to Karasan’s lecture at the opening session of the Theological Faculty, where he dealt with the question of reform in Islam, and found it “exceptional”.93 In his letter to John Marshall Kadri, Yorukoglu praised Karasan’s tactful elaboration of reform in Islamic Institutions and suggested that they can receive help from him “in making the Islamic Religion applicable to the conditions of the Modern World”.94 Marshall tried to learn more about the Theological Faculty and in his report explained that this Faculty would train students of religion, while practitioners would be educated in secondary schools for the training of preachers and imams (Imam-Hatip Schools). With its nearly 50 students, the Faculty aimed to teach Arabic, English and French, and its graduates would start working in these high schools for preachers.95 Karasan explained to Marshall his desire to visit the United States to meet leading philosophers and Marshall consulted with Frederick Latimer, cultural affairs officer at the American Embassy, Kadri Yorukoglu, Charles Fahs and Elling Aannestad, to discuss what kind of programme could be arranged for Karasan in the United States.96 These plans could not be materialised as Karasan was elected as MP for the Democrat Party in the 1954 elections. The Foundation awarded two research fellowships in the field of traditional arts as well. In 1957 Fureya Koral, a leading ceramicist in Turkey, was granted a scholarship to visit the United States. The fellowship card described her as an artist who “has vitalized the traditional feeling” in this field.97 Marshall closely followed Koral’s

HUMANITIES

AND

WESTERNISATION

131

work, discussed her style with Sedat Hakkı Eldem, a prominent architect of the time, and became convinced that she would be a leading name in the field of ceramics.98 In his letter to Rene D’Harnoncourt, Director of the Museum of National Art in New York, Marshall praised Koral’s stylistic contribution during the construction of the Hilton Hotel, an iconic monument in Istanbul built in 1955, and asked him to prepare a study plan for Koral during her US trip.99 He praised Turkey’s deep tradition in ceramics and believed that Koral would revive it in a “modern style”. It seems Fureya Koral was very happy with her visits to New York, the West Coast and Mexico, finding models applicable to other works in Turkey, and even requested an extension to her scholarship.100 Another grant of $15,000 was made in 1962 to the University of Ankara for the use of the Institute of Turkish and Islamic Art. The Institute had been founded in 1953 under the direction of Professor Suat Kemal Yetkin, who became the Rector of the University and wrote a personal request to the Rockefeller Foundation for support to the Institute.101 This was the first Foundation support in the field of Islamic Art and would help the Institute buy technical equipment, books and other material for the library. The Institute intended to study types of Islamic arts, specifically dealing with the origins of Turkish art in Central Asia, publish books and run public events to stimulate interest. It also aimed to train young Turkish scholars in the study of Islamic art, offering courses for third and fourth year students in the Theology Faculty, and a PhD programme for graduate students.102 A wider scale of fellowships was distributed in the field of literature between 1952 and 1965. The Rockefeller Foundation made an award to Fahir I˙z, Professor of Classical Turkish at Istanbul University, to carry out research on Fuzuli, the famous Ottoman poet, on the occasion of the four-hundredth anniversary of his death. Fahir Iz was working to complete an edition of Fuzuli’s famous Leyla and Mecnun, and to translate some of his works into European languages. In his application he explained that during a visit to Pakistan he had discovered an unknown work of Fuzuli and started to think that there could be similar works yet to be discovered in European libraries. He drew a plan to visit manuscript libraries in Europe and with the help of his wife, who knew English well, translated some selected pieces from Fuzuli.103 Rather than making a search for Fuzuli’s unknown works, Marshall suggested he

132

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

focus on translation, so that Western readers could read Fuzuli’s book. Marshall believed that Fuzuli should have wider recognition in the West, and managed to convince Fahir Iz to translate some of his works into English.104 Ahmed Hamdi Tanpınar, a renowned novelist and scholar at the University of Istanbul, got a Rockefeller scholarship to study nineteenth century Turkish literature in Western Europe. Tanpınar has been working on the history of Turkish literature and had already published the first volume of his work. In the second volume he dealt with the activities of Turkish intellectuals who lived in Western Europe during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.105 In his application, Tanpınar explained his interest in the question of cultural change, and that he aimed to investigate the impact of Western values on Turkish culture through the works of Ottoman writers such as S¸inasi, Ziya Pas¸a, Namık Kemal and Suavi. This would be a valuable contribution to literature especially for those young readers who could not read Ottoman Turkish.106 Another fellowship was awarded to Suat Sinanog˘lu, who taught at the Institute of Classical Philology at the University of Ankara, to study at Oxford and McGill Universities.107 Sinanog˘lu had an educational background in the Western classics and it seems John Marshall was interested in his views on Turkish intellectuals.108 In his application, Sinanog˘lu addressed the issue of “opposition” in traditionalist culture, highly skeptical of Westernisation, and argued that “opposition” is in no way incompatible with Islam. He explained that friends of Atatu¨rk knew Islam very well and believed in the contradiction between Islam and Western civilisation, whereas the Westernised second generation, to which the likes of Adnan Menderes and Kasım Gulek belonged, knew less about Islam and only saw its manifestation in daily life. The third generation knew far less than them and only faced its reactionary form. The Turkish revolution was “pragmatic” but not really concerned with the sources of Western civilization and it was time for Turkish scholars to explore this, as well as Turkish and Islamic elements.109 It could be argued that through these projects John Marshall and Robert College instructors intended to overcome the deficiencies of Republican historiography. Since his early visits, Marshall backed project proposals to investigate different aspects of Ottoman history, which had been neglected during the early Republican period. The Congress of Turkish History gathered in 1932,

HUMANITIES

AND

WESTERNISATION

133

reducing the Ottomans to a minor stage of the Turks’ long history of tens of thousands of years.110 There were attempts to prove that the migration of the Turks from Central Asia to Europe and Anatolia contributed to the progress of world civilisation.111 This historiography solidified the ruling elite’s view that the Ottoman experience was not something to be proud of; there was a consensus among Republican elite that the Ottomans had misinterpreted the role of religion in society and stood against scientific discoveries.112 In history textbooks, this praise of the pre-Islamic heritage was emphasised, whereas Ottoman history received little attention.113 This early fervour did not sit well with historians and the study of Ottoman history started to gain wider recognition in the 1950s. Observing these trends Marshall did not only support research into Ottoman history but also into classical OttomanIslamic literature and arts. It is understood that John Marshall had easy access to literature circles and made a lot of friends among men of literature. He met Bilge Karasu, who worked for the TRT and the British Embassy as a translator, and had a high opinion of his writing skills. A Foundation scholarship would give him free time to visit European countries and improve his creative writing. Marshall talked to him about spending a period with R.P. Blackmur, the famous literary critic, and tried to arrange his programme as well.114 Another notable fellow in literature was Vedat Gunyol, a translator of the Western classics and publisher of the Yeni Ufuklar magazine, an influential publication of the time in the arts and literature.115 In his application file Vedat Gunyol argued that Turkey was in a transition period moving from being a “medieval” country to being a “modern” one, but that only few people really knew “what modern means in art, science and technology and the Western mind”.116 Bedri Rahmi Eyu¨bog˘lu, one of the leading painters of the time and an instructor at the Academy of Fine Arts in Istanbul, was given a travel grant of $10,000 to visit European countries, the United States and Mexico to observe the latest techniques in the West.117 Aside from these fellowships, John Marshall met several other prominent people of literature and discussed their works in detail. One of his earlier contacts in Turkey was Halide Edip Adıvar who gave Marshall some basic information about Turkey. Adıvar requested aid from Marshall to translate her theatre play, Maske ve Ruh (Mask and Soul), into English but

134

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Marshall doubted whether Western readers had a sufficient background in oriental literature to grasp the work.118 Marshall also met Mahmud Makal, author of Bizim Ko¨y (Our Village) and a leading expert on the culture of traditional Turkish villages, to learn about the impact of Republican reforms in Anatolian villages.119 Marshall applauded the works of Talat Halman, a young graduate of Robert College planning to write a book on the development of modern Turkish poetry, and discussed the feasibility of his future projects.120 Bringing a wider recognition of Western culture was a major concern for the Humanities Division and Marshall considered the study of American literature in Turkey to be a significant tool in this mission. During his early visits to Turkey, John Marshall held talks with Hikmet Birand, Rector of Ankara University between 1949 and 1951, and Orhan Burian, who taught at the Department of English Literature in the University of Ankara, about how to formulate Foundation grants in the humanities. He was keen that Foundation grants should only focus on the fields of humanities and Orhan Burian requested aid for a centre that would raise standards in literary tastes and criticism.121 As a first step, the Foundation awarded a grant for the University of Ankara to have a representative collection of books on literary criticism in English and French.122 Actually, the University of Ankara had enjoyed the service of Edvard Vivian Gatenby as Director of the Department of English Language, who was an expert in linguistics and published several educative works on teaching English for the Turks. In a letter, he wrote to the Rockefeller Foundation, Gatenby gave extensive information about the four-year course in English Literature and Language and proposed that Ankara University could develop as a centre for English and American Studies in the region. Gatenby also encouraged translation works, which he thought would allow the English speaking world to learn more about Turkish literature.123 In light of these, as previously discussed, the Foundation awarded grants for the development of American Studies in Ankara and a grant of $21,000 for the appointment in the Faculty of Letters of a Professor of American literature and a Professor of American History between 1953 and 1957.124 A few years later, the Rockefeller Foundation started to make individual grants for University scholars; a research scholarship was

HUMANITIES

AND

WESTERNISATION

135

awarded to Hamit Dereli, Professor of English at the University of Ankara, to visit centres of American literature in the United States. Dereli was a permanent member of the Faculty of Letters and had a significant role in the development of American Studies.125 Leyla Go¨ren, who was teaching at the University of Ankara, was awarded a scholarship in 1959 to study American literature at Harvard University in the American Civilisation programme.126 In her fellowship application she noted that she wanted to specialise in American Studies, as in Turkey there was a great interest in America and it was essential to understand the American spirit. This characteristic involved “respect for individual freedom, democratic tradition, the expanding frontier and the Puritan heritage”. Giving a detailed account of her courses at Harvard she expressed her satisfaction at learning about various aspects of American history from Carl Backer, Louis Hartz, Perry Miller, George Fitzhough, and Kenneth Lynn, to Perry Miller.127 Marshall considered Go¨ren “the best possible Turkish candidate to receive the Foundation fellowship to foster American studies in Turkey” and thought that Go¨ren deserved a chance to do a PhD in the United States.128 Soon after this fellowship Go¨ren started a PhD at Columbia University and extended her stay in the United States. Similar fellowship awards were made to scholars from the University of Istanbul. Vahit Turhan, Professor of English at the University of Istanbul, was awarded a grant of $21,000 to visit universities to learn about American Studies in Western Europe, the United States and Canada. Turhan, a graduate from Cambridge University, and the only Professor of English at his university, was planning to strengthen the study of American literature. He was also to coordinate the visits of American professors and train younger scholars. He would be based in Princeton and work in collaboration with the leading faculty members of the university.129 Another grant was made to Dr Berna Moran, from the University of Istanbul, to study Turkish sources in English literature. The Foundation grant would allow her to visit libraries in London and Cambridge.130 Another noteworthy fellow in literary criticism was Bu¨lent Ecevit.131 Ecevit had impressed John Marshall during one of his early visits to Turkey and applied for a Foundation grant under the “intercultural understanding” programme. Marshall advised him to go to Harvard University to carry out research on mass communication and literary criticism. Ecevit could not stay

136

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

long in the United States due to his political commitments and returned to Turkey before the end of his fellowship.132 The interest of the Rockefeller Foundation in the development of the humanities in Turkey was not confined to the study of history and literature alone. In each of his visits John Marshall held meetings with promising young artists from various sub-fields as well as the directors of the State Conservatory and theatres of the time. Marshall held the belief that the audience of artistic expression would be much greater than any other humanistic study could reach. In a report he wrote in 1950 he asserted that the arts were the most instrumental tool among all other efforts in the humanities and presented the most accessible knowledge to change people’s perceptions.133 He thought that Turkish progress in Western music since the establishment of the Republic “has not only been remarkable but has become a kind of symbol of the country’s modernization”.134 Like the educated elites in Turkey, he considered art to be a crucial apparatus in bringing wider adoption of Western values among the greater public in Turkey.135 In fact, the Republican elite had favoured the dissemination of Western cultural practices so that Turkish people would feel more familiar with modern values in different aspects of social life. Mustafa Kemal had given music a complementary role in social modernisation of the country and had promoted Western music through official institutions.136 According to him, the ability to transform styles of music demonstrated a nation’s capacity to change.137 In 1924 a school for the education of music teachers was established in Ankara and soon after this daru¨’l-elhan, where musicians were trained, suspended the teaching of oriental music.138 The character of Turkish music gained a symbolic importance in Turkish Westernisation and in the early 1930s debates over Alla Turca and Western music intensified.139 Even Republican elites had a strong preference for the former, but they considered it a necessity to get away from the old patterns of music and suggested performing Western music within the Turkish classical style. Soon after, Atatu¨rk’s criticism of the old style Alla Turca music, the Minister of the Interior suspended the performance of this music on state radio for a while.140 Efforts to Westernise Turkish music continued. The Republican administration invited Paul Hindemith, the famous German musician, to make observations, and in light of his suggestions the Ankara Conservatory was established in 1936

HUMANITIES

AND

WESTERNISATION

137

to give training in Western music.141 Yet differing views about the character of new Turkish music persisted in the 1940s and 1950s; Ulvi Cemal Erkin, composer and former Director of the Ankara State Conservatory, and Kazim Akses, another prominent composer, contended that the future of Turkish music should be along European lines only, whereas Adnan Saygun and I˙lhan Usmanbas¸, two prominent composers who got Rockefeller fellowships, viewed traditional Turkish rhythms within the framework of Western music.142 Gaining familiarity with the music circles of the time, Marshall likewise observed that leading names in the Ankara and Istanbul Conservatories sought a synthesis between Turkish and Western music.143 Throughout meetings with American, British and Turkish representatives of cultural institutions he was preoccupied with the question of bridging Turkish and AngloAmerican cultures. As an expert in mass communication, Marshall wisely coordinated Foundation grants to use possible channels in this cultural rapprochement. In terms of institutional reinforcement, Marshall turned his attention towards the Istanbul and Ankara conservatories, centres of artistic training and performance in Turkey. Despite the progress Turkey had made in music until the 1950s there were only two orchestras of potential quality.144 In 1925 the Republican administration had closed Sufi lodges, which had functioned as a venue of social gatherings and display of traditional arts. In Istanbul alone there had been nearly 300 Sufi lodges in the early twentieth century.145 Mustafa Kemal viewed this change as a requirement in transitioning to modern civilisation and attributed to theatre a new role in the dissemination of the secular values of new Turkish identity. He encouraged theatre actors to make tours across Anatolia, and in many of these plays old social customs were criticised.146 Yet theatres and conservatories in Turkey still lacked fundamental technical equipment and infrastructure thus hampering the quality of the works performed on these platforms.147 Marshall spent days and nights in Istanbul and Ankara attending musical and theatrical plays to figure out what kind of logistical aid should be provided to raise the quality of performances.148 He also visited other venues of artistic attraction such as the Istanbul Philharmonic Orchestra, the Ballet Department, the Municipal Orchestra of Istanbul, the Conservatory of Turkish Music and the Robert College Theatre.149 He ran meetings with

138

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

the directors of these institutions, along with some of the Western artists and directors working in Turkey such as Argus Tresidder, officer at USIS Cultural Affairs Bureau in Turkey, and Trevis Camp, the head of the Ballet Department at Istanbul Conservatory.150 Praising the performance of the newly founded Ballet School and the Chairs of the Ballet School, Joy Newton and Audrey Knight, he encouraged them to run Anatolian tours. During their conversation Knight reminded Marshall that ballet was an important symbol of Westernisation for Turkey and anything to strengthen its work by the Rockefeller Foundation was worthwhile.151 Likewise Marshall encouraged David Stewart, supervisor of dramatic activities at the Robert College Theatre, to offer partnership to Cevat Memduh Altar, Director of the State Theatre, and Mithat Fenmen, General Director of the State Conservatory.152 Overall Marshall was of the opinion that modest aids would make a real difference for the development of theatre and the orchestra in Turkey and in 1956 a Foundation grant of $40,000 was made to the Istanbul Municipal Conservatory for the purchase outside Turkey of orchestral instruments.153 One of the earlier individual grants was made to enable Professor ˙Irfan S¸ahinbas¸ to work on the history of American Theatre in Turkish. S¸ahinbas¸ was an expert on Western literature and working on a history book on English drama. His visit to the United States and Canada would help him work with twentieth century American drama as well.154 Nearly two years after this a travel grant of $6,350 was awarded for Prof. Kenneth MacGowan, Chairman of the Department of Theatre at the University of California, to spend three months in Turkey to help develop the Theatre Institute at the Faculty of Letters of the University of Ankara. The Theatre Institute in Ankara was established in 1957 to deal with the history of theatre, dramatic criticism and the training of Turkish playwrights. Struggling to find teaching material, Professor MacGowan requested John Marshall to send short films, by the Theatre Arts Department of the University of California in Los Angeles, about theatre and arts, so that he could use them in classes. Accordingly, an amount of $750 was awarded to the University for the purchase and shipment.155 Finally, thanks to MacGowan’s advice and the Foundation’s scholarship of $9,000, Ankara University invited Dr Grant Redford, Associate Professor of English at the University of Washington, Seattle,

HUMANITIES

AND

WESTERNISATION

139

to teach and carry out research for an academic year starting from 1958.156 In another conversation with Mark Schubart, Dean of Juilliard School of Music, about his visits to Turkey, Marshall explained the Ministry of Education’s plans for the extension of theatre education in Turkey. The Ministry considered the Conservatory a base for wider education in Turkish schools and Marshall proposed a fellowship for Fuad Tu¨rkay, who was likely to play a leading role in this programme as the director of the Ankara Conservatory. In 1957 a grant of $10,000 was awarded for Fuad Tu¨rkay to visit centres of music education in Europe, the United States and Canada.157 Marshall was insistent that the directors of Turkish theatres and conservatories should increase their acquaintance with the latest developments in the West. A fellowship award made to Nureddin Sevin, Director of the Department of Drama in the National Conservatory of Ankara, allowed him to visit the United States and Canada.158 This would be an excellent “investment”, according to Marshall, as Nureddin Sevin had expressed his wish to visit the United States so as to give the American theatrical tradition a more central place in the Turkish theatres.159 In one of his letters to Marshall from America, Sevin noted that he had met more than 200 people of importance in American Drama.160 Similarly, he offered Es¸ref Antikacı, the director of the Istanbul Conservatory, who demanded urgent Foundation help to purchase equipment for the Conservatory, a research fellowship to stay in the United States for two months to visit schools instead of providing technical aid.161 Marshall also held several meetings with Muhsin Ertugrul, a pioneering figure of modern Turkish theatre and the General Director of the Theatre and Opera at the time, to encourage him to make a research trip to the United States.162 Foundation grants helped young performers of theatre, opera, ballets and those people in charge of such institutions meet and learn from leading artists and reputable institutions in the West. In fact, despite Republican commitment to the advancement of modern arts in Turkey, the lack of qualified artists hindered real progress. There were still a considerable number of Western artists serving in Turkish theatres and conservatories in different capacities.163 Marshall was very capable at picking up promising talents. Duygu Sag˘ırog˘lu, a set designer at Istanbul Municipal Theatre, strongly recommended by Muhsin Ertugrul, was given a fellowship to visit European cities and the East

140

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Coast of the United States.164 Another Rockefeller fellow was Bu¨lent Arel, a leading musician in electronic music, who went to the United States and met prominent names in his field in New York.165 Another notable young Rockefeller fellow was Tunc Yalman, a playwright and son of a prominent journalist at the time, Ahmet Emin Yalman. Marshall met Yalman during his early visits to Turkey and described him as someone born to parents “who went a long way toward emancipation”.166 He had a high opinion of Yalman, believed that he was one of the best-trained individuals in the field and would be a leading figure, perhaps a future Director of State Theatre, in the development of Turkish theatre.167 In 1956 Yalman was awarded a scholarship to explore theatres in the United States for a year to study playwriting and the operation of professional theatres.168 He worked at the MacDonald Company and studied under the supervision of Jean Rosenthal, a leading theatrical lighting expert at the time.169 Another promising young talent John Marshall discovered was Yıldız Akcan (Kenter), an actress born to Anglophone parents and one of the rare female artists who were able to perform in English.170 John Marshall met Akcan and her family several times during his visits to Turkey to convince them that staying in the United States would elevate her to a prominent place in Turkish theatre. He also had long talks with the directors of theatre about the benefits of spending a year at the New York Theatre and at Columbia University for Akcan’s career.171 Moreover, he arranged Dorothy Sands, director and teacher at the American Theatre Wing, to come to Turkey to help Yıldız Akcan teach acting at the Department of Drama so that the Conservatory could rely more on the American tradition.172 A similar travel grant was awarded to S¸irin Devrim, actor and director at Istanbul Municipal Theatre, to visit Europe and the United States so that she could learn about new concepts in style and activities. Devrim was one of the leading figures in acting in Istanbul and likely to be in charge of Anatolia tours led by her Theatre.173 In her application she noted she had so far only directed American and Turkish plays, but had limited access to German, French, Italian, Spanish and Scandinavian Theatre. To gain familiarity with the masters of European theatre she prepared a long list of places to visit in European cities like Hamburg, Malmo, Stockholm, London, Munich and Vienna.174 At the end of these visits, Devrim was very much excited

HUMANITIES

AND

WESTERNISATION

141

by German theatre, pointing to the role it played in German recovery after World War II.175 The educated elite in Turkey led the Westernisation of culture but had little contact with Western humanists in arts, literature and history. The Rockefeller grants in the humanities aimed at providing the “creative minority” of Turkey with a deeper understanding of the Western liberal arts tradition. John Marshall encouraged studies in Ottoman-Islamic history as well, hoping to bring some local ingredients to change Islamic creeds “from within”. Through the arts and literature, he also hoped to spread Western tastes in cultural life. Robert College received substantial grants as an institution and fellowships for its graduates. Thanks to its strong liberal arts curriculum, it stood as the most feasible place to train Westernised Turkish elites in the humanities. These programmes were more than valuable to the mission the Republican elites were hoping to accomplish, and thus gained the approval of the bureaucracy and political administration in the 1950s.

CONCLUSION

American missionaries first set foot in the Ottoman Empire in the early nineteenth century. In 1861 Cyrus Hamlin, an American missionary working on the shores of the Bosporus, founded Robert College, the first American college abroad. Missionary activities did not target the conversion of Muslims, but rather offered services to Christian subjects. Especially in the field of health and education they promoted the teaching of science and modern medicine. Despite frequent complaints, the Ottoman administration did not seem very much concerned by the ideological content and appreciated the quality of service. The American Girls’ College was one of the first places to offer training in nursing, and some of its graduates became nurses in modern Turkey. During World War I the United States did not declare war against the Ottoman Empire and there was no direct confrontation between the American and Ottoman armies. Unlike the other great Empires, the United States had no territorial ambition over Turkey, which was an important impetus for the founding elite to improve relations with American politicians and civil organisations. The US high commissioner Admiral Bristol likewise envisioned a stronger presence for American institutions in Turkey in the future. Both sides were flexible enough with each other to work out collective projects. The Rockefeller Foundation changed the character of philanthropy in the United States. John Frederick Gates, the first President of the Foundation, was actually a Baptist minister and a supporter of Christian missionaries. Yet he gradually changed his view towards religious work,

144

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

became more impressed with the advent of scientific knowledge and inclined towards donating for modern science. He worked in close partnership with university elites and shaped early Foundation activities in the United States. The opening of the Rockefeller sponsored Chinese Medical Board in 1914 provided a valuable experience in dealing with foreign cultures. Rockefeller staff had a chance to observe how Western rationality worked in a traditionbound context. The Rockefeller Foundation’s first representative came to Turkey in 1926, almost as early as the establishment of the first diplomatic correspondence between the United States and Turkey. Foundation officers held meetings with bureaucrats and politicians to explain their mission. The country’s health service was far from good, public sanitation lacked basic equipment and traditional means of treatment still prevailed across Anatolia. With available resources, it was almost impossible to train enough medical personnel and build centres for public health. For the Republican administration, it was a matter of “civilization” to establish a strong medical structure based on Western scientific standards. Refik Saydam and I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨ asked Selskar Gunn and Ralph Collins, two Rockefeller officers who coordinated Foundation operations in Turkey in the 1930s, to expand their investments in Turkey. From the 1940s onwards those Turkish doctors and nurses who received Rockefeller fellowship started to assume positions in medical institutions. Rockefeller officers visited them often enough to observe developments in public health, preventive medicine and nursing. In the 1950s the Foundation shifted its attention to child health and population studies. Thanks to these grants Professor Ihsan Dog˘ramacı established a Centre for Child Health Hacettepe and transitioned this into a University. Institutions in the Ottoman Empire struggled to keep up with developments in technology in the early twentieth century. Robert College President Caleb Gates made a strategic choice to use available forces to open a new faculty in the field of engineering in 1912. The Robert College School of Engineering was second only to Istanbul Technical School in offering engineering education in Turkey. The College faculty was composed of Western-trained instructors and quickly gained a high reputation among Turkish students. The Republican administration started to send successful students and

CONCLUSION

145

soldiers to the School of Engineering. Its graduates easily found positions in relevant state institutions and private businesses, and took roles in the construction and running of motorways, dams and industrial plants. Like Caleb Gates, the College President Duncan Ballantine saw the changing needs of the country in the 1950s and put a lot of effort into upgrading Robert College’s technical and human resources. The Democrat Party governments sped up the pace of industrialisation, which necessitated far more skilled engineers in different fields. Furthermore, in the 1950s the American politicalintellectual elite often expressed their need for a closer ally in the Near East to the pleasure of Celal Bayar and Adnan Menderes, who sought to modernise the country’s industry. The School of Engineering enjoyed further recognition at home and abroad, yet it was still not possible to cope with problems caused by Turkey’s rapid urbanisation. The government launched new investment into technical education and thanks to considerable foreign funding, the Middle Eastern Technical University was founded in 1956. Robert College School of Engineering and the METU took advantage of the intensified Turkish-American partnership in military and industrial technology against the Soviets. The Ford Foundation entered the scene of philanthropic work after 1945. The first Foundation team arrived in Turkey in 1952 to investigate possible areas of activity, and it took a while to decide where to use Foundation sources. Ford’s early interest was limited to the development of primary education in Turkey, which resulted in a comprehensive report prepared by the Foundation sponsored committee in 1959– 60. Soon before the 27 May Coup, the Ford Foundation appointed Eugene Northrop as its representative director in Turkey. Northrop was very much concerned with the question of industrial development, and believed in elite education to help Turkey overcome its deficiency in qualified experts. He held meetings with ministers, bureaucrats and scholars to identify the fundamental needs of the country. Northrop’s primary target was to improve the standard of scientific teaching and he initiated the foundation of the first Science High School in Turkey. He worked together with Robert Kerwin, another Ford Foundation officer based in Ankara, to improve the level of scientific research. Northrop and Kerwin proposed the idea of a research

146

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

body to fund scientists and “The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)” was established in 1962. They also showed strong interest in the METU and cooperated with Kemal Kurdas¸, the university’s rector, to elevate it to an elite institution in engineering and science. Turkey enjoyed a good deal of American technical know-how during the presidency of Eisenhower. Despite political upheaval in Turkey in the early 1960s and the change of administration in the United States, both Foundations proceeded on a considerable number of projects, mainly thanks to the personal networks they established among the ranks of the bureaucracy and in academia. In the late 1950s and 1960s the Ford Foundation started to pay more attention to business administration and funded top American universities to establish Schools of Management. Similar to the goal in the field of medicine, Foundation programmes promoted the installation of a new business culture based on rational norms. The University of Istanbul benefited from a Ford Foundation sponsored project to develop an Institute of Business Administration in partnership with Harvard University. In addition, Northrop and Kerwin contacted the business elite in Turkey to get them involved through NGOs in the training of managers. In these institutions, professional managers would be trained to assume leadership in private businesses depending on their area of specialisation. This would facilitate setting a more predictable path for Turkey’s economic development in a global context. The Rockefeller Foundation dealt less with business circles and allocated its resources for the development of social sciences. Foundation officers tried to avoid local political debates and to meet people who would be of relevance to their work. They distributed grants to Turkish scholars to allow them to undertake research in the United States and gain familiarity with the latest research, study methods and experts. In close conjunction with the US government, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations had provided an extensive amount of funding for the development of area studies in the United States through centres and area fellowships. The Rockefeller Foundation diversified its projects to support Turkish studies in the United States and the study of other cultures in Turkey, serving to establish intellectual networks during the Cold War. Most of Rockefeller funded research in social sciences dealt with the Ottoman-Turkish

CONCLUSION

147

experience of Westernisation and development. Educated elites in Turkey boasted of the success of the “Kemalist Revolution” as a model for the rest of the Muslim world and urged that Western experts should study the “Turkish model”. This was a proposal not totally irrelevant for the Americans as they were eager to learn more about society and politics in Republican Turkey. The Rockefeller Foundation since its early days had been driven by an overriding goal to control human behaviour. Scientific research appeared to be the ideal way to fulfill this purpose, yet the political and financial crisis of the late 1920s and 1930s raised concerns about pure scientism. Along with rationality, the US political-intellectual elites tended to give a greater role to the humanities and liberal arts, especially in nonWestern societies where they still carried on a Westernising mission. Rockefeller officers were concerned at the scale of destruction during World War II. The Foundation had spent its resources for “the advancement of knowledge”, but science and technology proved to be dangerous assets for humanity. David Stevens called for a new search in humanistic values, intercultural understanding and communication between different cultures. Of course, this was also triggered by the changing position of the United States in world politics and its need to gain wider recognition of liberal values. Until the late 1940s the Near East and its cultural output had not been familiar to the Rockefeller Foundation. John Marshall, assistant director of the Humanities Division, paid his first visit to the region in 1948 and spent until 1960 understanding the Near East and its people. He earned a high reputation among the educated elite in Turkey and often met them to discuss Foundation strategies, goals and Turkey’s path to Westernisation. It is noteworthy that compared to other Foundation officers he had less contact with the politicians of the time. Marshall observed “the force of” Islam in daily life and proposed to transform Near Eastern societies “from within” with the help of the secular-minded “creative minority”. There was a new “hierarchy of leadership” emerging out of this minority and Marshall aimed to strengthen a pro-Western orientation among them. It was his primary job to detect promising scholars and artists for the Rockefeller fellowship. He funded research into Ottoman-Islamic history, translation in literature, and the renovation of theatres and conservatories. Marshall also coordinated Rockefeller funded American

148

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

studies in Turkey and supervised researchers in social sciences. He and other Rockefeller officers were against the total rejection of traditionallyshaped patterns of social interaction, which was a mistake the early Republican elites had made. It should be kept in mind that in the 1950s Turkey’s rulers were still dreaming of turning the country into a “small America”; Bayar, for example, was an enthusiastic proponent of cultural Westernisation and many others felt pleased with the spread of American cultural tastes. Marshall sought to provide a solid understanding of the Ottoman-Turkish heritage and to help Turkish humanists bring about a synthesis of local and Western cultural values. Robert College graduates had an advantage in meeting this need thanks to the liberal arts education they received in English. Relations with American began to be challenged from various perspectives in the 1960s. The makers of modern Turkey and US political-intellectual elites had come together under a common ideological framework and Republican reforms had proceeded along the lines of the “modern”, “progressive”, and “scientific” as opposed to the “religious”, “superstitious” or “backward”. These reforms had fallen in line with the goals of new emerging American philanthropy. During the first two decades of the Cold War, both sides were again in close proximity to defend “freedom”, “democracy” and “development”. The tension during the Cyprus crisis was a political turning point, but there had been a simmering uneasiness with the economic and military dependency. President Kennedy enjoyed a high reputation in Turkey but could not make a substantial impact because of his short term in office. Demirel and Ecevit’s rising to power after 1965 was seemingly a sign of success for American philanthropy as both politicians had been awarded foundation fellowships in the 1950s. Yet during their time in power in the 1970s Turkish-American relations faced many more troubles than it had in the 1950s, and the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations concurrently scaled down their programmes in Turkey after 1971. Other than that, after nearly 20 years of investment, foundation fellows and sponsored institutions in Turkey were able to run their programmes on their own. In today’s Turkey many of these institutions are still considered the best in their field and continue to offer services. Foundation fellows have likewise made outstanding contributions in medicine, engineering, management, social sciences and in different

CONCLUSION

149

fields of the humanities. These networks have had an effect in policy making processes, directly or indirectly, serving as a check and balance mechanism for Turkish-American relations. It would not be wrong to assume that this proximity will continue to function so long as ideological agreement and practical needs allow.

NOTES

Introduction 1. Mehmet Ali Dog˘an, “From New England into New Lands: The Beginning of a Long Story” in Mehmet Ali Dog˘an and Heather J. Sharkey ed. American Missionaries and the Middle East. Foundational Encounters (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2011), 10– 12. 2. John Freely, A History of Robert College I-II (Istanbul: YKY 2009, II), 89. 3. There were many other schools in the Empire run by the Presbyterian Board, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons and Quakers. 4. Elizabeth Huntington-Dodge, The Joy of Service (New York: YWCA, 1979), 50; 82 – 4, 131. In a letter Wilson wrote to Dodge he expresses his concern about Dodge’s children serving in the Near East; Joseph Grabill, “Cleveland H. Dodge, Woodrow Wilson, and the Near East,” Journal of Presbyterian History (Vol. 48, No. 4 (Winter, 1970)), 256. 5. Once Bristol wrote that the regime in Turkey was not a democracy but an enlightened dictatorship. Hakan Ozoglu, “Admiral Mark Bristol and the Turkish Republic” in American Turkish Encounters: Politics and Culture, 1830 – 1989, Selcuk Esenbel, Bilge Nur Criss, Tony Greenwood and Louis Marazzi eds (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2011) 125 – 6. Indeed, for Mustafa Kemal and I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨ democracy was an element of Western civilisation but the introduction of Westernisation came before democratisation. Metin Heper, I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨: The Making of a Turkish Statesman (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 167. 6. Hakan Ozoglu, Admiral Mark Bristol and the Turkish Republic, 131. 7. Girls’ College in Bursa was closed in 1928 upon allegations that it forced children to choose the Protestant religion. Mehmet Altun, “O¨g˘rencilerinin Din Deg˘is¸tirmesi U¨zerine Kapatılan Bir Okul: Bursa Amerikan Kız Koleji”, Toplumsal Tarih (2003, 19: 113), 26 – 32. In Republican Turkey it was not

152

8. 9.

10. 11. 12.

13.

14. 15.

16.

17. 18.

NOTES TO PAGES 3 – 4 possible for non-Muslim minorities to take part in state service. Even those officers married to non-Muslim wives were expelled from the service. On the other hand, some former Ottoman officers of Arab and Albanian origin assumed ministerial positions in their new states. George Harris, Ataturk’s Diplomats and Their Biographies: The Foreign Service Under Ataturk (Istanbul: ISIS, 2010), 101– 3. John Freely, A History of Robert College II, 17. Indeed, the American presence in the region had predominantly been in religious character before the World War I with the opening of Missionary schools in the lands of the Ottoman Empire See American Missionaries and the Middle East. Foundational Encounters. Interview with Mustafa Kemal by Isaac Marcosson in The Saturday Evening Post, 20 October 1923, “Kemal Pasha,” 8 – 9. John Freely, A History of Robert College, 22. Just a year after he became the President of the Republic, on the anniversary of American Independence, official stamps depicting Inonu and President Roosevelt’s photographs were printed. John Freely, A History of Robert College, 61 – 3. The change in Turkey’s civil and penal code in 1926 deepened this mental shift towards the West. Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, Minister of Law of the time, said the “Turkish nation has made its decision to accept unconditionally norms and principles of modern civilization”, see Tarık Zafer Tunaya, Tu¨rkiye’nin Siyasıˆ ¨ niversitesi Yayınları, Hayatında Batılılas¸ma Hareketleri (I˙stanbul: Bilgi U 2004), 115; Erik J. Zu¨rcher, Turkey: A Modern History (London: I.B.Tauris, 2004), 187. Before Malche, Atatu¨rk had invited John Dewey in 1924 for a similar report. Bahri Ata, “The Influence of an American Educator (John Dewey) on the Turkish Educational System”, The Turkish Yearbook, XXXI, 2000/2. Cumhuriyet Ansiklopedisi Cilt I, 1923– 1940 (I˙stanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2002) 210– 11. Soon after this reform notable German scholars escaping from Nazi Germany were invited to teach in Turkey. See Arnold Reisman, Turkey’s Modernization: Refugees from Nazism and Ataturk’s Vision (Washington: New Academia Publishing, 2006), 20– 5. The Turkish government under the leadership of Inonu resisted overwhelming allied pressure to enter the War especially after 1943. S¸evket Su¨reyya Aydemir, I˙kinci Adam, Cilt II, 258– 3; Cemil Kocak, Tu¨rkiye’de Milli S¸ef Do¨nemi: 1938– 1945 (I˙stanbul: I˙letis¸im 1996), 141 – 68. Dankwart Rustow, American’s Forgotten Ally (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1989), 88; Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York: Easton, 1994), 433– 4; Stephen Ambrose, The Cold War: A Military History, 6. Joshua Walker, “World War II: The Foundation of the Modern AmericanTurkish Relationship, 1939– 1947” in American Turkish Encounters, 173. For example, in 1949 Turkey fortified its borders in the north-east and

NOTES

19. 20.

21.

22.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

31.

32.

TO PAGES

4 –6

153

strengthened transportation facilities due to the deployment of Soviet forces. Asım Us, Hatıra Notları, 1930– 195 (I˙stanbul: Vakit, 1966) 751, 758. Nur Bilge Criss, “The American Cold War Military Presence”, in American Turkish Encounters, 286– 7. During his visit to the United States in 1946 Rauf Orbay, who had served as Prime Minister between 1922 and 1923, stressed that Turkey was not an industrialised nation able to produce its heavy weapon in “nine months” and needed to be prepared beforehand. Ahmet Emin Yalman: Go¨rdu¨klerim ve Gecirdiklerim, Cilt IV (1945– 70) (N.y, n.t 1953), 88. Mehmet Go¨nlu¨bol, Olaylarla Tu¨rk Dıs¸ Politikası: 1919– 1965, 194, 200– 1; Cemil Kocak, Tu¨rkiye’de Milli S¸ef Do¨nemi, 560. I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨ spoke to Celal Bayar before the foundation of the Democrat Party and agreed with him on the party programme. Metin Heper, I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨: The Making of a Turkish Statesman (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 185– 7. Metin Heper, I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨: The Making of a Turkish Statesman, 185– 7. For a more detailed analysis of Turkey’s changing political culture see Kemal Karpat, Turkey’s Politics: The Transition to a Multi-Party System (New Jersey: Princeton University, 1959). Joyce Kaufman, A Concise History of US Foreign History (London: Rowman, 2010), 85– 7. Harry S. Truman, “Special Message to the Congress on Greece and Turkey,” The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index. php?pid¼12846&st¼TrumanþDoctrine&st1¼ (Accessed on 19 August 2016). Oral Sander, Tu¨rk-Amerikan I˙lis¸kileri (Ankara: SBF Yayınları, 1979), 20– 30. Burcak Keskin Kozat, “Reinterpreting Turkey’s Marshall Plan: Of Machines, Experts, and Technical Knowledge” in American Turkish Encounters, 184. George Harris, The Foreign Service Under Ataturk, 61. Oral Sander, Tu¨rk-Amerikan I˙lis¸kileri, 54, 76. Nur Bilge Criss, The American Cold War Military Presence in Turkey in American Turkish Encounters, 287. Nasuh Uslu, Turkish-American Relationship between 1947 and 2003: The History of a Distinctive Alliance (New York: Nova Publishers, 2003), 69 – 72, Tanel Demirel, Tu¨rkiye’nin Uzun On Yılı: Demokrat Parti I˙ktidarı ve 27 Mayıs ¨ niversitesi Yayınları, 20011), 148 – 50. Darbesi (I˙stanbul: Bilgi U In a private meeting Bayar and Inonu discussed Turkey’s accession to NATO and Inonu urged Bayar to enter NATO. Menderes held the same opinion. Mehmet Saray, Sovyet Tehdidi Kars¸ısında Tu¨rkiye’nin Nato’ya Giris¸i: III. Cumhurbas¸kanı Celal Bayar’ın Hatıraları ve Belgeler (Atatu¨rk Ku¨ltu¨r Dil ve Tarih Yu¨ksek Kurumu: Atatu¨rk Aras¸tırma Merkezi, Ankara: 2000), 98 – 100. William Hale, Turkish Foreign Policy: 1774 –2000 (London: MPG, 2002), 117– 119. Between 1948 and 1971 Turkey received nearly $3 billion military aid from NATO. Mehmet Saray, Sovyet Tehdidi Kars¸ısında Tu¨rkiye’nin Nato’ya Giris¸i, 161. Before then the United States had given Turkey $100 million and

154

33. 34.

35.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

41.

42. 43.

NOTES

TO PAGES

6 –8

sent 182 military officers for the modernisation of the Turkish army. George McGhee, The US-Turkish-NATO Middle East Connection: How the Truman Doctrine Contained the Soviets in the Middle East (London 1990), 98 – 100. Also see Serhat Gu¨venc
, “Kore Savas¸ı ve Tu¨rk Ordusu’nun Do¨nu¨s¸u¨mu¨: 1950– 1960”, Kore Savas¸ı: Uzak Savas¸ın Askerleri, M. A. Tug˘tan ed., I˙stanbul Bilgi U¨niversitesi Yayınları, I˙stanbul, 2013 and “The Cold War Origins of the Turkish Motor Vehicle Industry: The Tuzla Jeep, 1954– 1971”, Turkish Studies (2014) 15:3. Kamuran Gu¨ru¨n, Dıs¸ I˙lis¸kiler ve Tu¨rk Politikası (Ankara U¨niversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Faku¨ltesi Yayınları, Ankara: 1983), 201. There were periods of ups and downs for Turkish-American relations in the 1950s. Between 1955 and 1957 the Turkish side demanded substantial financial aid from the US administration, but was not able to persuade the American administration. Oral Sander, Tu¨rk-Amerikan I˙lis¸kileri, 137– 40. Turkey’s role vis-a`-vis the Arab countries was still vague; Menderes and Bayar had no confidence in the Arab world whereas Dulles envisioned a more assertive position for Turkey in leading the region. McGhee, The US-TurkishNATO Middle East Connection, 255– 64. Mehmet Saray, Sovyet Tehdidi Kars¸ısında Tu¨rkiye’nin Nato’ya Giris¸i, 218– 20. Yılmayan Millet Tu¨rkiye Cumhurbas¸kanı Celal Bayar’ın Amerika Birles¸ik Devletlerine Yaptıg˘ı Ziyaretin Kronolojik Hikaˆyesi ve Sec
ilmis¸ Nutuklar: 28 Ocak27 S¸ubat 1954 (IBM World Trade Corporation: 1955), 38, 42. Yılmayan Millet, 47, 103– 4. Ibid., 85; Feroz Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey (London: Routledge, 1993), 109. Yılmayan Millet, 18, 44. Ibid., 44 – 5. He described Bayar as a “high representative of Turkish renaissance” and Turkey draws strength from its national renaissance movement. Former US ambassador to Turkey Joseph Grew said Bayar was a very loyal and talented follower of Atatu¨rk. Yılmayan Millet, 47. “Message of General Cemal Gu¨rsel, Head of State of the Turkish Republic on the Occasion of the Turkish-American Celebration of April 18th, 1961.” Robert College Records, Box 51, File 17, 1961. Also see the speech of Numan Menemenciog˘lu, a Robert College graduate and the Turkish Ambassador to the United States, on the hundredth anniversary marking the occasion of the founding of Robert College in 1961. Numan Menemenciog˘lu, “Speech Delivered by Ambassador Menemencioglu.” Robert College Records, Box 51, File, 17, 1961. Dankwart Rustow, “Politics and Development Policy” in Four Studies on the Economic Development of Turkey, Frederic Shorter, John Kolars, Dankwart Rustow and Oktay Yenal ed. (Oxford: Routledge, 1967), 28. See Nasuh Uslu, The Cyprus Question as an Issue of Turkish Foreign Policy and Turkish-American Relations: 1959– 2003 (New York: Nova Science Publishers,

NOTES

44. 45. 46.

47.

48.

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

TO PAGES

8 –11

155

2003); Meliha Altunıs¸ık and O¨zlem Tur, Turkey: Challenges of Continuity and Change (Oxford: Routledge, 2005), 106– 8. Nasuh Uslu, The Turkish-American Relationship, 226– 8. Ibid., 229 – 30. Ideological parties gained popular support in Turkish politics in the 1960s. The Turkish Labour Party, which represented left-wing views, was founded in 1961. In the mid-1960s nationalist circles clustered around the Nationalist Movement Party and finally the Islamist-leaning National Order Party was founded in 1970. A Ford Foundation report in the early 1970s pointed to Turkey’s rapprochement with the “Third World”, putting blame on the mismanagement of US politicians. It viewed Demirel and Ecevit as the only figures to appease anti-Americanism in Turkey. “Summary of Active Grants and FAPs: Turkey Office, 19691”, Ford Foundation Record, Reports 11775– 13498, Anuual Report: Ankara, Turkey Field Office 1969, Box 609, 3 – 7. Inderjeet Parmar, “Foundations Network and American Hegemony’’, European Journal of American Studies Vol. 7, No. 1, 2012, 4 and “To Relate Knowledge and Action: The Impact of the Rockefeller Foundation on Foreign Policy Thinking During America’s Rise to Globalism: 1939–1945”, Minerva 40: 2002, 235–7. Dwight Eisenhower, “Address and Remarks at the Baylor University Commencement Ceremonies, Waco, Texas”. Bruce Cumings, “Oral History Interview with Paul G.Hoffman”, New York: 25 October 1964, http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/hoffmanp.htm (Accessed on 21 August 2016). http://www.fordfoundation.org/about-us/history (Accessed on 19 August 2016). Ibid. John Triumpbear, How Harvard Rules: Reason in the Service of Empire (Massachusetts: South End Press, 1989), 53. http://rockefeller100.org/biography/show/dean-rusk (Accessed on 19 August 2016). In his statistical chart Weiker demonstrates the rise in the number of modernised elites in Turkey. Walter Weiker, The Modernization of Turkey: From Ataturk to the Present Day (New York: HM, 1981), 47. C¸ag˘rı Erhan, Tu¨rk-Amerikan I˙lis¸kilerinin Tarihsel Ko¨kenleri (I˙mge yayınları, I˙stanbul, 2001). S¸uhnaz Yılmaz, Turkish-American Relations (1800– 1952): Between the Stars, Stripes and the Crescent (New York: Routledge, 2015). Nasuh Uslu. The Turkish-American Relationship Between 1947 – 2003: The History of a Distinctive Alliance (Nova, New York, 2003). Oral Sander, Tu¨rk-Amerikan I˙lis¸kileri (SBF Yayınları, Ankara, 1979); Fahir Armaog˘lu ed. Belgelerle Tu¨rk-Amerikan Mu¨nasebetleri (Ankara: TTK Yayınları, 1991).

156

NOTES

TO PAGES

11 –13

60. George Harris. Troubled Alliance: Turkish-American Problems in Historical Perspective 1945– 1971 (MW Books, 1972). 61. George McGhee, The US-Turkish-NATO Middle East Connection: How the Truman Doctrine Contained the Soviets in the Middle East (London, 1990). 62. Howard Reed, “Turkey and Her Nationalist Leaders as Seen in the 1923 Reports of Louise Bryant” and Secil Karal Akgu¨l, “The General Harbord Commission and the American Mandate Question” in George Sellers Harris, Nur Bilge Criss ed. Studies in Atatu¨rk’s Turkey: The American Dimension; (Leiden: Brill, 2009). 63. Joseph L. Grabill, Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East: Missionary Influence on American Policy (1810 – 1927) (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1971) and “Cleveland H. Dodge, Woodrow Wilson, and the Near East”, Journal of Presbyterian History (1962 – 1985), Vol. 48, No. 4 (Winter 1970), 256– 7. 64. Justin McCarthy, The Turk in America: The Creation of an Enduring Prejudice (University of Utah Press, Utah, 2010). 65. Orlin Sabev, Spiritus Roberti: Shaping New Minds and Robert College in Late Ottoman Society (1816 – 1923) (I˙stanbul: Bog˘azici, 2014) also see Arzu M. Nurdog˘an, “Robert Koleji Mu¨hendislik Okulu (1912)”, Divan, Cilt 14 Sayı 26 (2009/1). 66. James Goode, “Archeology and Diplomacy in the Republic of Turkey, 1919– 1939” in Mustafa Aydın, C¸ag˘rı Erhan ed. Turkish-American Relations: Past, Present and Future (Routledge, London & New York, 2003). 67. Richard Garlitz, “Land-Grant Education in Turkey: Atatu¨rk University and American Technical Assistance, 1954– 68” in Cangul Ornek ve C¸ag˘das¸ Gu¨ngo¨r ed; Turkey in the Cold War: State, Ideology and Culture (London: Palgrave, 2014). 68. Burcak Keskin Kozat, “Reinterpreting Turkey’s Marshall Plan: Of Machines, Experts, and Technical Knowledge” in American Turkish Encounters. 69. Begu¨m Adalet, ‘‘Mirrors of Modernization: The American Reflection in Turkey’’, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2014. 70. Kenneth, Rose “The Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship Program in Turkey: 1925–1983”, http://www.rockarch.org/publications/resrep/pdf/roseturkey.pdf (Accessed on 1 January 2016) and Kenneth Rose, Murat Erdem “American Philanthropy in Republican Turkey: The case of Rockefeller and Ford Foundations.” The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, Research Center for International Political and Economic Relations (Ankara: Ankara University, Faculty of Political Science Publications, 2002): 131–59. ¨ rnek, Tu¨rkiye’nin Sog˘uk Savas¸ Du¨s¸u¨nce Hayatı: Antikomunizm ve 71. Cangu¨l O Amerikan Etkisi (I˙stanbul: Can, 2015), 174– 93. 72. Ibid., 214 – 20, 228– 42. 73. Ibid., 164 – 72, 256, 278.

NOTES TO PAGES 13 –14

157

74. Raymond Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation (NY: Harper&Brothers, 1952); Richard Magat, The Ford Foundation at Work: Philanthropic Choices, Methods and Styles (New York: Plenum Press, 1979). 75. Inderjeet Parmar, Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power in the 20th Century. (New York: Columbia University Press 2014) and “To Relate Knowledge and Action: The Impact of the Rockefeller Foundation on Foreign Policy Thinking During America’s Rise to Globalism: 1939 – 1945”, Minerva 40: 2002. 76. Inderjeet Parmar, “American foundations and the development of international knowledge networks”, Global Networks 2, 1 (2002) and ‘‘Foundations Network and American Hegemony’’, European Journal of American Studies. Vol. 7, No. 1, 2012. 77. Edward Berman, The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy: The Ideology of Philanthropy (New York: New York University Press: Albany, 1983). 78. Robert Arnove, Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The foundations at Home and Abroad (GK Hall, Boston, 1980); Nick Cullather. The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010). 79. Frank Ninkovich, “The Rockefeller Foundation, China, and Cultural Change” The Journal of American History 70 (1984). 80. Olivier Zunz, Philanthropy in America: A History (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2012); 154 – 9; Also see Giles Scott-Smith, Networks of Empire: The US State Department’s Foreign Leader Program in the Netherlands, France, and Britain: 1950– 1970 (Peter Lang, Brussels, 2008). 81. William Buxton, Patronizing the Public: American Philanthropy’s Transformation of Culture, Communication, and the Humanities (New York: Lexington Books, 2009). 82. John Krige, American Hegemony and the Postwar Reconstruction of Science in Europe (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press 2006); also see Robert E. Kohler. Partners in Science: Foundations and Natural Scientists, 1900 – 1945 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1991); Lily E. Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). 83. John Bresnan, At Home Abroad: A Memoir of the Ford Foundation in Indonesia, 1953– 1973 (Jakarta: Equinox, 2006); Marcos Cueto, Missionaries of Science: The Rockefeller Foundation and Latin America (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1994); Mary Brown Bullock, An American Transplant: The Rockefeller Foundation and Peking Union Medical (California: University of Berkeley Press, 1980); Jeffrey D. Brison, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Canada: American Philanthropy and the Arts and Letters in Canada (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005).

158

NOTES

TO PAGES

21 – 24

Chapter 1 Science and Medicine: Pillars of Republic 1. Richard E Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America (California: University of California Press, 1979), 34– 6. 2. The University of Chicago had been founded before 1892 but was no longer active. Thanks to the Rockefeller grant a new institution was established. The University of Chicago: A History, John W. Boyer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2015), 8 – 10. 3. Richard E Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men, 34 – 6. 4. Ibid., 41. 5. Ibid., 46 – 9. 6. Ibid., 49. 7. Raymond Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation (NY: Harper&Brothers, 1952), 8. 8. Gates and Rockefeller tried to share the burden with other trustees of the General Education Board so that a sense of responsibility could develop among them. In the foundation of Chicago University the Rockefeller family gave $35 million and collected $7 million from other donors. Richard E Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men, 56. 9. Raymond Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, 56 – 7. 10. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash¼ true&doc¼51 (Accessed on 2 October 2015). 11. Robert Shaplen Fifty Years of the Rockefeller Foundation: Toward the Well Being of Mankind (Doubleday & Company: New York, NY, 1964), 3. 12. Richard E Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men, 106. 13. Ibid., 117 – 21. 14. Ibid., 113, 121. 15. Ibid., 113. 16. Richard E Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men, 113, 117 – 19. Similar to him, Charles W. Eliot, the Harvard president, stressed that advancement in scientific medicine would reduce industrial losses caused by health problems. 17. Ibid., 125. 18. Raymond Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, 15. 19. Then International Health Board, http://www.rockefeller100.org/exhibits/ show/health/international-health-division (Accessed on 21 August 2016). 20. “Program and Policy, 1930 –1935”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 908, Box 12, Folder 126 – 7. 21. Raymond Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, 142; http:// rockefeller100.org/biography/show/wickliffe-rose. 22. “Program and Policy, 1930– 1935”, Raymond Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, 142. 23. A Foundation report read: “The character of the work of the IHD has gradually been changing for some time. The original program was to apply existing

NOTES

24.

25. 26.

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

TO PAGES

24 –26

159

knowledge and to build up to a high level local and state health department . . . of years it has been evident to the officers that the existing knowledge on preventable diseases was inadequate and that further studies were much neeeded if real and permanent progress was to be made” in “Program and Policy, 1930– 1935”. Another report read: “Existing knowledge was inadequate when it was applied to specific problems, the Rockefeller Foundation can render greatest service in the public health by shifting its emphasis from the rapid and extensive application of existing knowledge to securing of additional facts necessary to the effective and economical control of disease, see “Memorandum to Mr. Fosdick” See “Program and Policy, 1930 – 1935”. Ibid. Raymond Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, 80 – 2; John Z. Bowers, Western Medicine in a Chinese Palace: Peking Union Medical College, 1917– 1951 (New York: 1972), 24; Frank Nankovich, “The Rockefeller Foundation, China and Cultural Change”, The Journal of American History, Vol. 70, No. 4 (March, 1984), 801. President of the University of Chicago, 1923 – 5, https://president.uchicago. edu/directory/ernest-dewitt-burton (Accessed on 7 October 2015). Frank Nankovich, “The Rockefeller Foundation”, 801. Ibid., 803. Ibid., 801 – 4. Ibid., 806. Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (New York: Routledge, 1998), 112– 17. Ibid., 112 – 17. Ibid., 119 – 21. Alper Yalcınkaya, Learned Patriots: Debating Science, State and Society in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Empire (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press), 185– 6, 194. Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey, 112– 17. Ibid., 118; S¸erif Mardin, Young Turks: The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought: A Study in the Modernization of Turkish Political Ideas (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2000), 213. S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu “Blueprints for a Future Society: Late Ottoman Materialists on Science, Religion and Art” in Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy, Elisabeth Ozdalga ed. (London: Routledge, 2005), 77. For example, Mazhar Osman, a graduate of the medical school and foremost psychiatrist of the early twentieth century, questioned whether the Turks were “degenerate” or not. Yu¨cel Yanıkdag˘, Healing the Nation: Prisoners of War, Medicine and Nationalism in Turkey: 1914– 1939, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013), 208 – 9.

160

NOTES

TO PAGES

26 –29

40. S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu, Atatu¨rk an Intellectual Biography (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2011), 49 – 51. MacFarlane expressed his shock when he saw the books in the library of the Royal Military Academy and that students were discussing the role of religion in a changing society. S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu, “Blueprints for a Future Society: Late Ottoman Materialists on Science, Religion and Art”, 26, 31 – 3. 41. S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu, An Intellectual Biography, 51. 42. Ibid., 60; Sabri Akurgal: “Kemalist Views on Social Change”, and Geoffrey Lewis, “Ataturk’s Language Reform and Modernization in the Republic of Turkey” in Jacob Landau ed. Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey, 135, 197. 43. S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu, An Intellectual Biography, 51, 57. 44. Ibid., 50 – 5; Atatu¨rk’u¨n Okudug˘u Kitaplar, Recep Cengiz ed., Vol. 8. 439 – 40. In a speech he remarked: “Young people we gave you a purified new birth (meaning new Turkey) out of superstitions of the past”. Atatu¨rk’u¨n So¨ylev ve Demecleri, Vol. 2, 1906 – 38, Nimet Unan ed. (Ankara: Tu¨rk I˙nkılap Tarihi Enstitu¨su¨ Yayınları, 1952), 133. 45. Haniog˘lu notes that Atatu¨rk had a smiliar opinion with the Ottoman elites who thought “religion is the science of the masses whereas science is the religion of the elite”. Recognising the force of religion in social life, however, prevented him removing Islam from social and political life totally. S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu, An Intellectual Biography, 53 – 6. 46. Uygur Kocabas¸og˘lu, Anadolu’daki Amerika (I˙stanbul: I˙mge, 2000), 95 – 6. 47. Mary Patrick Mills, A Bosporus Adventure (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1934), 215 – 22. In another letter sent by Mills to George Vincent, head of IHD in 1923, she summarised the development in the Girls College and explained a special investigation of cancer in their pathalogical labratory. “Medical Education in Turkey 1923 – 27”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG.1.1, Series 805, Box: 1, Folder 4 and “Turkey (K-S), 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, Box 75, Folder 495. 48. “Turkey 1956 K-S”. 49. John DeNovo, American Interests and Policies in the Middle East, 1900 – 1939 (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1953), 270. 50. He considered “fatalisim” inherent in Turkish culture a fundemental problem and criticised the widespread use of the word of “kısmet”, which means submission to the will of Allah. 51. “The Status of Preventive Medicine in Turkey with Particular Reference to the Control of Epidemics”, 74. 52. Ibid., 5. 53. Ibid., 6. 54. Ibid., 74. 55. Ibid., 74 – 5. The report pointed out that Turkey was a promising country, but underdeveloped in terms of utilising its natural resources, mostly because of

NOTES

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

72. 73. 74. 75. 76.

TO PAGES

29 –32

161

corrupt governments and a lack of trained people. It warned that insanitary conditions in Turkey were also a probable “menace” to Western civilisation through emigration from Anatolia Turkey. Pearce visited Turkey in 1924. Raymond Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, 105– 7. Richard Pearce, “Medical Education in Turkey”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805, Box 1, Folder 4, 3 – 4. Ibid., 4 – 6. The author claims that the Turkish people are brilliant in math, literary style and criticism. Ibid., 75. Ibid., 49. According to Pearce the systematic teaching of courtesy, manners and the rules of social contact were superior in the Turkish education system compared to the educational institutions of the West. Richard Pearce, “Medical Education in Turkey”, 80. Ibid., 76. Ibid., 49. Ibid., 81. Ibid., 69. Ibid., 70. Ibid., 76. Ibid. Richard Pearce, “Medical Education in Turkey”, 76. S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu, An Intellectual Biography, 53; Cemil O¨ztu¨rk, I˙mparatorluktan Ulus Devlete Tu¨rk I˙nkilap Tarihi (I˙stanbul: Pegem, 2007), 302. According to an article published in the magazine, the scientific mentality was the biggest enemy of the Sultanate regime, which received its power from supernatural and divine origins. Christopher Dole, Healing Secular Life: Loss and Devotion in Turkey (Philadelphia: University of Pennslvania Press, 2012), 43 – 9. Zeki Nasır, a prominent man of medicine who received the Rockefeller grant to spend a year in the United States as well, wrote in this magazine extensively on the scientific developments of the time. Christopher Dole, Healing Secular Life, 45 – 8. Atatu¨rk’u¨n So¨ylev ve Demecleri (Ankara: Atatu¨rk Ku¨ltu¨r Dil Tarih Yu¨ksek Kurumu, 2006), Cilt, 322 – 46. Vatan 16 August 1924; Ataturk Hakkında Hatıralar ve Belgeler, Haz: Arı Inan (Tu¨rkiye I˙s¸ Bankası Ku¨ltu¨r Yayınları, Ankara, 2007), 115 – 18. Cumhuriyet 17 September 1924. S¸evket Su¨reyya Aydemir, I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨: I˙kinci Adam, Cilt II (I˙stanbul: Remzi, 1973), 223. Atatu¨rk’u¨n So¨ylev ve Demecleri, 352; Cumhuriyet Ansiklopedisi, Cilt 1 (YKY, I˙stanbul 2002), 85. In 1929 some other towns were added to the campaign and finally in 1938 it covered all the towns in the country. It is understood that the Rockefeller officers were in close contact with German

162

77. 78.

79.

80.

81. 82. 83.

84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93.

NOTES

TO PAGES

32 –34

doctors and scientists in Turkey. A German doctor wrote to Alan Gregg, Associate Director of the Medical Sciences Division, about the poor conditions of medical services in Turkey, but appreciated the government’s efforts to transform it. Arnold Reisman, Turkey’s Modernization, 23. Selskar Gunn was the vice president of the foundation and director of the IHD’s European programmes, see http://rockefeller100.org/biography/show/ selskar-m– gunn (Accessed on 21 August 2016). Ralph Collins,” Public Health in Turkey: September 1926”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805, Box 1, Folder 1, 143 – 4. During these visits the Foundation officials visited other American institutions offering medical services in Turkey so that they could become familiar with the previous experience of American institutions and the reaction of Turkish people towards these aids. Selskar Gunn “Diary of Visit to Turkey: May 5 – May 13 1925”. RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 6.1, Series 1.1, Box 37, Folder 458, 10 – 12. Tuberculosis was also a serious issue causing nearly 10 per cent deaths occurring in Turkey. Selskar Gunn “Diary of Visit to Turkey”, 10 – 12, also see Ralph Collins, “Interview with Dr. Refik Bey, Minister of Hygiene, Ankara: December 19, 1926”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805, Box 37, Folder 458. Selskar Gunn “Diary of Visit to Turkey”, 41 – 3. Ibid. The Ministry of Health got 4 million Lira out of 160 million (total budget). Ralph Collins, “Public Health in Turkey: September 1926”. During these exchanges Refik Bey was insistent that the Rockefeller Foundation should support hospitals, but Ralph Collins reiterated that it would only be interested in issues relating to hygiene. Ralph Collins, “Interview with Dr. Refik Bey”. Collins also visited Bulgaria and spent a few years as the Rockefeller Foundation representative. Ralph Collins,” Public Health in Turkey”, 143 – 4. Ibid., 141. Ibid., 141 – 2. Ibid., 143 – 4. Ibid., 145 – 6. George Vincent Diary, 1924, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 12. Mete Tuncay, Tu¨rkiye Cumhuriyetinde Tek Parti Yo¨netiminin Kurulması (Ankara: Tarih Vakfı, 1981), 161– 8. George Harris, The Foreign Service Under Ataturk, 99. George Vincent Diary, 1924; “Letter to Admiral Bristol and Bristol’s Letter to Vincent, 19 June 1924 and November 21, 1925”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805, Box 1, Folder 3.

NOTES

TO PAGES

34 –38

163

94. Selskar Gunn Diary, 3 January – 30 June 1927, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 12. 95. Ibid. 96. “Letter from George Strode to Selskar Gunn: 22 May 1926”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Box 37, Folder 458. 97. Kenneth Rose, “The Rockefeller Foundation’s Fellowship Program in Turkey: 1925– 1938”, 8; “Letter from George Strode to Selskar Gunn 22 May 1926”. 98. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report, 1935, 59. 99. Selskar Gunn Diary, 1 January – 1 June 1928. 100. Ibid. 101. Kıvanc Kılıc, “The Central Institute of Hygiene: Modernism and Gender in Early Republican Turkey” Rockefeller Archive Center Research Report, 2010, http://www.rockarch.org/publications/resrep/kilinc.php (Accessed on 18 November 2015). 102. Ralph Collins, “Interview with Dr. Refik Bey”. 103. Selskar Gunn Diary, 3 January – 30 June 1927. 104. “Program and Policy 1930– 1941”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 900, Box 1, Folder 4. 105. Some of the early fellows were Zeki Nasır (1925), Cemal Ali Kiper (1939, industrial hygiene), Memduh Olcer (1937, sanitary engineering), Kamil I˙dil (1929, epidemiology), Tarık Bilginer (1939, public health), Muhit Tumerkan (1939, hygiene), Tomric Eneren (1938, nursing) and Asuman Turer (1938, nursing). See Rockefeller Fellowship Cards. 106. George Payne Diary, 5 – 6 October 1949, RG 12, Box 366. 107. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1929, 35 – 42. 108. Ralph Collins,” Public Health in Turkey”, 146. 109. “Mr Gunn’s Paper at the Princeton Meeting”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 908, Box 12, Folder 175. 110. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1935, 60. 111. Ibid., 59 – 60. 112. “Turkey: Health Center”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805 J, Box 1, Folder 11. Until 1934, 20 fellowships were granted in the field of health service. For example, in a Foundation report the names of three Rockefeller fellows, Dr I˙zzet Kudsi, Fatma Hanım and Ulfet Hanım were mentioned as promising candidates for the future of nursing in Turkey. Dr Kudsi was later recommended to run Edirnekapı Health Center in Istanbul. 113. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1929, 36. 114. Umut Karabulut, “Cumhuriyet’in I˙lk Yıllarında Sag˘lık Hizmetlerine Toplu Bir Bakıs¸: Dr. Refik Saydam’ın Sag˘lık Bakanlıg˘ı ve Hizmetleri (1925– 2937)”, C¸TTAD, VI/15 (2007/Gu¨z), 53. 115. https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanaklar/KANUNLAR_KARARLAR/kanunt bmmc006/kanuntbmmc006/kanuntbmmc00601267.pdf; also see Meliha

164

116. 117.

118. 119.

120.

121. 122. 123. 124.

125. 126. 127. 128. 129.

130.

NOTES

TO PAGES

38 –39

O¨zpekcan, “TBMM Tutanaklarına Go¨re Cumhuriyetin D ¯ lk On Yılında Sag˘lık Politikamız”, Tu¨rkler, XVII, Ankara, Yeni Tu¨rkiye Yayınları, 2003, 442– 44. http://www.istanbulsaglik.gov.tr/w/sb/tipmslk/pdf/1219_sayili_tababet.pdf; Umut Karabulut, “Cumhuriyet’in I˙lk Yıllarında Sag˘lık Hizmetlerinie Toplu Bir Bakıs¸” 155. Arslan Terziog˘lu, “Cumhuriyet Do¨nemi Tu¨rk Tıbbına ve Tıp Eg˘itimine Kısa Bir Bakıs¸”, I˙stanbul U¨niversitesi Yakın Do¨nem Tu¨rkiye Aras¸tırmaları Dergisi, Issue 2, 2002, 282 – 8. In Frances Elizabeth Crowell’s diary, it was explained that Minister Refik Bey were expecting 36 Professors from Germany. Frances Elizabeth Crowell Diary 1933, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG12. Also see Arnold Reisman, Turkey’s Modernization, 20 – 35. “Turkey: Health Center”. According to the Foundation documents between 1934 –1939 the IHD had the largest budget among other Foundation divisions. From 1913 to 1938 the IHD spent $65 million and operated in nearly 41 countries. See “Program and Policy, 1930– 1941”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 906, Box 1 Folder 4 and “Program and Policy, 1930– 1935”. In a letter he wrote in 1936 to the director of IHD Wilbur Sawyer Minister Refik Bey said “I had the privilege to cooperate with you here at Ankara . . . please be aware that to this fact will join the pleasure of being able to apply the good ideas which you kindly gave me”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805 J, Box 1 and RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, Series 805, Box 141, Folder 1052. “Turkey: Health Center”. See the “letter to Mr Gillete from R. Letort: 29 December 1934” See relevant sections of Frances Elisabeth Crowell’s Diary, 1933– 5. Frances Elisabeth Crowell Diary, 1934. Ibid.1934. The Turkish government had invited German and Austrian nurses such as Oberhauser and Ratchsky to improve the standard of nursing in Turkey and Crowell held regular meetings with them about the need for a model training centre for the Turkish nurses in Istanbul. Frances Elisabeth Crowell Diary, 1935 and 1937. Ibid., 1933. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1937, 120; “Ankara Health Center: Letter to W.A Sawyer, November 17 1937”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805 J, Box 1, Folder 10. Frances Elisabeth Crowell Diary, 1935. Haydarpas¸a Medical School had changed place in 1933. Frances Elisabeth Crowell Diary, 1937; for the early efforts of the Republican administration to improve preventive medicine see Ali Gu¨rsel, “Cumhuriyet Do¨neminde Sag˘lık Personeli ve I˙stihdamı Politikaları”, Asia Minor Studies, Cil 4, Sayı 8 (Temmuz, 2016), 26. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report, 1938.

NOTES TO PAGES 39 – 43

165

131. As a sign of courtesy Refik Saydam had left ministership when I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨ had resigned as Prime Minister in 1937. S¸evket Su¨reyya Aydemir, I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨, 224. 132. In his radio speech on the anniversary of the foundation of the Republic in 1940 Saydam said: “We are members of a nation confident in its power and commited to defending its soverignity . . . we love peace and humanity, but also our army and soldiers are brave, and sacrificing as all the world knows”. See Cumhuriyetin 17. Yıldo¨nu¨mu¨de Hitabeler ve Konferanslar: Bas¸vekil Refik Saydam’ın Ankara Radyosunda Cumhuriyet Bayarmını Acıs¸ Hitabesi ve Vekaletlerle Milli Tes¸ekku¨rler Adına Ankara Radyosunda Verilen Konferanslar (Ankara: Su¨mer, 1940), 2 – 3. 133. I˙smail C¸akırcoban, “I˙kinci Du¨nya Savas¸ı’nda Tu¨rkiye’de bulas¸ıcı hastalıklarla mu¨cadele”, Marmara U¨niversitesi, 2010, 28 – 33; 118– 21. 134. See Zeki Nasır’s speech in Cumhuriyetin 17. Yıldo¨nu¨mu¨de Hitabeler ve Konferanslar, 48 –9. 135. Kenneth Rose, “The Rockefeller Foundation’s Fellowship Program in Turkey”, See Fellowship Record Card for “Muhit Tumerkan”. 136. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report, 1941, 69 –70. 137. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report, 1944, “Foreword”. 138. Daily Journal-World, Lawrence-Kansas, 23 November 1940. 139. Ibid. 140. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1948, 8. 141. Ibid., 8 – 10. 142. Ibid. 143. Ibid., 11. 144. Ibid., 11 – 13. 145. Ibid., 108 – 9. 146. http://www.rockarch.org/exhibits/women/women_11.php. 147. Margaret Varley, “Nursing in Turkey: October 1948. Preliminary Report with Recommendations”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805, Box 1, Folder 7. 148. See Margaret Varley’s letter to Dr. Wilson in “Nursing in Turkey: October 1948. Preliminary Report with Recommendations”. 149. Margaret Varley, “Nursing in Turkey”. 150. Ibid., 51. 151. Ibid., 4 – 5. 152. Ibid., 48 –51. She noted that the current director of Edirnekapı would retire and the IHD should train the upcoming director. 153. “Turkey, 1948”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, Series 805, Box 431, Folder 2901. In another letter Behcet Uz let Strode know that he was no longer Minister but asked for further Rockefeller aid to Turkey. 154. Miss Tennat likewise received various letters demanding fellowships; see “Turkey, 1948”.

166

NOTES

TO PAGES

44 – 46

155. For example, Asuman Turer, a promising fellow in the field of nursing who had been appointed to the directorship of the new National School of Nursing in Ankara, left this position and started working in the Pakistan Embassy in Ankara. Dr McIntosh had been hoping for her to build a new nursing school in Turkey and had written to the Ministry of Health about her appointment. “Turkey, 1950”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG2, Series 805, Box 468, Folder 3138. 156. “Turkey, 1949”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, Series 805, Box 506, Folder 3384. 157. “Margaret Varley, “Nursing in Turkey: October 1948. Preliminary Report with Recommendations”. Likewise, Fahru¨nnisa Seden, a leading instructor in the training of nurses, wrote two letters, one to Miss Tenant and the other to Strode, asking for Rockefeller aid for the University Nursing School. “Turkey, 1949”. 158. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1948, 108. 159. http://rockefeller100.org/exhibits/show/health/international-health-division (Accessed on 11 September 2016). 160. Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1948, 13. 161. “University of Ankara-Ihsan Dogramacı”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 A, Box 3, Folder 21; http://www.cocuksagligi. hacettepe.edu.tr/tarihce.shtml (Accessed on 15 September 2016). 162. Dogramacı was given an award of $2,750. “University of Ankara-Ihsan Dogramacı”. 163. Kenneth Rose, “The Rockefeller Foundation’s Fellowship Program”, 17 – 9. 164. Ibid., 17 – 19. 165. “University of Ankara-Pediatrics, 1953, 1955– 1963” RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, Series 805 A, RG 1.2, Box 4, Folders 32 – 9; John Marshall discussed bureucratic processes for making the payment with Dogramacı. John Marshall Diary, 27 October 1959. 166. See John Weir Interviews in “Turkey A-Z, 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, Series 805 A, Box 75, Folder 500. Weir notes that Dogramacı’s daughter persuaded a number of her classmates from better families to go to this school. 167. “Mustafa Siphai”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 487, Folder 7256. 168. See Dog˘ramacı’s letter to John Weir in “Turkey-A-Z, 1957”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, Series 805 A, Box 74, Folder 487. 169. “Yavuz Renda”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 487, Folder 7250. ¨ zsoylu”’, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 101, Series 805 E, 170. “S¸inasi O Box 487, Folder 7247. 171. Faruk Baydoum, who had worked in business administration, applied to the Rockefeller Foundation for a training fellowship but the application was later declined. “University of Ankara-Pediatrics, 1953, 1955 – 1963”.

NOTES

TO PAGES

46 – 48

167

172. “University of Ankara-Pediatrics, 1953, 1955 – 1963”. A favourable report written by George Strode praised Dogramacı’s future plans and recommended this grant to help him carry out scholarly activities in the United States. 173. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1962, 135. 174. Ibid. 175. Kenneth Rose, “The Rockefeller Foundation’s Fellowship Program”, 32. Available documents indicate that this award was granted for teaching equipment, salary supplements for visiting teachers, local scholarship, travel and incidental expenses of students from abroad. “University of Ankara – 1963 – 1964, 1966”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 C, Box 6, Folder 52. 176. The Rockfeller Foundation Annual Report 1967, 15 – 16. 177. Ibid., 15 – 16. 178. Ibid. 179. See “John Weir Interviews” in “Turkey A-Z, 1956”. 180. Ibid., Weir also met Joseph Scott and Argus Tresidder from the US Embassy and Hazım Atıf Kuyucak, Counsel for Sacony Vacuum Company. 181. John Weir had talks with many other professors: Dr Atif Ismet Cetingil, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Dr Halit Ziya Konuralp, Prof. of Surgery, Second Surgical Service; Dr Bulent Tarcan, Neurosurgeon and Docent, Dr Fikret Karaca, Docent in General Surgery, Dr Z. Stary, Prof. of Biochemistry; Prof. Sadi Irmak, Prof. of Physiology, Prof. Meliha Terziog˘lu, Prof. of Physicology. See John Weir Interviews in “Turkey A-Z, 1956”, 1– 3. 182. Weir also acknowledged that the relative autonomy of the universities made it easier for the faculties to amend the curriculum and departmental requirements to meet the ideas of teaching staff. “John Weir Interviews”, 4 – 5. 183. “Sabahat Kaymakcolan, head of cardiology, requested a fellowship from the Foundation and Weir noted that this could be a good investment as Kaymakcolan would likely be a leader in the faculty. “John Weir Interviews”, 4 – 7. 184. “John Weir Interviews”, 9. 185. The Institute had four functions: Public health, bacteriology and serology laboratories, serum and vaccine production, drug and food control. “John Weir Interviews”, 9. 186. The director complained that the WHO did not offer any substantial help, neither did the Point Four Program, whereas Weir was optimistic about the Point Four aids, a new program launched by the US government to help developing countries. Weir also investigated nursing services at Admiral Bristol Hospital under the direction of Miss Mary Bliss and found them of a high standard, thanks to large donations from oil companies and General Electric, and concluded that no Foundation support was needed. “John Weir Interviews”, 9.

168

NOTES

TO PAGES

51 –53

Chapter 2 Remedies of Underdevelopment 1. Dwight MacDonald, The Ford Foundation: The Men and the Millions (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1956), 130. 2. Richard Magat, The Ford Foundation at Work: Philanthropic Choices, Methods and Styles (New York: Plenum Press, 1979), 163. 3. https://www.fordfoundation.org/about-us/history (Accessed on 22 August 2016); Ellen Condliffe Lagemann. The Politics of Knowledge: The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy, and Public Policy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1989), 178 – 9. 4. Ford Vakfı Tu¨rkiye’de 1952– 1967 (The Ford Foundation in Turkey) (I˙stanbul: Ayyıldız, 1968), 3. The Ford Foundation Annual Report 1953, 12 – 14. The bulk of Foundation funds were still used to support activities in the United States for education, economic growth and urban renewal. 5. The Ford Foundation Annual Report 1953, 14; The Ford Foundation in Turkey, 7. 6. The Ford Foundation in Turkey, 7; Robert Kerwin, “Summary Evaluation”, 3. 7. The Ford Foundation in Turkey, 7. 8. Caleb Gates, Not To Me Only (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1940); 197– 202 Arzu M. Nurdog˘an, “Robert Koleji Mu¨hendislik Okulu (1912)”, Divan, Cilt 14 Sayı 26 (2009/1), 209 – 11. 9. http://www.boun.edu.tr/en-US/Content/About_BU/History (Accessed on ¨ nder Hortacsu, “Robert Kolej Mu¨hendis 22 August 2016); Mahmut O Mektebi’nin Tarihi” in The Anatomy of a Tradition: 150 Years of Robert College (Istanbul: Istanbul Research Institute, 2013), 173. 10. Caleb Gates, Not To Me Only, 197– 202; Arzu M. Nurdog˘an, “Robert Koleji Mu¨hendislik Okulu (1912)”, 209– 11. 11. Mahmut O¨nder Horatcsu, “Robert Kolej Mu¨hendis Mektebi’nin Tarihi”, 173– 5. The Ottoman efforts to modernise industrial teaching started in Rhoads Murphey “Osmanlıların Batı Teknolojisini Benimsemesindeki Tutumları: Efrenci Teknisyenlerin Sivil ve Askeri Uygulamalardaki Rolu¨”, ¨ niversitesi Edebiyat Faku¨ltesi Yayınları, Osmanlılar ve Batı Teknolojisi, I˙stanbul U ˙Istanbul 1992, 7 – 19 (I˙lknur Haydar Polatog˘lu, Osmanlı I˙mparatorlug˘unda Yabancı Okullar: Ocak Yayınları 1993; Keith Greenwood, Robert College: The American Founders, I˙stanbul: Bog˘azici University Press, I˙stanbul: 2000; Uygur Kocabas¸og˘lu, Anadolu’daki Amerika. Kendi Belgeleriyle 19. Yu¨zyılda Osmanlı I˙mparatorlug˘u’ndaki Amerikan Misyoner Okulları, Ankara: I˙mge, 2000. 12. Lyonn Scipio, My Thirty Years in Turkey, 60. 13. Ibid., 50. 14. Ibid., 69. Scipio notes that people were slow to adopt modern electricity and those who had it were using it at a minimum level. He adds that Istanbul’s power-system was built by a European company. Lyonn Scipio, My Thirty Years in Turkey, 69.

NOTES

TO PAGES

53 –56

169

15. Ibid., 58 – 9. 16. These numbers rose to 1,473 with 62,000 workers employed in 1933. Peter Sugar “Economic and Political Modernization”, 158, 166. Karpats notes that in 1927 only 2,822 business establishments out of 256,855 employed more than 11 people whereas almost 80 per cent employed one to three people. Kemal Karpat, Social Change and Politics in Turkey: A Structural-Historical Analysis, 54. 17. William Hale, The Political and Economic Development of Modern Turkey (London: Routledge, 2014), 36; Feroz Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey (New York: Routledge, 1994), 95. 18. Caleb Gates, Not To Me Only, 229– 32. 19. Elizabeth Huntington Dodge, The Joy of Service (New York: YWCA, 1979) 50, 82 – 4. Cleveland Dodge’s daughter Elizabeth Huntington Dodge worked at Robert College for more than 15 years. She too was a close friend of the President’s daughter. Elizabeth Huntington Dodge, The Joy of Service, 87. 20. Joseph Grabill argues that Cleveland Dodge was the most influential person in shaping US policy toward the Near East during Wilson’s presidency. He also notes that in a letter Wilson wrote to Dodge he expresses his concern about Dodge’s children serving in the Near East as well. Joseph Grabill, “Cleveland H. Dodge, Woodrow Wilson, and the Near East”, 249, 256 and Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East: Missionary Influence on American Policy, 1810–1927; Elizabeth Huntington Dodge, The Joy of Service, 131. 21. Lyonn Scipio, My Thirty Years in Turkey, 63. After then he tried to extend it to a six-year course. 22. Ibid., 88. In 1914 the British Consul at Bursa visited the College to discuss the subject of coal mining. He told Scipio that a good quality of coal was found near Bursa and asked him to prepare a report on the quality of it. 23. Ibid., 240 – 2. 24. Ibid., 188 – 92. The issue of engineering school with Ankara. It had already been recognised by MIT, Purdue, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc. John Freely, A History of Robert College, II, 30. 25. Ibid., 134. 26. Ibid., 122. 27. Ibid., 227. 28. Ibid., 228. Students were also interested in the Farming and Engineering School. John Freely, A History of Robert College, II, 21. 29. Lyonn Scipio, My Thirty Years in Turkey, 134, 226. 30. Ibid., 133. Scipio also praises his students’ etiquette. Lyonn Scipio, My Thirty Years in Turkey, 220. 31. Peter Sugar, “Economic and Political Modernization”, 166; Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey Reform, Revolution and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey, 1808– 1975 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 390.

170

NOTES

TO PAGES

56 –57

32. http://www.isbank.com.tr/TR/hakkimizda/bizi-taniyin/tarihimiz/o-gunlerdenbugunlere/Sayfalar/o-gunlerden-bugunlere.aspx (Accessed on 22 August 2016). 33. It peaked at 100 million in 1929. 34. Henri Barkey, The State and the Industrialization Crisis in Turkey (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1990), 45. 35. Lyonn Scipio, My Thirty Years in Turkey, 188. 36. Feroz Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey (New York: Routledge, 1994), 94. 37. Ibid., 95. 38. Lyonn Scipio, My Thirty Years in Turkey, 125. 39. Ibid., 240. Scipio narrates that he demanded from Mr Venzielos that Greece recognise Robert College Engineering School. A similar request for the recognition of Robert College in Greece was made by Dr Gates. John Freely, A History of Robert College, II, 30. 40. Lyonn Scipio, My Thirty Years in Turkey, 298. 41. William Hale, “The Traditional and the Modern in the Economy of Kemalist Turkey: The Experience of the 1920s” in Jacob Landau, ed. Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey, 166. 42. Henri Barkey, The State and the Industrialization Crisis in Turkey, 46; Stanford Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol: II, 390. 43. This credit was used to finance early projects by the Soviets in Turkey. Mehmet Saray, Sovyet Tehdidi Kars¸ısında Tu¨rkiye’nin Nato’ya Giris¸i, 57. 44. Peter Sugar “Economic and Political Modernization”, 166; Ali Nejat O¨lcen, “1923– 1938 Do¨neminde Birinci ve I˙kinci Sanayi Planları” in Atatu¨rk Do¨nemi Ekonomi Politikası ve Tu¨rkiye’nin Ekonomik Gelis¸mesi Semineri (Ankara, SBF Yayınları, 1982), 137 – 40; William Hale, Modern Turkey, 56. 45. Peter Sugar “Economic and Political Modernization”, 168; Henri Barkey, The State and the Industrialization Crisis in Turkey, 48–50; Stanford Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 391; Morris Singer, The Economic Advance of Turkey: 1938–1960 (Ankara: Ayyıldız, 1977), 9–11, 28, 38. 46. Feroz Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey, 91; Ahmad notes that Inonu said if the Ankara-Sivas line had been built before the War of Liberation they would have destroyed the enemy much more easily. The Making of Modern Turkey, 91. 47. William Hale, Modern Turkey, 14. Hale notes that importing wheat from North America to feed coastal cities was cheaper than to bring it from Anatolia. William Hale, Modern Turkey, 57. 48. Peter Sugar “Economic and Political Modernization”, 166; Stanford Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 395; Filiz C¸olak, Atatu¨rk Do¨neminde Tu¨rkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin Ulas¸ım Politikasına Bir Bakıs¸, Turkish Studies, Volume 8/2, Winter 2013, 349– 50; Morris Singer, The Economic Advance of Turkey, 47. 49. Filiz C¸olak, “Ulas¸ım Politikasına Bir Bakıs¸”, 349– 50.

NOTES

TO PAGES

57 –60

171

50. Turkey’s population rose from 13.5 million to 17.8 million between 1927 and 1940. William Hale, Modern Turkey, 18. Compared to the numbers of 1928 – 29 the production of wheat increased by 94 per cent, opium 56 per cent and sugar beet 754 per cent in 1939. Korkut Boratav, Tu¨rkiye I˙ktisat Tarihi 1908– 1985 (I˙stanbul, Gercek, 1989), 55. 51. John Freely, A History of Robert College, 18. Scipio notes that the Ministry of Education sent 28 students to the Engineering Faculty in 1926. Lyonn Scipio, My Thirty Years in Turkey, 179. 52. Lyonn Scipio, My Thirty Years in Turkey, 259. 53. Hayrullah Gu¨rtan, a Robert College graduate, worked as head engineer at the Turkish State Railways and Salim O¨ker, another RC graduate, was appointed as the top manager of power stations in Turkey. Fatma Acun, “Robert Kolej Mezunları ve Mes¸hurları”, Turkish History Education Journal, 2015: 4 (2), 156. 54. Terzaghi gained his reputation in the 1920s after he left Robert College. 55. Lyonn Scipio, My Thirty Years in Turkey, 157. 56. Ibid., 252; John Freely, A History of Robert College, II, 72. 57. Ibid., 205 – 7. 58. Ibid., 207. The textbook was long used as a university textbook in various universities later. 59. Ibid., 314. 60. Ibid., 290. 61. Ibid., 319. In 1940 the Ministry of Defence sent 118 military students to the College. Thanks to these enrolments the number of students increased nearly 50 per cent. John Freely, A History of Robert College, II, 68 – 72. 62. Lyonn Scipio, My Thirty Years in Turkey 316; John Freely, A History of Robert ¨ nder Hortacsu, “Robert Kolej Mu¨hendis College, II, 94 – 7 and Mahmut O Mektebi’nin Tarihi”, 182. 63. John Freely, A History of Robert College, II, 94 – 7. 64. Yılmayan Millet, 49. 65. Burcak Keskin Kozat, “Reinterpreting Turkey’s Marshall Plan”, 188– 92. 66. Ibid., 192. 67. Ibid., 191 – 4. 68. Marshall Yardımı’nın etkileri en c ok tarım sekto¨ ru¨ nde go¨ ru¨ ldu¨ , Tu¨rkiye’deki trakto¨r sayısı 1950 senesinde 16 bin iken, 1955’te 40 bini as¸mıs¸tır (S¸ahin, 2000). 69. Begu¨m Adalet, ‘‘Mirrors of Modernization: The American Reflection in Turkey’’, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2014, 161. 70. Ibid., 161. 71. He was then working at the Department of Roads and Bridges. 72. Begu¨m Adalet, “The Road to Modernization”, 161 – 2; Murat Gu¨l, Emergence of Modern Istanbul: Transformation and Modernisation of a City, 203; William Hale, Development of Modern Turkey, 90. 73. Begu¨m Adalet, “The Road to Modernization”, 161 – 2.

172

NOTES

TO PAGES

60 – 62

74. “Ac
ıklamalı Yo¨netim Zamandizini: 1940 – 1949”; Ankara U¨niversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Faku¨ltesi Kamu Yo¨netimi Aras¸tırma ve Uygulama Merkezi: 3, Tu¨rkiye Cumhuriyeti I˙dare Tarihi Aras¸tırması (TI˙DATA), Birgu¨l Ayman Gu¨ler ed., see http://psi203.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/files/SBF– 1940-1949.pdf 75. Robert Kerwin, “The Turkish roads program”, The Middle East Journal, 4 (1950), 196– 7; “Ac
ıklamalı Yo¨netim Zamandizini: 1940–1949”. 76. Gu¨lek was also the president of the UN Commission to Korea in 1950. Alfred Ogden, “A Proposal to the Olin Foundation”, 2. 77. “Ac
ıklamalı Yo¨netim Zamandizini: 1940– 1949”. 78. Ibid; see Chicago Tribute 1 February 1948; “19 Yanks Show Turkey How to Build Roadways”. 79. Begum Adalet, “The Road to Modernization”, 165. 80. Dankwart Rustow, “Politics and Development Policy”, 15. Res¸at Kasaba, “Populism and Democracy in Turkey, 1946– 1961” in eds Ellis Goldberg, Res¸at Kasaba, and Joel Migdal, Rules and Rights in the Middle East: Democracy, Law, and Society (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1993), 55. 81. Peter Sugar “Economic and Political Modernization”, 171. National income in Turkey increased 44 per cent between 1929 and 1938, another 71 per cent 1938 and 1955. 82. Peter Sugar “Economic and Political Modernization”, 171 – 4; William Hale, Development of Modern Turkey, 95 – 6, 101. During his US trip, Celal Bayar visited Chicago to see the tractor factory of the International Harvester Company. He boasted that during their government the number of tractors rose from 4,000 to 40,000. See the relevant section in Resmi Ziyaret. Tu¨rkiye Cumhurreisi Celal Bayar’ın Birles¸ik Amerika’yı Ziyaretinin Hikayesi: Ocak-Mart, 1954: The Story of the Tour of the United States by President Celal Bayar of Turkey, January – March 1954 (Birles¸ik Amerika Haberler Tes¸kilatı Ankara Merkezi Tarafından Nes¸redilmis¸tir, Published by the United States Information Service, Ankara). 83. Fatma Acun, “Robert Kolej Mezunları ve Mes¸hurları”, 156. ¨ nder Hortac
su, “Robert Kolej Mu¨hendis Mektebi’nin Tarihi”, 186. 84. Mahmut O 85. Ibid., 184. 86. Alfred Ogden, “A Proposal to the Olin Foundation”, 5, Robert College Records, Box 42, File 6. 87. Alfred Ogden, “A Proposal to the Olin Foundation”, 4. 88. Duncan Ballantine, “Scientific and Technical Institutions in Underdeveloped Countries”, Robert College Records, Box 42, File, 16, 209. 89. Duncan Ballentine, “Talk Delivered before the Propeller Club”, March 1956, Robert College Records, Box 30, File 4, 3. In the same speech he explained: “It is possible that the principle of nationalism which was a cornerstone of the policy of Ataturk might have meant the closing of Robert College had it not been that Westernization was also a major principle of the Ataturk policy and

NOTES TO PAGES 62 –64

90. 91. 92.

93.

94. 95. 96. 97. 98.

99. 100.

101. 102.

173

the College provided the kind of education which was so necessary to carry that policy”. Duncan Ballentine, “Talk Delivered before the Propeller Club”, 2. Duncan Ballantine, “Proposal to the Ford Foundation”, Robert College Archives, Box 42, File 6. Duncan Ballantine, “Proposal to the Ford Foundation”. Alfred Ogden, “A Proposal to the Olin Foundation”, 3; Duncan Ballantine “Report to the BOT of American Colleges in Istanbul: Observations on a Survey of RC and the American College for Girls, 12 March through 18 April, 1955”, Robert College Records, Box 40, File 3, 5. This report was presented by Alfred Ogden, the President of Board of Trustees between 1955 and 1963. Ogden wrote: “There are a number of Turkish army officers enrolled as regular students in the Engineering School as well as in special English language courses. One of the most outstanding and significant achievements in Turkey during the last ten years has been the building of a network of durable highways throughout the entire country. The job was done by a combination of American technical assistance and Turkish leadership. The Turks were graduates of the Robert College Engineering Faculty”. Alfred Ogden, “A Proposal to the Olin Foundation”, 2– 3. Yılmayan Millet, 47. In the same tour Bayar underlined the risks of Turkey’s geopolitical position and demanded protection against Communism, Yılmayan Millet, 21. Duncan Ballantine, “Report to the BOT of American Colleges in Istanbul”, 5. Duncan Ballantine, “Scientific and Technical Institutions in Underdeveloped Countries”, 209. Ibid., 209 – 10. Duncan Ballantine, “Report to the BOT of American Colleges in Istanbul”, 22. According to Peter Frank, chairman of the department of social sciences, Robert College supplied talented human capital in science, technology and industrial organisation at a time when Turkey needed it most. Franck: “The Role of RC in Turkey’s Economic Life”. The University and World Affairs: Report of the Committee on the University and World Affairs (New York: The Ford Foundation, 1960), 39. In his inaugural speech on 20 January 1949 President Truman spoke about the Point Four Program: “We must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas”. https://history.state. gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v01/comp9 and http://www.presidency. ucsb.edu/ws/?pid¼13282 (Accessed on 31 January 2016). https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/principalofficers/directorforeign-operations-administration (Accessed on 31 January 2016). http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1900s/stassen_harold_edward. html (Accessed on 29 January 2016); https://history.state.gov/department

174

103. 104.

105. 106. 107. 108. 109.

110.

111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120.

NOTES

TO PAGES

64 –66

history/people/principalofficers/director-foreign-operations-administration (Accessed on 31 January 2016). Richard Garlitz, “Academic Ambassadors in the Middle East: The University Contract Program in Turkey and Iran, 1950 – 1970,” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Ohio University, 2008, 11 – 14. Uncontrolled expansion of contract programs, however, caused problems between the US government and universities. Richard Garlitz, “Academic Ambassadors in the Middle East”, 34 – 5. In 1955 FOA was annulled to be replaced by the International Cooperation Administration. Richard Garlitz, “Academic Ambassadors in the Middle East”, 146 – 75; also see John Marshall Diary, 10 September 1954. In a speech Celal Bayar expressed his desire to open an American model landgrant university in Turkey. Richard Garlitz, “Academic Ambassadors in the Middle East” 147. Ug˘ur Ersoy, Bozkırı Yes¸ertenler (Ankara: Evrim, 2002), 3 – 7. Cumhuriyet Tarihi Ansiklopedisi, 101. Derya Yorgancıog˘lu, “Reconstructing the Political and Education Contexts of the Metu Project”, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Middle Eastern Technical University, Department of Architecture, 2010, 11 – 12; Arif Payas¸lıg˘lu, Tu¨rk Yu¨kseko¨g˘retiminde Bir Yenilig˘in Tarihi, 20– 45. Arif Payas¸lıg˘lu, Tu¨rk Yu¨kseko¨g˘retiminde Bir Yenilig˘in Tarihi (Ankara: ODTU: 1996), 20 – 45; Derya Yorgancıog˘lu, “Political and Education Contexts of the Metu Project”, 12, 58; See Charles Abrams, “The Need for Training and Education for Housing and Planning”, Report No: TAA/TUR/13 (New York: United Nations Technical Assistance Program, 23 August 1955). Derya Yorgancıog˘lu, “Political and Education Contexts of the Metu Project”, 71 – 3. Charles Abrams, Housing in the Modern World: Man’s Struggle for Shelter in an Urbanizing World. London: Faber and Faber Press, 1969, 202–3; Derya Yorgancıog˘lu, “Political and Education Contexts of the Metu Project”, 71. Arif Payas¸lıg˘lu, Tu¨rk Yu¨kseko¨g˘retiminde Bir Yenilig˘in Tarihi, 20 – 45. http:// www.upenn.edu/almanac/volumes/v51/n02/death_ghp.html (Accessed on 29 January 2016). Ibid. Derya Yorgancıog˘lu, “Reconstructing the Political and Education Contexts of the Metu Project”, 75. Ibid., 101. Ibid., 103. Ibid., 105 – 6. Howard Reed, “Hacettepe and Middle East Technical University: New Universities in Turkey,” Minerva 13, no. 2 (Summer 1975): 223– 4. Ibid., 223.

NOTES

TO PAGES

66 – 69

175

121. “Interview with Ahemt Tokus¸” available at http://www.yenialanya.com/ gundem/odtuyu-kuran-alanyali-tokus-h54093.html (Accessed on 29 January 2016); Ug˘ur Ersoy, Bozkırı Yes¸ertenler, 7 – 9; Derya Yorgancıog˘lu, “Political and Education Contexts of the Metu Project” 2 – 3, 9; Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of the Ford Foundation Science Education Program in Turkey: 1960 – 1980”, FFR, Program Management Cost Files, FA501, 1980, Box 6, Folder 7, 9. 122. Derya Yorgancıog˘lu, “Political and Education Contexts of the Metu Project”, 4; Howard Reed, “New Universities in Turkey” 221– 2. 123. An early article explaining the foundation process of METU was passed in 1957. 124. Ug˘ur Ersoy, Bozkırı Yes¸ertenler, 1– 3. 125. TC Resmi Gazete, 29 Ocak 1957, Sayı 9521; TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi, Devre IX, Cilt 2, 19.11.1958. 126. Menderes did not attend the meetings, but held a symbolic position. Ug˘ur Ersoy, Bozkırı Yes¸ertenler, 5; also see Cangu¨l O¨rnek, Tu¨rkiye’nin Sog˘uk Savas¸ Du¨s¸u¨nce Hayatı, 243–8. 127. Woolrich allegedly gave unfavourable advice to Eisenhower in taking up this position. Ug˘ur Ersoy, Bozkırı Yes¸ertenler, 9 –10. 128. Ug˘ur Ersoy, Bozkırı Yes¸ertenler, 37. 129. Derya Yorgancıog˘lu, “Political and Education Contexts of the Metu Project”, 39; Howard Reed, “New Universities in Turkey”, 226– 7. 130. Upon his return from the United States Ersoy could not find a position at Robert College but received an invitation from Professor Woolrich in 1957; Ug˘ur Ersoy, Bozkırı Yes¸ertenler, 1. 131. Most faculty heads were foreign academics. Ug˘ur Ersoy, Bozkırı Yes¸ertenler, 11 – 14. 132. Derya Yorgancıog˘lu, “Political and Education Contexts of the Metu Project”, 13, 98. 133. See relevant reports in “Turkey, 1960 January – 1965 February”. 134. “Turkey, 1960 January – 1965 February”, Ford Foundation Records, Office of the President, Office Files of Henry Heald, Box 12, Folder 148. Eugene Northrop, “Science in Turkey: 1961”, Ford Foundation Report 002489, FA7391, Box 107. 135. Ug˘ur Ersoy, Bozkırı Yes¸ertenler, 41. 136. Ibid., 45; Feyziog˘lu was appointed as rector in August 1960. 137. The letter read: “Then came the Turkish president and a generally hostile attitude toward all foreign assistance so not until last week did the University and the Ministries concerned sign the papers”. See “Turkey, 1960 January – 1965 February”; Ug˘ur Ersoy, Bozkırı Yes¸ertenler, 49. 138. “A Study by the Colorado State University Research Foundation: Prepared for the International Cooperation Administration”, JFK Library, Series: 1, Collection: Papers of John F. Kennedy, White House Staff Files of Harris Wofford, 15 May 1961. Digital Identifier: JFKWHSFHW-006-009.

176

NOTES

TO PAGES

69 –74

139. “The Peace Corps Act”, Eighty Seventh Congress of the USA, 22 September 1961; John F. Kennedy, “Establishment of the Peace Corps”, http://millercenter. org/president/speeches/speech-3366 (Accessed on 9 September 2016). 140. I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨ hosted a special meeting for young Peace Corps to meet them in person. Heath Lowry, An Ongoing Affair: Turkey and I (C¸itlembik, I˙stanbul, 2008), 20–2. 141. See Oktay Akbas¸, “Amerikan Go¨nu¨llu¨ Kurulus¸ları: Barıs¸ Go¨nu¨llu¨leri’nin Du¨nyada ve Tu¨rkiye’deki C¸alıs¸maları”, Tu¨rk Eg˘itim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2006, Cilt 4, Sayı 1, 9 – 10; Mu¨slim Ozbalkan, Gizli Belgelerler Barıs¸ Go¨nu¨llu¨leri (Ant, 1970); also see JFK Library, “Returned Peace Corps Volunteer Collection” and “US Peace Corps Records”, USPC-034-006; RPCV-073-001-10. 142. “A Memorandum Sent to John Marshall by Hikmet Birand, Rector of Ankara University, May 1951”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, 1947– 1951, Series 805 R, Box 548, Folder 3654. 143. “The Preparation of Teachers in Turkey” 4 December 1957, RFA Ford Foundation Records, FA 739B, 003621. 144. Ibid., 1. 145. Ibid., 2. 146. Ibid., 13, 16, 19. 147. Ibid., 4. They also appreciated great diversity among the institutions of education despite centralised administration. 148. Ibid., 6 – 8. 149. Ibid. 150. The Report of the Turkish National Commission on Education, 1 – 3. 151. Ibid., 1 – 3. 152. Milliyet, 15.11.1959, 22.12.1959; Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, Ford Foundation Records, Office of the Vice President, Office Files of Francis X Sutton FA568, 24 April 1985, Box 75 Folder, 3 – 4. 153. The Report of the Turkish National Commission on Education, 1. 154. Ibid., 116 – 17. 155. Ibid. 156. Ibid., 30. 157. Ibid., 26 – 7. 158. Ibid., 116 – 17. 159. Ibid., 28 – 9. 160. Ibid., 28. 161. Ibid., 28 – 9. 162. Ibid., 40. 163. Ibid. 164. Eugene Northrop, Riddles in Mathematics (UK: Penguin, 1975), “Preface”. Kerwin notes that Northrop had visited Turkey once more in the late 1950s as a Foundation consultant. Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation

NOTES

165. 166. 167. 168.

169.

170.

171. 172.

173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178.

179. 180. 181.

TO PAGES

74 –76

177

Science Education Program in Turkey: 1960– 1980”, Ford Foundation Records, Program Management Cost Files, FA501, 1980, Box 6 Folder 7, 1. Eugene Northrop, Riddles in Mathematics, Introduction by Daniel Silver (NJ: Dover, 2014), 8. This change was known as “New Math”, which became widely popular among American scientific elites. Oberlin Alumni Magazine, Winter 2007, Vol. 103, No. 2. Robert Maybury, Technical Assistance and Innovation in Science Education (New York: Wiley, 1975), 109– 16. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 3 – 4. Sutton notes that Northrop’s special tie with Turkey was an important factor in persuading him, and he was very much respected among scholars and industrialists in Turkey as well. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey” 8, 11; Homer A. Neal, Tobin L. Smith and Jennifer B. McCormick, Beyond Sputnik: US Science Policy in the Twenty First Century (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2008), 3 – 4, 17. Northop notes that the military coup gave him an advantage, as there was no stable government and he found enough time to talk to university scientists, science teachers, administrators and leaders in business and industry. Eugene Northrop, “Science in Turkey 1966: Prepared for Trustees Meeting Ford Foundation, 8 – 9 December 1966”, Ford Foundation Records, Reports 3255 – 6261, FA739B, Reports 003695, Box 167, 1. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 7. Northrop’s early observations were later shared in another report by the OECD team who came to Turkey in 1968. The OECD report criticised the uselessness of scientific research in Turkey. Peter Hopkins, “Conducents for the Performance of Experimental activity: An Investigation into the Development of Modern Science in Republican Turkey”, Unpublished PhD, Loughborough University, July, 1981, 241– 2, 290. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 5. Ibid., 4 – 5. Ibid., 5. Ibid., 5 – 6. Eugene Northrop, “Improving Science Education in Turkey”, Ford Foundation Reprint: Turkey, No. 5, February 1965, 1. Kemal Kurdas¸, along with S¸ahap Kocatopcu, had been a cabinet member along with Turhan Feyziog˘lu. Feyziog˘lu, Kurdas¸ and Kocatopcu were later involved in the development of METU. Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 9. For a detailed investigation of the opening of Science High School in Ankara see: Robert Maybury, Technical Assistance and Innovation, 109– 23. Robert Maybury, Technical Assistance and Innovation, 110. Eugene Northrop, “Improving Science Education in Turkey”, 5 – 6.

178

NOTES

TO PAGES

76 –77

182. Ibid., 5 – 6. 183. http://mebk12.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/06/06/119664/dosyalar/2013_07/ 08114555_fenlsesnnkurulutarhes.pdf (Accessed on 24 August 2016). 184. http://ankarafenlisesi.meb.k12.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/06/06/119664/dosyalar/ 2014_06/10091618_fenlsesnnkurulukomisyonu.pdf (Accessed on 24 August 2016). 185. The Ford Foundation released an initial amount of $1.1 million and in the following years made another donation of $572,000. Eugene Northrop, “Improving Science Education in Turkey”, Ford Foundation Reprint: Turkey, No. 5, February 1965, 4; Kemal Kurdas¸, Odtu¨ Yıllarım: Bir Hizmetin Hikayesi (Ankara: METU, 1988), 109–14. 186. Kemal Kurdas¸, Odtu¨ Yıllarım: Bir Hizmetin Hikayesi, 109– 14. This agreement included Florida State University. Robert Maybury, Technical Assistance and Innovation, 117. 187. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 14; Eugene Northrop, “Improving Science Education in Turkey”, 3. 188. Eugene Northrop, “Improving Science Education in Turkey”, 3. 189. Ibid., 3; Professor Stanley Marshall, Head of the Science Education Department of the Florida State University, was appointed as co-director of the High School. Robert Maybury, Technical Assistance and Innovation, 117–19. 190. Eugene Northrop, “Improving Science Education in Turkey”, 3; Robert Maybury, Technical Assistance and Innovation, 123. 191. Robert Maybury, Technical Assistance and Innovation, 127; Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 8. 192. Dog˘an Do¨nmez, “Ankara Fen Lisesi”, The De Morgan Gazette 7 no. 1 (2015), 1–3. 193. Eugene Northrop, “Improving Science Education in Turkey”, 5 and “A Turkish Effort to Improve Secondary School Mathematics and Science”, November, 1966, Reports 005940, Box 265, FA739B; Dog˘an Do¨nmez; “Ankara Fen Lisesi”, The De Morgan Gazette 7 no. 1 (2015), 1 –3. 194. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 11. 195. Eugene Northrop, “Science in Turkey 1966”, 5 – 6. 196. “The Ford Foundation in Turkey: 1952– 1968”, Ford Foundation History Project Files, Box 63, Folder 13, 13; Kerwin pointed out that Turkish students who graduated from these pilot high schools got higher scores in university entrance examinations in the United States. Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 9. 197. “Ford Foundation Annual Report: 1969”, FA739E, Ford Foundation Reports: 012369 –005, Box 609. See grant 670– 0574A; Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 4. 198. Eugene Northrop, “Science in Turkey 1966”, 1 –2. Northrop noted that an Istanbul Technical University graduate could earn a salary four times higher than an assistant in the university and nearly equal to what top professors earned.

NOTES

TO PAGES

78 –79

179

199. Eugene Northrop, “Science in Turkey: 1961” and “Science in Turkey 1966”, 5; Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 7– 8; Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 2. 200. Eugene Northrop, “Science in Turkey 1966”, 5; Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 7 – 8; Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 2. 201. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 8; Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 2 – 3. 202. Kemal Kurdas¸, Odtu¨ Yıllarım, 110. 203. Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 3; Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 8. 204. Around 50 students were awarded post-doctoral research grants and more than 150 visiting scientists were given fellowships to come to Turkey thanks to the STRC funding. The latter intended to strengthen science teaching in older universities such as Istanbul and Ankara. Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 4 – 5, 10. 205. Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 11. 206. Ibid., 4. 207. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 7. 208. Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 11. 209. Ibid. 210. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article¼ 1621& context ¼ lsr (Accessed on 29 February 2016). 211. Zacharly Lockman: Field Notes: The Making of Middle East Studies in the United States, 146. 212. Ibid. 213. Howard Reed, “New Universities in Turkey”, 227. Later in the 1960s the Ford Foundation helped new founded Hacettepe University to develop the undergraduate science programme with a grant aiming to invite visiting professors and to buy laboratory equipment. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 15. 214. Ug˘ur Ersoy, Bozkırı Yes¸ertenler, 41. 215. See the exchange of letters between Eugene Northrop and Henry Heald in “Turkey, 1960 January – 1965 February”. 216. Eugene Northrop, “Science in Turkey: 1961”, Ford Foundation Report 002489, FA7391, Box 107. 217. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 9. In capacity of the Ford Foundation consultants a group of American scholars visited the Middle Eastern Technical University to evaluate the graduate programme in physical sciences. The group consisted of: William Nierenberg, Prof. of Experimental Physics, University of California, Robert Serber, Prof. of Theoretical Physics, Columbia University, John Turkevich, Professor of Chemistry, Princeton University, M. Loeve, Professor of Mathematics. “Turkey, 1960 January–1965 February”

180

NOTES

TO PAGES

79 –81

218. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 10. As a result of this expansion in graduate programmes the number of graduate students rose from nine to 70 between 1961 and 1968. 219. Eugene Northrop, “Science in Turkey: 1961”; also see Resmi Gazete 4 June 1959, No: 10222. 220. He gave the example of Erdal Inonu, who had worked at Princeton and recently joined METU. Eugene Northrop, “Science in Turkey: 1961”. 221. Eugene Northrop, “Science in Turkey: 1961”; Kurdas¸ notes that in 1961 METU had 118 faculty members whereas in 1970 this number rose to 838. Kemal Kurdas¸, Odtu¨ Yıllarım, 143. 222. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 9; Eugene Northrop, “Science in Turkey: 1961”. 223. “Ford Foundation Annual Report: 1969”, see grant 610– 0337C. 224. “The Ford Foundation in Turkey: 1952–1968”, History Project Files Regional, Box 63, Folder 13. A year later the Departments of Mathematics and Chemistry were opened in METU. Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program” 6. 225. “Ford Foundation Annual Report: 1969”, see grant: 670– 0546; Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 15. 226. Carroll Newsom, “Report on Middle East Technical University”, Ford Foundation Archives, FA739E, 012065, Box 563. 227. Ibid., 2 – 4. 228. Ibid., 6, 14. 229. Ibid., 16. 230. Ibid., 39– 40. Kurdas¸ recounts that after 1968 he had serious arguments with students over the ongoing American aid to METU and once the rectorate building was invaded by protesters who accused him of taking money from the Ford Foundation, Kemal Kurdas¸, Odtu¨ Yıllarım, 320–2. 231. “Ford Foundation Annual Report: 1969”, see grant 610– 0337C. 232. Ibid. 233. Howard Reed, “New Universities in Turkey”, 232–3; Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 10. Another grant was made for the establishment of a computing centre in 1967. It gave METU $270,000 to cover the cost of computers, other equipment and the director. “Ford Foundation Annual Report: 1969”, see grant: 610–0252A. 234. Howard Reed, “New Universities in Turkey”, 232. Reed comended METU’s educational strategy, which involved closer interaction between student and teacher in smaller classes, a new library model with open stacks, different school periods and better laboratory equipment. 235. Howard Reed, “New Universities in Turkey”, 227. 236. Eugene Northrop, “Science in Turkey 1966”, 5. Kemal Kurdas¸ and Erdal Inonu likewise praised the contribution of Ford Foundation projects in the development of science education in Turkey. Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of

NOTES

237. 238. 239. 240.

241. 242.

TO PAGES

81 –86

181

Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 8 –9; Kemal Kurdas¸, Odtu¨ Yıllarım, 110– 13. Robert Kerwin, “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program”, 8 – 9. Ibid., 8 – 9. Ibid., 10 – 12. Nasuh Uslu, The Cyprus Question as an Issue of Turkish Foreign Policy and TurkishAmerican Relations: 1959– 2003 (New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2003), 47 – 54 Murat Metin Hakkı, The Cyprus Issue: A Documentary History, 1878– 2006 (London: I.B.Tauris, 2007), 94. Once he declined an offer from Colonel Cemal Gu¨rsel to lead the government after I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨ resigned from the Prime Ministership. Kemal Kurdas¸, Odtu¨ Yıllarım, 223– 5. On Kennedy’s killing, for example, the university designed a special forest named “Kennedy Forest” and launched a special Kennedy scholarship for METU students. Kemal Kurdas¸, Odtu¨ Yıllarım, 215– 17.

Chapter 3

The Age of Experts

1. Rakesh Khurana, From Higher Aims to Hired Hand, 239, 245– 7. 2. James Howell, “The Ford Foundation and the Revolution in Business Education: A Case Study in Philanthropy”, Ford Foundation Records, Catalogued Reports, Reports: 006353, Box 284, 1966. 3. Thomas Carroll, “A Foundation Expresses Its Interest in Higher Education for Business Management”, The Journal of the Academy of Management, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Dec., 1959), 155– 6. 4. Thomas Carroll, “A Foundation”, 155– 6. 5. Rakesh Khurana, From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession (Princeton University Press: Princeton, 2007), 235. 6. The title of the book was “Social Science Research on Business: Product and Potential”. Thomas Carroll, “A Foundation”, 160. 7. Rakesh Khurana, From Higher Aims to Hired Hands, 250. 8. Thomas Carroll, “A Foundation”, 164. 9. “The Economy of Turkey: An Analysis and Recommendations for a Development Program, Report of a Mission sponsored by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Collaboration with the Government of Turkey” (The John Hopkins Press, 1951), 11 –13. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid., “Introduction”, 167, 253. 12. “The Economy of Turkey”, 22– 3. 13. Ibid., 167–74. The report also suggested service training for the lower, middle ranks, undergraduate and advanced specialists. “The Economy of Turkey”, 204.

182

NOTES

TO PAGES

86 –89

14. Ibid., 174. 15. Behlu¨l U¨sdiken, “Transferring American Models for Business and Public Administration” in American Turkish Encounters, 318– 19. 16. “The Economy of Turkey” 203 – 4. Yalman narrates that Baker presented this report to Adnan Menderes and suggested he prioritise goods of export material and animal husbandry. Menderes criticised this proposal and the report in general, claiming that they did not want Turkey to compete with big industrial countries. Ahmet Emin Yalman: Go¨rdu¨klerim ve Gecirdiklerim 229– 30. 17. Robert Arnove, Philantrophy and Cultural Imperialism, ‘American Philanthrophy and the Social Sciences: The Reproduction of a Conservative Ideology (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1982), 236 – 9; http://rockefeller100.org/biography/ show/edmund-e – day (Accessed on 24 August 2016). 18. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1951. 19. Ibid. 20. Edward Berman The Idea of Philanthropy, 79 – 83. 21. Ibid., 81. 22. Richard Magat, The Ford Foundation at Work, 97. 23. Inderjeet Parmar, Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller, 185. 24. Yılmayan Millet, 99. 25. Ibid., 101. 26. Oral Sander, Tu¨rk-Amerikan I˙lis¸kileri, 102. 27. John Fox became the Dean of Harvard College in 1975. 28. “University of Istanbul, Institute of Business Administration: 1953 – 1956”, Ford Foundation Records, Overseas Development, International Training and Research, Office Folders of John Howard, FA 608, Series 1 Box 18 Carl Spaeth, Director of Division of Overseas Activities at the Ford Foundation, wrote a letter to Donald David, Dean of the Harvard School of Business Administration, explaining the purpose of John Fox’s visit to Turkey and the role of Harvard University in assisting the University of Istanbul to develop this school. See “University of Istanbul, Institute of Business Administration: 1953–1956”. 29. “University of Istanbul, Institute of Business Administration: 1953 – 1956”. 30. Ibid. 31. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 1 –2. 32. Ibid. 33. “University of Istanbul, Institute of Business Administration: 1953 – 1956”. 34. James E. Howell, “The Ford Foundation and the Revolution in Business Education: A Case Study in Philanthropy”, Ford Foundation Records, Box 284 Reports 006353, Box 284, 1. 35. Ibid., 4. 36. James E. Howell, “The Ford Foundation and the Revolution in Business Education”, 7 –8. In the meantime, Harvard Business School made an

NOTES

37. 38. 39.

40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

53. 54. 55. 56.

TO PAGES

89 –92

183

application to the Rockefeller Brothers Funds as well. See “Harvard University-Graduate School of Business Admnistration”, RFA, Rockefeller Brothers Fund Records, RG1, Series 1, Box 402. “Report on Turkey: 1953”, Ford Foundation Records, Reports 1 – 3254 (003228): FA 739A, Box 142, 3. Overall the Ford Foundation contributed to this project more than $1 million by the mid-1960s. “Report on Turkey: 1953”, 3. Some of the people Iverson met included: Robert McAtee, United States Consul General, Dean Sulva of the Faculty of Economics, Hasım Atıf Kuyucak, Ahmet Emin Yalman, Salih Murat Ozdilek, Robert Kerwin, Rıfkı Salim Burcak, Minister of Education, Faruk Sunter, Union of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Kemal Inan, Koc and Professor Fadıl Hakkı Sur. “Proposed Foundation Aid for Consultation to Turkey on Investment Opportunities for American Capital: April 12, 1954”, Ford Foundation Records, New York Inter Office Memorandum, Box 191, Folder 1911. “Proposed Foundation Aid for Consultation to Turkey on Investment Opportunities for American Capital: April 12, 1954”. “University of Istanbul, Institute of Business Administration: 1953 – 1956”. I˙s¸letme I˙ktisadı Enstitu¨su¨ 1958 –1959 Tedrisat Programları ve 1957 – 1958 Yıllıg˘ı (I˙stanbul: Sermet Matbaası, 1958), 5. “University of Istanbul, Institute of Business Administration: 1953 – 1956”. Nejat Eczacıbas¸ı, Yeni Bir Tu¨rkiye (I˙stanbul: Eczacıbas¸ı Yayınları, 1998), 286–91. Ibid. I˙s¸letme I˙ktisadı Enstitu¨su¨, I˙s¸letme I˙ktisadı Kursu: Birinci Do¨nem Mezunları, 1956– 1957 Ders Yılı; (I˙stanbul: I˙stanbul Universitesi I˙ktisat Faku¨ltesi, 1957), 9. I˙s¸letme I˙ktisadı Enstitu¨su¨ 1958– 1959, 23. Ibid., 3. Ibid. I˙s¸letme I˙ktisadı Enstitu¨su¨ Birinci Do¨nem Mezunları, 13–4. Available data indicates that almost all students had experience either in the state or private sector. Robert Stone “Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, George Baker Foundation: Second Annual Report” in “Istanbul University Business Administration”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG2, 1952 –1957, Series 805, Box 75, Folder 495. “Istanbul Business Adminstration: 1953–1956”. I˙s¸letme I˙ktisadı Enstitu¨su¨ Birinci Do¨nem Mezunları, 6. Ibid., 7. “Istanbul University, Economic Development, 1955–1959”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 12 Folder 121 – 2. John Marshall, too, was informed about the Institute and encouraged Ford Foundation officers to launch the programme. “University of Istanbul, Institute of Business Administration: 1953–1956”.

184

NOTES TO PAGES 92 –95

57. Howard Reed, “Institute of Business Administration, Istanbul University” in “University of Istanbul, Institute of Business Administration: 1953 – 1956”. 58. Howard Reed, “Institute of Business Administration, Istanbul University”; Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 16. 59. Howard Reed, “Institute of Business Administration, Istanbul University”. 60. Ibid. 61. John Marshall Diary, 2 April 1956, 23 August 1956. 62. “University of Ankara-Economic Development, 1956– 1959, 1961– 1964, 1966, 1969”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 13, Folder 131 – 5. 63. “University of Ankara-Economic Development, 1956– 1959, 1961– 1964, 1966, 1969”. 64. See Turhan Feyzioglu’s letter to Norman Buchanan in “University of AnkaraEconomic Development, 1956– 1959, 1961– 1964, 1966, 1969”. 65. “Proposed Development of the Robert College School of Business Administration 1959”; Robert College Archives, Box 42 Folder 8, 1 – 4. 66. Some prominent graduates of the Commerce Department were: Alpar Nahit, Treasurer of E.R Squibb and Sons, Assistant general-director of the Treasury, financial counsellor in the Turkish Embassy, Washington; Sami Ozelsel, Commercial Attache´ in Beirut; Bu¨lent Yazıcı, Deputy General Manager of the Industrial Development Bank of Turkey, Financial Counsellor to the Embassy in Washington, Deputy General Director of the Treasury, Alternate Delegate to UN Economic-Social Council, Alternate Governor for Turkey for the International Monetary Fund. “Proposed Development of the Robert College School of Business Administration 1959”, Appendix I. 67. “Proposed Development of the Robert College School of Business Administration 1959”; 1–4. 68. “Robert College School of Business Administration 1959”, 1 – 4. 69. “Robert College School of Business Administration 1959”; 1 – 4. The teaching faculty would be both American and Turkish. 70. Robert Kerwin, “Summary Evaluation”, 61. 71. Ibid., 62. 72. Ibid., 7. 73. Robert Kerwin, “Summary Evaluation of the Management and Business Development Program of the Ford Foundation in Turkey, 1952 –1976”, Ford Foundation Records, FA 739C, Box 350, Reports 008254, 1. 74. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 16– 17. 75. Robert Kerwin, “Summary Evaluation”, 2. 76. Ibid., 3 – 4. 77. Ibid., 5. 78. “Ford Foundation Prospect Folders: The Ford Foundation in Turkey, 1952– 1967”, Box 63, Folder 13, 23.

NOTES

TO PAGES

95 – 98

185

79. Prominent thinkers on economic development such as Pitamber Pant, Arthur Lewis and Maxwell Stamp, Roy Harrod Hollis Chenery attended the Conference as well. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, Ford Foundation Records, Office of the Vice President, Office Folders of Francis X Sutton FA568, Box 75, Folder 3 – 4, 18. 80. Robert Kerwin, “Summary Evaluation”, 5. 81. Ibid., 6; Orhan Og˘uz, Rector of Eskis¸ehir Academy of Economics and Commercial Sciences, narrates that he attended a Koc and Eczacıbas¸ı sponsored event held by the Economic and Social Studies Conference Board, and convinced Koc to help the construction of the Academy building in Eskis¸ehir. After Koc’s sponsorship Og˘uz managed to get permission from the President Cevdet Sunay and the necessary budget from Parliament. Orhan Og˘uz, 80 Yıl: Cumhuriyet’e Yas¸ıt Bir Hayat (I˙stanbul: Dog˘an, 2004), 157–60. 82. Robert Kerwin, “Summary Evaluation”, 6. 83. Ibid. 84. Ibid., 8. 85. “The Ford Foundation in Turkey, 1952– 1967”, 21 – 3; Robert Kerwin, “Summary Evaluation”, 8. 86. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 17; Robert Kerwin, “Summary Evaluation”, 10. 87. Robert Kerwin, “Summary Evaluation”, 11. 88. Ibid., 9; “The Ford Foundation in Turkey, 1952– 1967”, 25. 89. “A Report to Establish an Applied Economic Research and Feasibility Study Unit within the proposed Turkish Business and Industry Development Foundation: 1965”, Ford Foundation Records, FA739A, Box 40 Reports 000787. 90. “A Report to Establish an Applied Economic Research and Feasibility Study Unit”, 11 – 12; Robert Kerwin, “Summary Evaluation”, 13. 91. “A Report to Establish an Applied Economic Research and Feasibility Study Unit”, 14. Also see “Turkish Management Development Center: Survey for the In-Plant Advisory Training Service”, Ford Foundation Records, FA 739 C, Box 355 Reports 008392. 92. Robert Kerwin, “Summary Evaluation”, 16 – 17. 93. Ibid., 18. 94. Ibid., 13; Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 17. 95. Ibid., 14. 96. Ibid., 11. 97. Ibid., 12. 98. Ibid., 32. 99. Ibid., 33. In the field administration the Foundation could hardly find competent people to run these organisations and it took time to recruit their own staff. 100. “The Ford Foundation in Turkey, 1952– 1967”, 21. 101. Behlu¨l U¨sdiken, “Transferring American Models for Education in Business and Public Administration to Turkey, 1950– 1970”, 324.

186 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115.

116. 117.

118. 119.

120.

NOTES

TO PAGES

98 –100

“The Ford Foundation in Turkey, 1952– 1967”, 16 – 8. Ibid., 20. Robert Kerwin, “Summary Evaluation”, 54. Ibid., 53. Ibid., 57. Ibid., 22, 84 – 6. “Hazim Atıf”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10, Box 5. John Marshall Diary, 19 – 31 March 1952. “Kasım Gu¨lek”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10. Series 5, Box 5; John Marshall Diary, 19 – 31 March 1952. “Turkey, 1948”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, Series 805, Box 431, Folder 2901. John Marshall Diary, 7 April 1951. Ibid. “Istanbul University-Alexander Rustow (Travel Grant, Economics), 1946 – 1948, 1950”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805 S, Box 1, Folder 13. “Istanbul Universtiy-Hıfsı Timur, 1952– 1953”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Grant, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8 Folder 82. Timur gave these courses in French as he spoke French more fluently. John Marshall was surprised that Timur did not know English well. Timur said that his experience in the United States prompted him to write a book on Turkey. John Marshall Diary, 29 March 1952. “Istanbul Universtiy-Hıfsı Timur, 1952 –1953”; John Marshall Diary, 18 May 1953. John Marshall wrote a letter to Schuyler Wallace about the university structures and asked for help for Timur. O¨rnek notes that Robert Kerwin assumed a leading role in the organisation of this conference. For a detailed analysis of the conference see Cangu¨l O¨rnek, “Hegemonya Mu¨cadelesi Bag˘lamında Filantropi ve Sosyal Bilimler: 1953 Yalova Konferansı O¨rneg˘i”, Amme I˙daresi Dergisi, Cilt 46, Sayı 3, Eylu¨l 2013, 153. “Turkish-American University Association-Turkish Research”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 10, Folder 96 –8. Indeed, the Turkish-political elite held a firm conviction in the uniqueness of the “Turkish Revolution”. In a speech he delivered in the United States Celal Bayar expressed his pride at the changes the Turkish Revolution had brought about in social life, political culture and mentality. Yılmayan Millet, 47. Also see Shmuel Einsttadt’s discussion on the specificity of the “Turkish Revolution”, Shmuel.Eisenstadt, “The Kemalist Regime and Modernization”, in Jacob Landau, ed. Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey, 7. See “Report on the Conference on Problems of Research in Turkey” in “TurkishAmerican University Association-Turkish Research”, 1–12; Cangu¨l O¨rnek, “Hegemonya Mu¨cadelesi Bag˘lamında Filantropi ve Sosyal Bilimler”, 153–5.

NOTES

TO PAGES

101 –103

187

121. “Report on the Conference on Problems of Research in Turkey”, 1 – 12 Enver Ziya Karal likewise proposed research on the chronology and bibliography of the history of the Turkish Revolution. See “Report on the Conference on Problems of Research in Turkey”, 1 –12; Cangu¨l O¨rnek, “Hegemonya Mu¨cadelesi Bag˘lamında Filantropi ve Sosyal Bilimler”, 155 – 62. 122. In his article discussing Atatu¨rk reforms Osman Okyar stressed that Mustafa Kemal changed the Turkish people’s fateful outlook and replaced religious passivism with materialistic values in his quest for Westernisation. This was a struggle for liberation from chains inherited from the Ottoman era. Osman Okyar, “Ataturk’s Quest for Modernism” in Jacob Landau ed. Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 51 – 3. 123. See Robert Kerwin’s letter to Aydın Yalcın and Aydın Yalcın’s letter to John Marshall in “Turkish-American University Association-Turkish Research”. 124. John Marshall Diary, 23 March 1954; Marshall also suggested that the Ford Foundation could be contacted for research grants. See “Turkish-American University Association-Turkish Research”. 125. The long list of institutions and people included: Stanford University: Fischer and Bisbee, Millar Burrows from the University of Yale, Nelson Gluek from the Hebrew University, Ephraim Avigdor Speiser from the University of Pennsylvania, Gustave von Grunebau and Daniel Lerner. For the whole list see “Turkish American Association, Turkish Research”. 126. See Okyar and Yalcın’s proposals in “Turkish-American University AssociationTurkish Research”. 127. “Turkish-American University Association-Turkish Research”. 128. “Istanbul University, Afife Sayın, 1958– 1962”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 13, Folder 129. 129. “Istanbul University-Economic History, 1956–1964”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 12, Folder 123–126; John Marshall Diary, 5 April 1956. 130. Ibid. 131. “Istanbul University-Economic History, 1956– 1964”. Barkan explains that individual small landholders began to lose their land, to be replaced by large farms, resulting in revolts in the Anatolian peninsula. 132. John Marshall Diary, 4 April 1956. 133. See Gibb’s letter to Marshall in “Istanbul University-Economic History, 1956– 1964”; John Marshall Diary, 5 April 1956. 134. “Istanbul University-Economic History, 1956– 1964”. 135. “University of Ankara-Economic Development, 1956– 1959, 1961– 1964, 1966, 1969”. Norman Buchanan found Fadıl Hakkı Sur judicious and “the most like a good US professor of anyone seen in Ankara”. Norman Buchanan Diary 5 – 7 March, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 12, Box 50.

188

NOTES

TO PAGES

103 –105

136. “University of Ankara-Economic Development, 1956– 1959, 1961– 1964, 1966, 1969”. 137. Ibid. 138. See Kenneth Winfred Thompson’s report on the “Institute of Public Finance and Economic Development, University of Ankara” in “University of AnkaraEconomic Development, 1956– 1959, 1961– 1964, 1966, 1969”. 139. “University of Ankara-Economic Development, 1956– 1959, 1961– 1964, 1966, 1969”. 140. Ibid. 141. Ibid. 142. See the letter of Professor Suat Kemal Yetkin, Rector of the University of Ankara, to the Rockefeller Foundation and Professor Fadıl Hakkı Sur’s letter to Kenneth Winfred Thompson in May 1959 in “University of AnkaraEconomic Development, 1956 – 1959, 1961 – 1964, 1966, 1969”. Sur’s letter indicated that the Central Bank of Turkey and the University of Ankara would pay more than 140,000 TL over four years for the completion of the study. 143. See “Memorandum on the Economic Research Project Proposed by the Institute of Public Finance, Faculty of Political Science, University of Ankara” and Kenneth Winfred Thompson’s report on the “Institute of Public Finance and Economic Development, University of Ankara” in “University of AnkaraEconomic Development, 1956– 1959, 1961– 1964, 1966, 1969”. 144. “University of Ankara-Economic Development, 1956– 1959, 1961– 1964, 1966, 1969”. 145. See Sadun Aren’s letter to Freund in 1961 in “University of Ankara-Economic Development, 1956– 1959, 1961–1964, 1966, 1969”. 146. See Gerald Freund’s letter to Aren on 19 October 1961 and Sadun Aren’s “Survey Note on the Research Project on Turkish Economic Development since 1923”in “University of Ankara-Economic Development, 1956 – 1959, 1961– 1964, 1966, 1969”. After this ambivalence, the project continued and was completed towards the end of 1963. 147. “Robert College-Turkish Economic Development, 1957 – 1962, 1967”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 13, Folder 130. 148. See “Grant in Aid, RF 56205-SS” in “Robert College-Turkish Economic Development, 1957– 1962, 1967”. 149. “Robert College-Turkish Economic Development, 1957 – 1962, 1967”. 150. Ibid. 151. Ibid. In his review Ru¨s¸tu¨ Aktan stressed the strength of “Bir lokma bir hırka” mentality among the Turkish people, meaning simpleness and lack of greed in economic behaviour. 152. Compared to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation made a limited contribution to the study of social sciences in Turkey. As previously mentioned, the Foundation provided financial assistance for the development

NOTES

153. 154. 155. 156. 157.

158. 159. 160.

161. 162.

163. 164.

165. 166. 167.

TO PAGES

105 –107

189

of population studies at Hacettepe University. The Foundation also sponsored a seminar to be held at Lake Abant for Turkish and foreign social scientists, which inspired new research to observe social change in the Izmir metropolitan area. Francis Sutton, “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, 16 – 17. Frank Ninkovich, The Wilsonian Century: US Foreign Policy Since 1900, (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999), 48. “Humanities 1941” in “Program and Policy-Reports, Pro-14, 14a, 1941” RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 91, Box 2, Folder 13. “Humanities 1941”. David David Stevens, “A Review of the Period”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 911, Box 2, Folder 14, 5. David Stevens, “A Review of the Period”, 8. Fosdick notes that many of the Foundation fellows became chairs in Far Eastern studies. Also after 1943 the number of Oriental and Slavic studies increased. Raymond Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, 221, 251. Stevens, “A Review of the Period”, 4 – 7. http://www.rockefeller100.org/biography/show/charles-fahs (Accessed on 8 August 2016). Victoria Lyon Bestor, “The Rockefeller Blueprint for Postwar US-Japanese Cultural Relations and the Evolution of Japan’s Civil Sector” in Globalization, Philantrophy and Civil Society: Toward a New Political Culture in the 21st Century, Soma Hewa, Darwin Stapleton ed. (Boston: Springer, 2005), 77. Edward Berman The Idea of Philanthropy, 101. “University of Chicago-Chinese Studies”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 216 R, Box 14, Folder 190 – 9; “Harvard UniversitySlavic Studies, 1943– 1945”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 200R, Box 343, Folder 3135; “Stanford University-Hoover Institute (Slavic Studies), 1947– 1952”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 205 R, Box 9, Folder 59. http://rockefeller100.org/exhibits/show/social_ sciences/area-studies (Accessed on 8 August 2016). Spaeth put special emphasis on Asian studies. Edward Berman, The Idea of Philanthropy, 101–3. “International Studies-Overseas Training and Research/ International Training and Research Program-Memoranda, Outlines, Reviews, 1953 –1961”; Ford Foundation Records, International Division, Office of the Vice President, Office Files of Francis Sutton. Harvard’s Center for International Affairs, Center for International Studies at MIT, the Institute of International Studies at Berkeley received significant funding. Edward Berman, The Idea of Philanthropy, 101– 103. Zachary Lockman, Field Notes: The Making of Middle East Studies in the United States (Stanford University Press: 2016), 226; Edward Berman, The Idea of Philanthropy, 101. Inderjeet Parmar, “American Foundations”, 17; Zachary Lockman, Field Notes, 117.

190

NOTES

TO PAGES

107 –109

168. Stevens, “A Review of the Period,” 7 – 8; Edward Berman, The Idea of Philantrophy, 102; Cangu¨l O¨rnek, Sog˘uk Savas¸ Du¨s¸u¨nce Hayatı, 162 – 4. 169. In 1953 the Eisenhower Administration launched the United States Information Agency to provide information about American policies and cultural values across the World. To foster cultural exchanges the Kennedy Administration established the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Relations, which was later changed to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. See http://eca.state.gov/ivlp/about-ivlp/program-history. For a discussion on US intellectual hegemony see Abdurrahman Babacan, 11 Eylu¨l Tarihsel Do¨nu¨s¸u¨mu¨n Analizi, I˙stanbul: Pınar, 2011, 230. 170. He added that the Center offered courses in Russian language, history, economics, law, politics and culture and that area fellows were called to give lectures at the National War College, the Air War College and other universities. “President’s Review” in the Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report, 69. 171. “Princeton University-Turkish History, 1938– 1942”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 200 R, Box 274, Folders 3258– 9; “Columbia University-Near East Institute- Zeki Velidi Togan, 1957– 1958”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 200 R, Box 318, Folder 2937; John Marshall Diary, 10 April 1951. 172. “Aydın Yalcın: 1956– 1957, 1959– 1961”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 14, Folder 146; “Turkish-American University Association-Turkish Research”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 10, Folders 96 – 8. 173. Kerwin expressed his gratitude to John Marshall for his help in arranging a Rockefeller grant for Yalcın’s visit. See “Aydın Yalcın: 1956–1957, 1959–1961” and “Turkish-American University Association-Turkish Research”. Another grant in aid was made to the Turkish American Association in 1955 towards the preparation of a book on “The Development of Modern Turkey”. “TurkishAmerican University Association- Modern Turkish History, 1955–1960”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 9, Folder 95. 174. “Aydın Yalcın: 1956– 1957, 1959 –1961”; “Turkish-American University Association-Turkish Research”. 175. See Elanar Bisbee’s letter in “Turkish-American University AssociationTurkish Research”. 176. “Stanford University-Hoover Institute-Turkish History (Enver Ziya Karal, Frederick P. Latimer Jr.), 1956– 1960”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, 200R, Box 422 Folder 3634. 177. “Turkish-American University Association-Turkish Research”. 178. In reply to this letter, Marshall wrote that it would be better for Hoover to approach Kerwin and send this proposal to the Turkish-American University Association. See John Marshall’s letter in “Turkish-American University Association-Turkish Research”.

NOTES

TO PAGES

109 –112

191

179. In one of these letters he explains the “Circle of Justice” from Kınalizade Ali Efendi’s Ahlak-ı Alai. It read: “Justice is the factor of universal improvement; the universe is a garden surrounded by the wall of State, the state stands on the Divine Law, the sovereign alone can be the custodian of the Divine Law, the sovereign cannot conquer without soldiers, He cannot recruit soldiers without revenue; the providers of revenue are the people; Justice makes people devoted servants of the sovereign”, “Istanbul University-Tarık Tunaya, 1954– 1957”. 180. “Istanbul University-Tarık Tunaya, 1954–1957”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805, Box 8, Folder 83–4; “Stanford University-Hoover Institute-Turkish History”. 181. John Marshall Diary, 9 – 18 March 1957. Professor Latimer served as Director of the Middle East Institute in the 1970s. 182. John Marshall Diary, 7 September 1957, 9 January 1958. 183. “Fahir Armaog˘lu, 1959–1962”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 481, Folder 7181; this goal of opening a Center for Russian Studies was nevertheless not accomplished. 184. “University of Ankara, Soviet Studies, 1959– 1965”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 14, Folder 145. 185. Ibid. 186. Ibid., Freund also spoke to Kadri Yorukoglu, Suat Bilge and Richard Nolte. 187. See Professor Ahmet S¸u¨kru¨ Esmer’s letter in “University of Ankara, Soviet Studies, 1959– 1965”. It was also specified that Dr. Fahri Armaog˘lu would be director of the Center. 188. In his discussion with Celal Sarc Geruld Freund raised ideological concerns around the establishment of a Center for Soviet Studies, pointing to the fact that university staff were getting increasingly politicised, “University of Ankara, Soviet Studies, 1959– 1965”. 189. “University of Ankara-Nimet Akdes Kurat, 1961– 1963”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, Series 805 S, Box 14, Folder 136. 190. “Istanbul University Near Eastern Studies-Visits” and “Istanbul UniversityAhmet Hamdi Tanpınar, Hıfsı Timur, Tarık Tunaya”, Rockefeller Foundation ¨ rnek, Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 80 – 83. Also see Cangu¨l O Tu¨rkiye’nin Sog˘uk Savas¸ Du¨s¸u¨nce Hayatı, 241. 191. See the exchange of letters between Robert Kerwin and Osman Okyar in “Istanbul University Near Eastern Studies-Visits”. 192. John Marshall Diary, 1 April 1956. 193. See “Notes on a Visit to the Arab Countries” in “Istanbul University Near Eastern Studies-Visits”, 4. 194. Ibid., 4. 195. Ibid., 6. 196. Ibid.; “Istanbul University-Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar, Hıfsı Timur, Tarık Tunaya”. 197. See Robert Kerwin’s letters to John Marshall and Dean Thayer in “Istanbul University Near Eastern Studies-Visits”.

192

NOTES

TO PAGES

112 –114

198. Roby Barrett, The Greater Middle East and the Cold War: US Foreign Policy Under Eisenhower and Kennedy (I.B.Tauris, New York, 2007), 40 – 64. 199. See Robert Kerwin’s Letter to Marshall in “Istanbul University-American Studies, 1954– 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Box 8, Folder 76 – 77. 200. “Istanbul University-American Studies, 1954 – 1956”; John Marshall Diary, 22 March 1954; Cangu¨l O¨rnek, Tu¨rkiye’nin Sog˘uk Savas¸ Du¨s¸u¨nce Hayatı, 240. 201. “University of Ankara-American Studies, 1949– 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Box 10, Folder 12, There had been previous grants awarded to Turkish scholars in the fields of art and literature. See Chapter 4. 202. See Fellowship Grant (RF 56079) in “University of Ankara-American Studies, 1949– 1956”. There were other American professors who taught at these departments. Cangu¨l O¨rnek, Tu¨rkiye’nin Sog˘uk Savas¸ Du¨s¸u¨nce Hayatı, 239. Along with the Rockefeller Foundation, the Fullbright Program supported the development of American Studies in Turkey. See Esra Pakın, “American Studies in Turkey During the ‘Cultural’ Cold War”, Turkish Studies, Cilt 9, Sayı3, Eylu¨l 2008, 511– 12. 203. John Marshall Diary, 23 August 1954. 204. “Istanbul University- American Studies, 1954– 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 76. It is understood that Robert Kerwin played an informal role in coordinating these appointments. In another letter he wrote to John Marshall Kerwin explained Istanbul University’s willingness to ask Robert College to send a person to teach at the faculty. Arif Muift Mansel, Dean of the Faculty of Letters, wrote a letter to John Marshall as well and expressed his gratitude to the Rockefeller Foundation for its efforts to improve studies in American literature. See Mufit Mansel and Robert Kerwin’s letters to John Marshall in “Istanbul UniversityAmerican Studies, 1954– 1956”. 205. “University of Ankara-American Studies, 1949– 1956”. 206. Hurewitz served as the director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University in the 1970s. 207. “Muammer Yılmaz Altug˘”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Folder 481, Box 7174. 208. “Ergun Ozbudun, 1962– 1966”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Folder 486, Box 7241. 209. “Suna Kili, 1961– 1963”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Folder 485, Box 7228. 210. “Mete Tuncay, 1959– 1963”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Folder 488, Box 7261. 211. “Arif Payaslioglu, 1958– 1959, 1961”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 487, Folder 7248.

NOTES

TO PAGES

114 –117

193

212. “Deniz Baykal, 1961–1965”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 482, Folder 7187. 213. “Deniz Baykal, 1961– 1965”. 214. “Robert College Turkish Faculty Training: 1956 –1959, 1961– 1967”; RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 2, Folder 12 – 13. 215. John Marshall Diary, 31 March 1956; “Robert College Turkish Faculty Training: 1956– 1959, 1961– 1967”. 216. “Robert College Turkish Faculty Training: 1956– 1959, 1961 –1967”. 217. Ibid., The programme also involved candidates from physics, mathematics, economics and business administration. 218. John Marshall Diary, 3 April 1956. Some of the students selected for the programme were: Michel Radomisli, I˙smail Sakmar, Hikmet Sebuktekin, Perihan Tolun, Yılmaz Ozakpınar, Su¨heyla Artemel, Atillan Eru¨ncel, Ahmet ¨ stu¨n Ergu¨der. “Robert Niyazi Koc, Ezel Kural, Berent Enc, Emre Go¨nensay, U College Turkish Faculty Training: 1956– 1959, 1961– 1967”. 219. Nevertheless, it proved complicated to follow up their academic progress and take care of other personal issues they encountered in the United States. Some of these fellows did not want to return to Turkey. 220. “A Report of Progress: Program of Technical Assistance in Public Administration for Turkey for the period 1 September 1954 to 1 January 1956: New York University-University of Ankara under the terms of contract between International Cooperation Administration and New York University” in “University of Ankara: Public Administration”, 2. 221. “A Report of Progress”, 3. 222. The early group consisted of: Associate Prof. Res¸it Aktan, Associate Prof. I˙lhan Arsel, Associate Prof. Ahmet Hicri Fis¸ek, Associate Prof. Mehmet Kapani, Cemal Alp Mihciog˘lu, I˙smail, Tu¨rk, Ceal Aygen and Bu¨lent Daver. 223. Gu¨rsoy contacted John Marshall for grants to fund the development of the social science programme at his faculty. John Marshall Diary, 5–7 March 1956. 224. List of Publications Resulting from the Fellowship Experience (New York: The Ford Foundation, June 1957), 28 –31.

Chapter 4 Humanities and Westernisation 1. A Time of Humanities: An Oral History: Recollections of David H. Stevens as Director in the Division of the Humanities, Rockefeller Foundation, David Stevens, 1976. 2. David Stevens, A Time of Humanities, 25 –9. 3. http://rockefeller100.org/biography/show/david-h – stevens (Accessed on 8 September 2016). 4. David Stevens, A Time of Humanities, 29 and “Time in the Humanities, September 1949”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 911, Box 2, 5.

194

NOTES

TO PAGES

117 –121

5. David Stevens, “Humanities Program Review”, 61 in RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 911, Box 2, Folder 14. 6. David Stevens, A Time of Humanities, 61 –3. 7. Ibid., 39. 8. David Stevens, “Time in the Humanities”, 5 and “Humanities 1941” in “Program and Policy-Reports, Pro-14, 14a, 1941” RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 911, Box 2, Folder 13. 9. David Stevens, “Humanities Program Review”, 72 – 4. 10. Ibid., “Analysis of Program”, 3 – 5 and “A Review of the Period”, 1 – 3. 11. See Fosdick’s letter to Barnard 7 February 1946 in “Program and PolicyReports-pro 41d”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation, RG 3, Series 900, Box 23, Folder 177. 12. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1948, “President’s Review”. 13. David Stevens “Time in the Humanities”, 10 – 11. 14. “Analysis of Program in Relation to Changing World Conditions, October 7, 1942” in “Program and Policy – Reports – Pro-15 – Pro-17, 1942 – 1947”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 911, Box 2, Folder 14. 15. “Program and Policy 1950”, RG3 Series 911 Box 1 Folder 2. 16. David Stevens, “Time in the Humanities”, 20. 17. David Stevens, “The Humanities Program of the Rockefeller Foundation: A Review of the Period Between 1942 and 1947”, 61 in RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 911, Box 2, Folder 14, 3 – 5. The Humanities Division had supported the revision of an English-Turkish lexicon in 1945 and in 1946 provided funding for the development of the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. 18. “The Ford Foundation in Turkey, 1952– 1967”, 29 – 33. 19. For an engaging investigation of Robert College curriculum and its liberal arts tradition see Orlin Sabev, Spiritus Roberti: Shaping New Minds and Robert College in Late Ottoman Society (1816–1923) (I˙stanbul: Bog˘azici, 2014). 20. David Stevens picked him relying on his previous experience with the ACLS. David Stevens, “A Time of Humanities”, 55; William Buxton, “John Marshall and The Humanities in Europe: Shifting Patterns of Rockefeller Foundation Support”, Miverva 41, 2003, 133 – 5. 21. David Stevens “Humanities Program Review”, 61 –2. 22. William Buxton, “John Marshall and The Humanities in Europe”, 138. 23. Ibid., 139– 144; John Marshall Diary, 20 –25 July 1934, 30– 31 October 1934, 21 July 1938, 1 December 1938. 24. William Buxton, “John Marshall and The Humanities in Europe:”, 139– 41; John Marshall Diary, 26 January –20 February 1936. 25. In a report written by Mortimer Graves in 1950, it was suggested that the United States should sell its cultural products or demand Turkish books to distribute in US libraries so that Americans could gain greater acquaintance

NOTES

26. 27. 28.

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

45.

TO PAGES

121 –124

195

of Turkish language and literature. Another option was to restore cultural monuments representing Western civilisation in Turkey. “Graves Mortimer: American Council of Learned Societies: Near East Visit, 1935– 1952”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, FA 418, Box 14, Folder 306. John Marshall, “General Report on Turkey, 1951”. Ibid. Ibid. During his meetings with intellectuals, Marshall asked the following questions: - How is it possible to secure the freedom of faith and conscience to set them free from the pressure and exploitation by fanatics and open for them the way of true development? - How is it possible to regulate religious affairs without violation of the principles of secularity? John Marshall, “The Near East 1951, 13 November 1951” in RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 911, Folder 2, Box 15, 1 – 2. John Marshall, “The Near East, 1951”, 1 – 2. John Marshall, “The Near East, 1951”, 3 –4; 6– 8. He described Anatolian peasantry as Turkey’s great resource of manpower for its military. The opening of the Theology faculty was a Republican (move) and ImamHatip Schools. Metin Heper, I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨: The Making of a Turkish Statesman, 192. John Marshall, “The Near East, 1951”, 3. He points to what happened in Egypt in the 1940s, where the Muslim Brotherhood rallied thousands of its supporters for “an Islamic socio-political order.” John Marshall, “The Near East, 1951”, 6 –9. Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946), 214. Ibid., 214 – 16. John Marshall, “The Near East, 1951”, 8. Ibid., 7. Ibid., 6. Ibid., 8 – 10. Ibid., 6 –9. In this discussion Marshall refers to the reformist tradition in Islam, like the works of al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh, which he claims had no fear of change. Ibid., 10. Ibid., 6 – 9. Ibid., 20 – 1. In another report he adds that Turkey can no longer tolerate being regarded as a Near Eastern country, its sympathies do not lie with the Near East and it does not have good relations with the Arab world. Instead, it has improved its relations with Israel, Pakistan and India. John Marshall, “General Report on Turkey, 1951”. Ibid., 20 – 1. He points to Iraq, instead of Lebanon, as the next possible station that deserves consideration because of its predominantly Arab and Muslim population.

196

NOTES

TO PAGES

124 –126

46. Darniel Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East (NY: The Free Press, 1958), 136 – 142, 160. 47. Ibid., 117– 22, 146, 153– 5. Lerner refers to Mahmut Makal’s work, Our Village, describing patterns of traditional life in an Anatolian village. 48. Ibid., 159 – 163. 49. S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu, An Intellectual Biography, 59–60; Daniel Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society, 111–2, 157; Mustafa Kemal had described modern dress as a part of a secular and modern lifestyle; Cumhuriyet Ansiklopedisi, Cilt 1, 63. 50. Daniel Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society, 409. Demirel points to the changing lifestyles in urban centres in Turkey in the 1950s. American dress codes, music styles and publications gained wider popularity. Tanel Demirel, Tu¨rkiye’nin Uzun 10 Yılı, 147– 9. 51. Here Marshall quotes the example of the Queen Aliya College in Baghdad where girls took off their headscarves for the first time in their lives. “The Near East, 1951”, 7 – 8. 52. John Marshall, “The Near East, 1951”, 7 – 8. 53. Ibid., 1 – 2. 54. Ibid., 11 – 15. 55. Ibid., 15. Also the Near Eastern peoples had a conviction that “there is a price for anything they get from the West”. Marshall assured, however, that the United States had a comparative advantage against former colonial empires, thanks to its limited, educational and less brutal involvement in the region. 56. Ibid., 14 – 15. 57. Ibid., 15. 58. Ibid., 14. 59. Ibid., 15 – 17. Marshall praised Osman Okyar’s “Review of the 20th Century Fund Report: Turkey, An Economic Appraisal” as an example of Western trained Turks’ competence in dealing with Turkish affairs. John Marshall Diary, 7 April 1951. 60. Ibid., 18, 20 and “General Comments of Humanities Program”, 4 in RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 911, Box 1, Folder 2. 61. John Marshall, “The Near East”, 1951, 15 – 16. 62. See John Marshall’s letter to Rector Hikmet Birand, February 1951. John Marshall Diary, 5 April 1951. In response, Birand gave a comprhensive list of available courses offered in Ankara University that might be of interest to the Humanities Division. 63. John Marshall Diary, 25 March 1952. 64. “Robert College-Humanities, 1956 – 1965” RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 9, Folders 87 – 92. 65. John Marshall Diary, 30 March 1956. 66. David Garwood, “An Experiment in Bilingual, Bicultural Education”, Liberal Education, V.XLVIII, NO:1, March 1962. The project secured the backing of Kadri Yorukoglu. John Marshall Diary, 3 April 1956.

NOTES

TO PAGES

127 –128

197

67. “Robert College-Humanities, 1956 – 1965”; John Marshall Diary, December 2, 1956. 68. John Marshall Diary, 30 December, 1957. 69. Lewis would spend his sabbatical term in Turkey and return to the United Kingdom after this. David Garwood, “An Experiment”, 6 – 7. 70. Geoffrey Lewis, “The Bilingual, Bicultural Humanities Program at Robert College: An Address to Students”, Istanbul: Robert College Research Center, September 1959, 6 – 7. 71. Geoffrey Lewis, “The Bilingual, Bicultural Humanities Program”, 6 – 7. 72. David Garwood, “An Experiment”, 1– 2. 73. Geoffrey Lewis stated that their major goal in the study of humanities was to equip the student with a sound understanding of experiences in making accurate value judgments. This was, to him, more important than dealing with factual judgments, which was more to do with sciences. Garwood, “An Experiment”, 2 – 4. 74. “Robert College-Humanities, 1956 –1965”. 75. David Garwood, “An Experiment”, 4. Among the participants were Michael Grand, Arnaldo Momigliano, Joan Hussey, Gustave E. Von Grunebaum, Bernard Lewis, J.N Wright and J.A Lauwerys. The view that Turkey “is a bridge between East and West, possessing elements from Muslim and Christian culture together” was a popular one, especially among Republican elites. In a speech he delivered in the United States, Celal Bayar referred to Turkey’s unique geographical and cultural position in that regard. Yılmayan Millet, 96. 76. David Garwood, “An Experiment”, 4. In the first year of the course of preclassical civilizations in Anatolia, Greek and Roman civilisation were covered. This year’s curriculum also included the history of Christianity and the rise of Islam, to be followed by cultural histories of the pre-Islamic, Seljuk and Ottoman Empires. The second year dealt with cultural developments in the 17th and 18th centuries, selections from the ancient world of the Mediterranean and Western civilisations as well as the fall of ancient regimes and the emergence of the modern world. David Garwood, “An Experiment”, 8–10. 77. David Garwood, “An Experiment”, 7. During the courses students were expected to discuss, evaluate and criticise, in English and Turkish, prominent works of the time such as “Garplılas¸manın Neresindeyiz?”, a book by Mumtaz Turhan on Turkish Westernisation. Geoffrey Lewis, “The Bilingual, Bicultural Humanities”, 4. 78. For such a course to operate in a productive manner, it seemed, there was a need for qualified scholars who could give these lectures in Turkish. John Marshall Diary, 30 March, 1956, John Marshall Diary, 30 March, 1956; David Garwood, “An Experiment”, 2– 3. 79. “Robert College-Humanities, 1956– 1965”. In his speech at the Conference, Professor Michael Grant stated: “All history inevitably practices selection,

198

80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91.

92.

93. 94. 95. 96.

NOTES

TO PAGES

128 –130

the writers of textbooks at present in use naturally and sometimes even unconsciously selected what would be most valuable for the people going to read them. These readers were not Turks. Our intention should be to see the history of these periods through the eyes of Turks . . .”, David Garwood, “An Experiment”, 5. This practice was firstly started by Sultan Mustafa. See Mardin’s letter “Istanbul University-Koran Readings, 1956– 1960, 1964– 1967”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 13, Folder 128. See Robert Kerwin’s letter to John Marshall in “Istanbul University-Koran Readings, 1956– 1960, 1964– 1967”. See the letters between John Marshall and H.A.R Gibb in “Istanbul University-Koran Readings, 1956– 1960, 1964– 1967”. Sungurbey had three assistants to help him (Kemal Oguzman, Kenan Tuncomag and Abdulbaki Go¨lpınarlı) “Istanbul University-Koran Readings, 1956– 1960, 1964– 1967”. “Halil I˙nalcık, 1948, 1953, 1956– 1958”, RFA, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 484, Folder 7220. In a letter, he explained that he visited family archives in the Adams house and the Harris family. “Halil I˙nalcık, 1948, 1953, 1956 – 1958”. See Gibb’s Letter to John Marshall in “Halil I˙nalcık, 1948, 1953, 1956–1958”. Kenneth Winfred Thompson’s Trip File December 17, 1957. “Columbia University-Kemal Karpat (Turkish Modernization), 1957 – 1961”, RFA, Rocekfeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 200 S, Box 494, Folder 4222. “Columbia University-Kemal Karpat (Turkish Modernization), 1957 – 1961”. “Howard Alexander Reed, 1952”, RFA, RG 10.1, Series 427 E, Box 244, Folder 3969; Near East-Howard Reed-Program Specialist in Training and Research, 1952– 1958, Ford Foundation Records, Overseas Development, International Training and Research, Office Files of John Howard, Box 18; ¨ ztu¨rkmen, “Turkish American History Reflected in the Life Story of Arzu O Howard Reed” in Turkish-American Encounters, 382– 5. “Kadri Yorukoglu Bey, 1951– 1953”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Box 12, Folder 120. In 1951 Marshall visited Capa High School, where students were educated to become teachers, and helped them acquire recent books on education. Mrs Vedide Pars, director of the school, likewise favoured democratic education. John Marshall Diary, April 1951. John Marshall Diary, 25 March 1954. See Yorukoglu’s letter to John Marshall. John Marshall Diary, 25 March 1954. See Frederick P. Latimer’s letter to John Marshall and John Marshall’s letter to Kadri Yorukoglu, Wahl and Aannestad. It was suggested that he could visit the Union Theological Seminary and Princeton University.

NOTES

TO PAGES

130 –133

199

97. “Fureya Koral, 1956– 1957”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 7 Folder 69. 98. John Marshall Diary, 7 April 1956. 99. See John Marshall’s letter to Rene D’Harnoncourt in “Fureya Koral, 1956 – 1957”. 100. “Fureya Koral, 1956– 1957”. 101. “University of Ankara, Turkish and Islamic Art, 1959 – 1964”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 12, Folder 118. See Suat Kemal Yetkin’s letter to Charles Fahs. 102. “University of Ankara, Turkish and Islamic Art, 1959 – 1964”. 103. “Istanbul University-Fahir Iz, 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 78. Marshall met Iz on another occasion about the foundation of American Studies at Istanbul University and asked him if his wife could teach American literature in Istanbul. See John Marshall Diary, 31 March 1956. 104. Istanbul University-Fahir Iz”, See Fahir Iz’s letter to Marshall, “Istanbul University-Fahir Iz”. 105. “Istanbul University-Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar, 1958 –1960”, RFA, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8Series Folder 81. 106. Ibid. 107. “Suat Sinanog˘lu, 1956– 1961”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 487, Folder 7255. 108. See letter from John Marshall to Kadri Yorukog˘lu, 31 July 1958. Marshall requested that Kadri Yorukoglu meet Sinanog˘lu. 109. See Sinanog˘lu’s application form in “Suat Sinanog˘lu, 1956 – 1961”. He questioned to what extent “Turkish intellectuals will hide their thoughts or change their views because of the pressure of a non-Western society on its members”. 110. Bu¨s¸ra Ersanlı, I˙ktidar ve Tarih: Tu¨rkiye’de Resmi Tarih Tezinin Olus¸umu (I˙stanbul: Afa, 1992), 119– 24. 111. Etienne Copeaux, Tarih Ders Kitaplarinda Tu¨rk Tarih Tezinden Tu¨rk I˙slam Sentezine (I˙stanbul: I˙letis¸im, 2006), 37– 45. 112. Esat Bozkurt, Atatu¨rk Ihtilali (I˙stanbul: Altın Kitaplar, 1967); Afet Inan, Tarih Uzerine I˙nceleme ve Makaleler (Ankara: Akin Matbaasi, 1960), 118– 28. 113. Bu¨s¸ra Ersanlı, I˙ktidar ve Tarih: Tu¨rkiye’de Resmi Tarih Tezinin Olus¸umu, 106– 113, 128; ‘‘Medeni Bilgiler ve Mustafa Kemal Atatu¨rk’u¨n El Yazıları’’ (Ankara: Tu¨rk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1969), 32 – 6. To reinforce this perspective with further evidence, Afet I˙nan, the ‘‘court historian’’ patronised by the ruling elite, was encouraged by Mustafa Kemal to advance her research on the history of the Turks before Islam. Arı I˙nan, Prof.Afet I˙nan (I˙stanbul: Remzi, 2005), 97 – 9. 114. “Bilge Karasu, 1956– 1957, 1962–1964”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805E, Box 484, Folder 7222. Marshall asked Argus

200

115. 116. 117. 118. 119.

120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131.

132.

NOTES

TO PAGES

133 –136

Trissader, who worked for the British Council, about Karasu’s credentials. This fellowship was cancelled in 1957 due to family reasons but Karasu was awarded another fellowship in 1962. See John Marshall Diary, 10 March 1957 and “Bilge Karasu, 1956 –1957, 1962– 1964”. John Marshall Diary, 22 March 1952. Ibid. “Vedat Gu¨nyol, 1952”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 484, Folder 7213. “Bedri Rahmi Eyuboglu, 1952– 1953, 1958– 1963”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 7, Folder 67 –8. Marshall Diary 22 March 1952. Also see John Marshall’s letter to Halide Edip, 14 August 1951. John Marshall Diary, 23 March 1952, John Marshall Diary, 6 April 1952. For Marshall’s conversations with Melih Cevdet Anday, Oktay Rıfat and Fazıl Hu¨snu¨ Dag˘larca, see John Marshall Diary, 27 March 1952, 9 March 1957. John Marshall Diary, 17 May 1957. John Marshall Diary, 5 –6 April 1951. “University of Ankara, Literary Criticism, 1951– 1954”, Box 11, Folder 14. This was a kind of grant the Foundation had awarded to other universities in Europe like the University of Amsterdam. “University of Ankara-American Studies, 1949– 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 10, Folder 102 – 107. “University of Ankara, American Studies, 1949– 1956”. Also see John Marshall Diary, 4 April 1956; John Marshall Diary, 8 March 1957. “Hamit Dereli, 1955”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805R, Box 7 Folder 65. “Leyla Go¨ren, 1956– 1963, 1966”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 48, Folder 7209. “Leyla Go¨ren, 1956– 1963, 1966”. John Marshall Diary, 13 March 1957, 12 September 1958. “Istanbul University- American Studies, Vahit Turhan, 1953– 1955; 1958– 1961”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8 Folder 77. “Istanbul University, Berna Moran, 1956 – 1961”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8 Folder 79. Bu¨lent Ecevit pursued a career in politics, was elected to the leadership of CHP in 1971 and remained in power until 1980. He became Prime Minister in 1973–1974 and 1977–1979. After 1980 he founded another party and became Prime Minister again in 1999. He was a member of CHP when he made this application to the Rockefeller Foundation. In 1957 he was elected as MP. “Bu¨lent Ecevit 1954– 1957”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 483, Folder 7204.

NOTES

TO PAGES

136 –137

201

133. John Marshall, “Art in Humanities”, 4– 5 in 30 January 1950, 4 –5 in RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 911, Box 2, Folder 15. 134. John Marshall Diary, 7 March 1957. 135. John Marshall Diary, 22 May 1957. It was however striking that in Radio Ankara the station was told by the Minister of Information that the intellectuals should hear Western music after the evening while all other musical time must be devoted to Turkish music. John Marshall Diary, 8 October 1958. 136. S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu, An Intellectual Biography, 219. In another speech Atatu¨rk said: “It is our national aim to develop nation’s fine qualities, its innate intelligence, its devotion to the sciences and love of the fine arts.”, Metin And, “Ataturk and the Arts with special Reference to Music and Theatre” in Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey, 217. 137. Mustafa Kemal Atatu¨rk, Millet Meclisi Tutanak Dergisi, IV, Cilt 25, 3. 138. S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu, An Intellectual Biography, 220. 139. For example, see Ziya Go¨kalp’s discussion, Tu¨rkcu¨lu¨g˘u¨n Esasları; (I˙stanbul: MEB, 1972), 145 – 6; Metin And, “Ataturk and the Arts with special Reference to Music and Theatre”. 219–20. 140. S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu, An Intellectual Biography, 221. This ban was later removed. 141. Ibid., 221 – 2; Cumhuriyet Ansiklopedisi, Cilt I, 268. 142. See his letter in “Istanbul Municipal Conservatory, 1956–1960”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2 Series 805 R, Box 7 Folder 71; also see “I˙lhan Usmanbas¸, 1954–1958”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 488, Folder 7266 and “Adnan Saygun, 1952–1959”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, Series 805 R, RG 1.2, Box 9, Folder 92. These four musicians were considered among the “Turkish Five”, five leading musicians of the early Republican period, along with Cemal Res¸it Rey. 143. In a meeting with Marshall Hu¨seyin Saadettin Arel, a respectable composer and researcher of classical Turkish music, criticised Ankara and Istanbul conservatories for being “so dedicated to the Westernization of music that they neglected the intrinsic interest of music of the classical Turkish tradition”. During his early trips, Marshall suggested that some American musicians might be introduced to Turkish audiences to gain more public interest. John Marshall Diary, 10 April 1951. 144. The Conservatory was used as a school in the mornings, John Marshall Diary, 30 March 1956. 145. Mehmet Salih Efendi, Rehber-i Tekaya, Su¨leymaniye Ku¨tu¨phanesi, 1 – 43. 146. Metin And, “Ataturk and the Arts with special Reference to Music and Theatre”, 218– 20. 147. Also see John Marshall Diary, 5 April 1951. 148. John Marshall Diary, 7 March 1951, 11 November 1952, 11 March 1955, 3 – 4 April 1956. 149. John Marshall Diary, 9 –10 April 1951.

202

NOTES

TO PAGES

138 –140

150. John Marshall Diary, 5 April 1951, 9 –11 March 1955, 20 March 1955, 3 – 4 April 1956. 151. Ibid. 152. John Marshall Diary, 5 April and 17 September 1951. Afterwards Marshall learnt that Garwood learnt his position complaining “there was not sufficient demand as yet in Turkey to justify training younger people for the theater.” 153. John Marshall Diary, 30 March 1956, 12 March 1957. 154. “University of Ankara-I˙rfan S¸ahinbas¸, 1952 – 1954”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 11, Folder 115. 155. “Turkish State Conservatory, Ankara-Drama, 1957– 1959”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 10, Folder 99; John Marshall Diary, 19 September 1957. 156. “University of California-Kenneth MacGowan-Turkish Theatre”, RFA, RG 1.2, Series 200 R, Box 436, Folder 3749 – 50. Then another grant was awarded to the Faculty of Letters for an extension of this grant. 157. See John Marshall’s letter to Mark Schbart in “Turkish State Conservatory, Fuad Tu¨rkay, 1957– 1960”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 10, Folder 101; John Marshall Diary, 16 March 1957. Marshall described Tu¨rkay as a man of magnificent imagination. 158. “Turkish State Conservatory, Nureddin Sevin, 1956– 1957”, RFA, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 10, Folder 100. 159. John Marshall Diary, 3 April 1956. 160. See Nureddin Sevin’s letters and Marjorie Trumbull’s article explaining Sevin’s visit to the United States in “Turkish State Conservatory, Nureddin Sevin, 1956– 1957”. 161. Marshall described Antikacı as “a typical Old Ottoman civil servant”, see John Marshall’s letter to George E Judd, the Philharmonic-Symphony Society of New York in “Istanbul Municipal Conservatory, 1956–1960”; John Marshall Diary, 30 March 1956. After this the Foundation awarded the Istanbul Conservatory a grant for the purchase of basic equipment and Marshall put Es¸ref Antikacı in contact with Harold Spivacke, then the Head of the Music Division in the Library of Congress, and introduced him to George Judd from the New York Philharmonic Orchestra to show him the latest catalogues in the United States; John Marshall Diary, 22–7 January 1958, 24 April 1958. 162. John Marshall Diary, 10 March 1955, 31 March – 3 April 1956. 163. John Marshall Diary, 9 March 1955. 164. “Istanbul Municipal Theatre-Duygu Sagıroglu, 1962 –1964”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 75. 165. July 1959 beginning John Marshall Diary, 9 October 1958. 166. John Marshall Diary, 31 March 1951. 167. “Tunc Yalman, 1951, 1956– 1957”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, Series 805 E, RG 10.1, Box 488, Folder 7270; “Tunc Yalman, 1962”, RFA,

NOTES

168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175.

TO PAGES

140 –141

203

Rockefeller Foundation Records, Series 805 R, Box 12, Folder 119; John Marshall Diary, 26 February 1956. “Tunc Yalman, 1951, 1956– 1957”, John Marshall Diary, 3 May 1956. John Marshall Diary, 3 May 1956. John Marshall Diary, 9 March 1955 and 3 May 1956; “Yıldız Akcan, 1954– 1957”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 480, Folder 7171. John Marshall Diary, 10 March 1955 and 3 May 1956. John Marshall Diary, 8 March 1956 and 19 April 1956. “Istanbul Municipal Theater, S¸irin Devrim, 1961, 1963– 1964”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 74. “Istanbul Municipal Theatre, S¸irin Devrim, 1961, 1963– 1964”. See S¸irin Devrim’s letter to Crawford in “Istanbul Municipal Theatre, S¸irin Devrim, 1961, 1963– 1964”, S¸u¨kru¨ Haniog˘lu, An Intellectual Biography, 220.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES “A Report to Establish an Applied Economic Research and Feasibility Study Unit within the proposed Turkish Business and Industry Development Foundation: 1965”, Ford Foundation Records, FA739A, Box 40 Reports 000787. “A Study by the Colarado State University Research Foundation: Prepared for the International Cooperation Administration”, JFK Library, Series:1, Collection: Papers of John F.Kennedy, White House Staff Files of Harris Wofford, 15 May 1961. Digital Identifier: JFKWHSFHW-006-009. A Time of Humanities: An Oral History: Recollections of David H. Stevens as Director in the Division of the Humanities, Rockefeller Foundation, 1976. Abrams, Charles. “The Need for Training and Education for Housing and Planning”, Report No: TAA/TUR/13 (New York: United Nations Technical Assistance Program, 23 August 1955). “Adnan Saygun, 1952–1959”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, Series 805 R, RG 1.2, Box 9, Folder 92. “Arif Payaslioglu, 1958 –1959, 1961”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 487, Folder 7248. “Aydın Yalc
ın: 1956–1957, 1959–1961”; “Turkish-American University Association-Turkish Research”. Ballantine, Duncan. “Scientific and Technical Institutions in Underdeveloped Countries.” Robert College Records, Box 42, File, 16. ———. “Report to the Board of Trustees.” 30 April 1955, 26. Robert College Records, Box 40, File 3, 1955. ———. “Proposal to the Ford Foundation.” 1956, Robert College Archives, Box 42, File 6, 1956. ———. “Talk Delivered before the Propeller Club.” March 1956, Robert College Records, Box 30, File 4, 1956. Ballantine, Duncan. “Address Before

206

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

the Alumni Association of Amherst College.” 17 June 1959, Robert College Records Box 40, File 5, 1959. “Bedri Rahmi Eyuboglu, 1952 – 1953, 1958 – 1963”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 7, Folder 67–68. “Bilge Karasu, 1956 –1957, 1962–1964”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 484, Folder 7222. “Bu¨lent Ecevit, 1954 –1957”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Box 483, Folder 7204. Collins, Ralph. “Public Health in Turkey.” RFA, RG 1.1, Series 805, Box 1, Folder 1. “Columbia University-Kemal Karpat (Turkish Modernization), 1957 –1961”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, 200S, Box 494, Folder 4222. “Deniz Baykal, 1961–1965”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 482, Folder 7187. Do¨nmez, Dog˘an. “Ankara Fen Lisesi”, The De Morgan Gazette 7 no. 1 (2015). “Ergun Ozbudun, 1962– 1966”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, 805 E, Folder 486, Box 7241. “Fahir Armaog˘lu, 1959 –1962”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 481, Folder 7181. “Ford Foundation Annual Report: 1969”, FA739E, Ford Foundation Reports: 012369-005, Box 609. See grant 670-0574A. “Ford Foundation Prospect Folders: The Ford Foundation in Turkey, 1952– 1967”, Box 63, Folder 13, 23. Frances Elizabeth Crowell Diary 1933, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 12. Franck, Peter G. “The Role of RC in Turkey’s Economic Life.” November 1960, Robert College Records, File 42, Box 12, 1960. “Fureya Koral, 1956–1957”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, 805 R, Box 7, Folder 69. Garwood, David. “An Experiment in Bilingual, Bicultural Education.” Liberal Education (1962): 1 –11. George Vincent Diary, 1924, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1. Graves Mortimer. “American Council of Learned Societies: Near East Visit, 1935–1952”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, FA 418, Box 14, Folder 306. Gunn, Selskar. “Diary of Visit to Turkey: May 5– May 13, 1925.” RFA, RG 6.1, Series 1.1, Box 37, Folder 458. ———. Diary, 3 January –30 June 1927, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG12. Gu¨rsel, Cemal. “Message of General Cemal Gu¨rsel, Head of State of the Turkish Republic on the Occasion of the Turkish-American Celebration of April 18th, 1961.” Robert College Records, Box 51, File 17, 1961.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

“Halil I˙nalcık, 1948, 1953, 1956– 1958”, RFA, RG 10.1, 805 E, Box 484, Folder 7220. “Hamit Dereli, 1955”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 7, Folder 65. Harriman, Averell. “Excerpt from an Address By The Honorable Averell Harriman, Assistant Secretary of State For Far Eastern Affairs. Centennial Dinner of Robert College.” 17 October 1962, Robert College Records, Box 51, File 21, 1962. “Harvard University-Graduate School of Business Administration”, RFA, Rockefeller Brothers Fund Records, RG 1, Series 1, Box 402. “Harvard University-Slavic Studies, 1943– 1945”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 200 R, Box 343, Folder 3135. “Hazim Atıf”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10, Box 5. “Howard Alexander Reed, 1952”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 427 E, Box 244, Folder 3969. Howell, James. “The Ford Foundation and the Revolution in Business Education: A Case Study in Philanthropy”, Ford Foundation Records, Catalogued Reports, Reports: 006353, Box 284, 1966. “I˙lhan Usmanbas¸, 1954– 1958”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 488, Folder 7266. “International Studies-Overseas Training and Research/International Training and Research Program-Memoranda, Outlines, Reviews, 1953 – 1961” Ford Foundation Records, International Division, Office of the Vice President, Office Files of Francis Sutton. “Istanbul University-American Studies, 1954 – 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Box 8, Folder 76–77. “Istanbul University-American Studies, 1954 – 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 76. “Istanbul University-American Studies, 1954 – 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 76. “Istanbul University, Afife Sayın, 1958 – 1962”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, 805 S, Box 13, Folder 129. “Istanbul University-Economic History, 1956–1964”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, 805 S, Box 12, Folder 123–126. “Istanbul University-Tarık Tunaya, 1954– 1957”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805, Box 8, Folder 83– 84. “Istanbul University-Alexander Rustow (Travel Grant, Economics), 1946– 1948, 1950”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805 S, Box 1, Folder 13. “Istanbul University-Hıfsı Timur, 1952 –1953”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Grant, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 82. “Istanbul University-Fahir Iz, 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 78.

208

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

“Istanbul University-Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar, 1958 –1960”, RFA, RG 1.2, 805 R, Box 8, Folder 81. “Istanbul University-American Studies, 1954 – 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Box 8, Folder 76–77. “Istanbul University-American Studies, Vahit Turhan, 1953 – 1955; 1958 – 1961”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 77. “Istanbul University, Berna Moran, 1956–1961”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 79. “Istanbul Municipal Conservatory, 1956–1960”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2 Series 805 R, Box 7, Folder 71. “Istanbul Municipal Theatre-Duygu Sagıroglu, 1962 –1964”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 75. “Istanbul Municipal Theater, S¸irin Devrim, 1961, 1963 –1964”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 74. “Istanbul University, Economic Development, 1955–1959”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 12, Folder 121–122. “Istanbul University-Koran Readings, 1956 – 1960, 1964 – 1967”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 13, Folder 128. “Istanbul University-Near Eastern Studies-Visits, 1955–1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 8, Folder 80. I˙s¸letme I˙ktisadı Enstitu¨su¨, I˙s¸letme I˙ktisadı Kursu: Birinci Do¨nem Mezunları, 1956– 1957 Ders Yılı (I˙stanbul: I˙stanbul Universitesi I˙ktisat Faku¨ltesi, 1957). I˙s¸letme I˙ktisadı Enstitu¨su¨ 1958 –1959 Tedrisat Programlarıve 1957–1958 Yıllıg˘ı (I˙stanbul: Sermet Matbaası, 1958). “Kadri Yorukoglu Bey, 1951 –1953”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Box 12, Folder 120. “Kasım Gulek”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10, Series 5, Box 5. Kennedy, John F. “Establishment of the Peace Corps”, http://millercenter.org/ president/speeches/speech-3366. ———. Robert College Records, Box 51, File 18. 1961. “Justification for Government Support to American Educational Institutions Abroad.” 16 October, Robert College Archives, Box 43, Folder 22, 1959. Kerwin, Robert. “Evaluation of Ford Foundation Science Education Program in Turkey: 1960–1980”, FFR, Program Management Cost Files, FA501, 1980, Box 6, Folder 7. ———. “Summary Evaluation of the Management and Business Development Program of the Ford Foundation in Turkey, 1952–1976”, Ford Foundation Records, FA 739C, Box 350 Reports 008254. Lewis, Geoffrey. The Bilingual, Bicultural Humanities Program at Robert College: An Address to Students, September 1959. Istanbul: Robert College Research Center. “Leyla Go¨ren, 1956–1963, 1966”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 483, Folder 720.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

List of Publications Resulting from the Fellowship Experience (New York: The Ford Foundation, June 1957). Marshall, John. “The Near East 1951, 13 November 1951”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 911, Folder 2, Box 15. ———. “Art in Humanities.” RFA, RG 3, Series 911, Box 2, Folder 15. ———. “General Comments of Humanities Program.” RFA, RG 3, Series 911, Box 1, Folder 2. ———. “Diary.” RFA, RG 12. “Medical Education in Turkey 1923–27”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG.1.1, Series 805, Box 1, Folder 4. Menemenciog˘lu, Numan. “Speech Delivered by Ambassador Menemencioglu.” Robert College Records, Box 51, File 17, 1961. “Mete Tuncay, 1959–1963 RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Folder 488, Box 7261. “Muammer Yılmaz Altug˘”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Folder 481, Box 7174. “Mustafa Siphai”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 487, Folder 7256. “Near East-Howard Reed-Program Specialist in Training and Research, 1952– 1958”, Ford Foundation Records, Overseas Development, International Training and Research, Office Files of John Howard, Box 18. Newsom, Carroll. “Report on Middle East Technical University”, Ford Foundation Archives, FA739E, 012065, Box 563. Norman Buchanan Diary 5–7 March, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 12, Box 50. Northrop, Eugene. “Improving Science Education in Turkey”, Ford Foundation Reprint: Turkey, No. 5, February 1965. ———. “A Turkish Effort to Improve Secondary School Mathematics and Science”, November, 1966, Reports 005940, Box 265, FA739B. ———. “Science in Turkey: 1961”, Ford Foundation Report 002489, FA7391, Box 107. ———. “Science in Turkey 1966: Prepared for Trustees Meeting Ford Foundation, 8–9 December 1966”, Ford Foundation Record, Reports 3255–6261, FA739B, Reports 003695, Box 167. Ogden, Alfred. “A Proposal to the Olin Foundation.” December 1959, Robert College Records, Box 42, File 6, 1959. Pearce, Richard. “Medical Education in Turkey”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805, Box 1, Folder 4. “Program and Policy-Reports-pro 41d”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation, RG 3, Series 900, Box 23, Folder 177. “Program and Policy – Reports – Pro-15 - Pro-17, 1942– 1947”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 911, Box 2, Folder 14. “Program and Policy-Reports, Pro-14, 14a, 1941” RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 91, Box 2, Folder 13.

210

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

“Program and Policy 1950”, RG3, Series 911, Box 1, Folder 2. “Program and Policy, 1930 –1941”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG3, Series 906, Box 1, Folder 4. “Proposed Foundation Aid for Consultation to Turkey on Investment Opportunities for American Capital: April 12, 1954”, Ford Foundation Records, New York Inter Office Memorandum, Box 191, Folder 1911. “Proposed Development of the Robert College School of Business Administration 1959” Robert College Archives, Box 42, Folder 8. “Proposed Foundation Aid for Consultation to Turkey on Investment Opportunities for American Capital: April 12, 1954”, Ford Foundation Records, New York Inter Office Memorandum, Box 191, Folder 1911. “Report on Turkey: 1953”, Ford Foundation Records, Reports 1-3254 (003228): FA 739A, Box 142. “Robert College Turkish Faculty Training: 1956 –1959, 1961 –1967” RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 2, Folder 12–13. “Robert College-Humanities, 1956–1965” RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, 805 R, Box 9, Folders 87 –92. “Robert College-Turkish Economic Development, 1957–1962, 1967”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 13, Folder 130. Robert College of Istanbul, Turkey: honors the past, faces the future centennial 1863–1963. Istanbul: 1963. S¸erif Mardin, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 14, Folder 137–139. “S¸inasi O¨zsoylu”’, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 101, Series 805 E, Box 487, Folder 7247. “Stanford University-Hoover Institute-Turkish History (Enver Ziya Karal, Frederick P.Latimer Jr.), 1956–1960”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 200 R, Box 422, Folder 3634. “Stanford University-Hoover Institute (Slavic Studies), 1947–1952”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 205 R, Box 9, Folder 59. Stone, Robert. “Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, George Baker Foundation: Second Annual Report” in “Istanbul University Business Administration”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, 1952 –1957, Series 805, Box 75, Folder 495. Stevens, David. A Time of Humanities: An Oral History: Recollections of David H. Stevens as Director in the Division of the Humanities, Rockefeller Foundation. Madison: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 1976. ———. “The Humanities Program of the Rockefeller Foundation: A Review of the Period Between 1942 and 1947.” RFA, RG 3, Series 911, Box 2, Folder 14. ———. “Time in the Humanities.” RFA, RG 3, Series 911, Box 2. ———. “A Review of the Period”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 3, Series 911, Box 2, Folder 14. Stevenson, Adlai. “Remarks by Adlai Stevenson at the Robert College Board of Trustees.” Robert College Records, Box 51, File 18, 1961.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

“Suat Sinanog˘lu, 1956 –1961”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 487, Folder 7255. “Suna Kili, 1961– 1963”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, 805 E, Folder 485, Box 7228. Sutton, Francis. “The Ford Foundation in Turkey”, Ford Foundation Records, Office of the Vice President, Office Folders of Francis X Sutton FA568, Box 75, Folder 3–4. “The Economy of Turkey: An Analysis and Recommendations for a Development Program, Report of a Mission sponsored by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Collaboration with the Government of Turkey” (The John Hopkins Press, 1951). “The Ford Foundation in Turkey: 1952– 1968”, Ford Foundation History Project Files, Box 63, Folder 13. “The Preparation of Teachers in Turkey” 4 December 1957, RFA, Ford Foundation Records, FA 739B, 003621. “The Peace Corps Act”, Eighty Seventh Congress of the USA, 22 September 1961. The Ford Foundation Annual Report 1953, The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1937. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1948. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1951. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1962. The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1967. The University and World Affairs: Report of the Committee on the University and World Affairs (New York: The Ford Foundation, 1960). Truman, Henry. “Special Message to the Congress on Greece and Turkey.” The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pi d¼10499 (Accessed on 14 February 2015). “Tunc Yalman, 1951, 1956 –1957”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, Series 805 E, RG 10.1., Box 488, Folder 7270. “Tunc Yalman, 1962”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, Series 805 R, Box 12, Folder 119. “Turkey: Health Center”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805 J, Box 1, Folder 11. “Turkey, 1948”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, Series 805, Box 431, Folder 2901. “Turkey, 1949”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, Series 805, Box 506, Folder 3384. “Turkey, 1950”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, Series 805, Box 468, Folder 3138. “Turkey (K-S), 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 2, Series 805 A, Box 75, Folder 495. “Turkey (A-Z), 1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG2, Series 805 A, Box 75, Folder 500.

212

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

“Turkey-(A-Z), 1957”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG2, Series 805 A, Box 74, Folder 487. “Turkish-American University Association-Turkish Research”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 10, Folder 96 –98. “Turkish-American University Association- Modern Turkish History, 1955– 1960”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 9, Folder 95. “Turkish Management Development Center: Survey for the In-Plant Advisory Training Service”, Ford Foundation Records, FA 739 C, Box 355, Reports 008392. “Turkish State Conservatory, Ankara-Drama, 1957–1959”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 10, Folder 99. “Turkish State Conservatory, Fuad Tu¨rkay, 1957–1960”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 10, Folder 101. “University of Ankara-Pediatrics, 1953, 1955 –1963” RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, Series 805 A, RG 1.2, Box 4, Folders 32 –39. “University of Ankara-Ihsan Dogramacı”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 A, Box 3, Folder 21. “University of Istanbul, Institute of Business Administration: 1953–1956”, Ford Foundation Records, Overseas Development, International Training and Research, Office Folders of John Howard, FA 608, Series 1, Box 18. “University of Ankara-Nimet Akdes Kurat, 1961–1963”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, Series 805 S, Box 14, Folder 136. “University of Ankara-Nimet Akdes Kurat, 1961–1963”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, Series 805 S, Box 14, Folder 136. “University of Ankara, Edward Smith, 1956 –1958”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805, Box 14, Folder 144. “University of Ankara, Soviet Studies, 1959 – 1965”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 S, Box 14, Folder 145. “University of Ankara-Economic Development, 1956–1959, 1961–1964, 1966, 1969”, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, 805 S, Box 13, Folder 131–135. “University of Chicago-Chinese Studies”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 216 R, Box 14, Folder 190–199. “University of Ankara, Literary Criticism, 1951–1954”, Box 11, Folder 14. “University of Ankara-American Studies, 1949–1956”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 10, Folder 102–107. “University of Ankara-I˙rfan S¸ahinbas¸, 1952 – 1954”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 11, Folder 115. “University of California-Kenneth MacGowan-Turkish Theatre”, RFA, RG 1.2, Series 200 R, Box 436, Folder 3749 –3750. “University of Ankara, Turkish and Islamic Art, 1959–1964, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 R, Box 12, Folder 118.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

“University of Ankara–1963–1964, 1966”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.2, Series 805 C, Box 6, Folder 52. “US Peace Corps Records”, JFK Library, USPC-034 –006. Varley, Margaret. “Nursing in Turkey: October 1948. Preliminary Report with Recommendations”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 1.1, Series 805, Box 1, Folder 7. “Vedat Gu¨nyol, 1952”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 484, Folder 7. “Yıldız Akcan, 1954–1957” RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 480, Folder 7171. “Yavuz Renda”, RFA, Rockefeller Foundation Records, RG 10.1, Series 805 E, Box 487, Folder 7250. Cumhuriyet 17 September 1924. Milliyet,15.11.1959, 22.12.1959. Oberlin, Alumni Magazine Winter 2007, Vol. 103, No. 2. Resmi Gazete 4 June 1959, No 10222. Vatan 16 August 1924. http://ankarafenlisesi.meb.k12.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/06/06/119664/dosyalar/ 2014_06/10091618_fenlsesnnkurulukomisyonu.pdf http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1900s/stassen_harold_edward.html http://www.boun.edu.tr/en-US/Content/About_BU/History https://www.fordfoundation.org/about-us/history https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/principalofficers/directorforeign-operations-administration https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v01/comp9 and http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid¼13282 (https://history.state.gov/ departmenthistory/people/principalofficers/director-foreign-operationsadministration http://mebk12.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/06/06/119664/dosyalar/2013_07/ 08114555_fenlsesnnkurulutarhes.pdf http://psi203.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/files/SBF –1940-1949.pdf http://www.rockefeller100.org/biography/show/charles-fahs http://rockefeller100.org/biography/show/david-h –stevens http://rockefeller100.org/exhibits/show/health/international-health-division http://rockefeller100.org/exhibits/show/social_sciences/area-studies “Interview with Ahemt Tokus¸” available at http://www.yenialanya.com/gundem/ odtuyu-kuran-alanyali-tokus-h54093.html

Secondary Sources Abrams, Charles. Housing in the Modern World: Man’s Struggle for Shelter in an Urbanizing World. London: Faber and Faber Press, 1969.

214

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

¨ niversitesi Siyasal “Ac
ıklamalı Yo¨netim Zamandizini: 1940 –1949” Ankara U Bilgiler Faku¨ltesi Kamu Yo¨netimi Aras¸tırma ve Uygulama Merkezi: 3, Tu¨rkiye Cumhuriyeti I˙dare Tarihi Aras¸tırması (TI˙DATA), Birgu¨l Ayman Gu¨ler ed., see http://psi203.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/files/SBF –1940-1949. pdf. Acun, Fatma. “Robert Kolej Mezunları ve Mes¸hurları”. Turkish History Education Journal, 2015: 4 (2). Ahmad, Feroz. The Making of Modern Turkey. London: Routledge, 1993. Akbas¸, Oktay. “Amerikan Go¨nu¨llu¨ Kurulus¸ları: Barıs¸ Go¨nu¨llu¨leri’nin Du¨nyada ve Tu¨rkiye’deki C¸alıs¸maları”, Tu¨rk Eg˘itim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2006, Cilt 4, Sayı 1. Altan-Olcay, Ozlem. “Defining America From a Distance.” Middle Eastern Studies 44, No. 1 (2008): 29 –52. Ambrose, Stephen. The Cold War: A Military History. New York: Random House, 2005. Amove, Robert F., ed. Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism. Boston: G.K Hall, 1980. Amstutz, Mark. R. Evangelicals and American Foreign Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. And, Metin. “Ataturk and the Arts with special Reference to Music and Theater” in Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey, Jacob Landau ed., Leiden: Brill, 1984. Armaog˘lu, Fahir. Belgelerle Tu¨rk-Amerikan Mu¨nasebetleri. Ankara: TTK, 1991. Atatu¨rk’u¨n So¨ylev ve Demec
leri. Ankara: Atatu¨rk Ku¨ltu¨r Dil Tarih Yu¨ksek Kurumu, 2006. Ataturk Hakkında Hatıralar ve Belgeler. Haz: Arı Inan, Tu¨rkiye I˙s¸ Bankası Ku¨ltu¨r Yayınları, Ankara, 2007. Aydemir, S¸evket Su¨reyya. I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨: I˙kinci Adam, Cilt II. I˙stanbul: Remzi, 1973. Barrett, Roby. The Greater Middle East and the Cold War: US Foreign Policy Under Eisenhower and Kennedy. New York: I.B.Tauris, 2007. Berkes, Niyazi. The Development of Secularism in Turkey. London: Hurst, 1998. Berman, Edward. The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy: The Idea of Philanthropy. Albany, NY: State University of New York, 1983. Bestor, Victoria Lyon. “The Rockefeller Blueprint for Postwar US-Japanese Cultural Relations and the Evolution of Japan’s Civil Sector” in Globalization, Philanthropy and Civil Society: Toward a New Political Culture in the 21st Century, Soma Hewa, Darwin H. Stapleton ed. Boston: Springer, 2005. Boratav, Korkut. Tu¨rkiye I˙ktisat Tarihi 1908 –1985, I˙stanbul, Gerc
ek, 1989. Bozkurt, Esat. Atatu¨rk Ihtilali. I˙stanbul: Altın Kitaplar, 1967. Brison, Jeffrey D. Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Canada: American Philanthropy and the Arts and Letters in Canada. Kingston: McGill Queen’s University Press, 2005. Brogan, Hugh. History of the United States. London: Penguin, 2001. Brown, Richard E. Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America. California: University of California Press, 1979.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

215

Buxton, William. “John Marshall and the Humanities in Europe: Shifting Patterns of Rockefeller Foundation Support.” Minerva 41 (2003): 133–53. ———, ed., Patronizing the Public: American Philanthropy’s Transformation of Culture, Communication and the Humanities. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2009. C¸akırc
oban, I˙smail. “I˙kinci Du¨nya Savas¸ı’nda Tu¨rkiye’de bulas¸ıcı hastalıklarla ¨ niversitesi, 2010. mu¨cadele”, Marmara U Cark, Ruth. American Consuls in the Holy Land, 1832–1914. Jerusalem: Magness, 1994. Carroll, Thomas. “A Foundation Expresses Its Interest in Higher Education for Business Management”, The Journal of the Academy of Management, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Dec., 1959). C¸olak, Filiz. Atatu¨rk Do¨neminde Tu¨rkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin Ulas¸ım Politikasına Bir Bakıs¸, Turkish Studies, Volume 8/2, Winter 2013. Copeaux, Etienne. Tarih Ders Kitaplarinda Tu¨rk Tarih Tezinden Tu¨rk I˙slam Sentezine. I˙stanbul: I˙letis¸im, 2006. Cullather, Nick. The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. Cumhuriyet Ansiklopedisi. Cilt 1, YKY, I˙stanbul 2002. Cumhuriyetin 17. Yıldo¨nu¨mu¨de Hitabeler ve Konferanslar: Bas¸vekil Refik Saydam’ın Ankara Radyonusunda Cumhuriiyet Bayarmnı Ac
ıs¸ Hitabesi ve Vekaletlerle Milli Tes¸ekku¨ler Adına Ankara Radyonsunda Verilen Konferanslar. Ankara: Su¨mer, 1940. Danforth, N. “Malleable Modernity: Rethinking the Role of Ideology in American Policy, Aid Programs, and Propaganda in Fifties’ Turkey.” Diplomatic History Vol. 39, No.3 (2014). Demirel, Tanel. Tu¨rkiye’nin Uzun On Yılı: Demokrat Parti I˙ktidarı ve 27 Mayıs Darbesi. I˙stanbul: Bilgi, 2011. DeNovo, John. American Interests and Policies in the Middle East, 1900–1939. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1953. Dog˘an, Mehmet Ali. “From New England Into New Lands.” in Missionaries and the Middle East, Heather Sharkey and Mehmet Ali Dog˘an eds. Salt Like City: University of Utah Press, 2011. Eisenhower, Dwight. “Address and Remarks at the Baylor University Commencement Ceremonies, Waco, Texas.” The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid¼10499 (Accessed on 13 February 2015). Ellington, Barbara Reeves. Domestic Frontiers: Gender, Reform and American Interventions in the Ottoman Balkans and the Near East. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2013. Erhan, C¸ag˘rı. “Ottoman-American Relations.” in Turkish-American Relations: Past Present and Future, M Aydın and C Erhan eds. New York: Routledge, 2004. Erhan, C¸ag˘rı, and Mustafa Aydın eds. Turkish-American Relations: Past Present and Future. New York: Routledge, 2004.

216

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Ersanlı, Bu¨s¸ra I˙ktidar ve Tarih: Tu¨rkiye’de Resmi Tarih Tezinin Olus¸umu. I˙stanbul: Afa, 1992. Ersoy, Ug˘ur. Bozkırı Yes¸ertenler. Ankara: Evrim, 2002. Field, James A. America and the Mediterranean World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969. Ford Vakfı Tu¨rkiye’de 1952 –1967. I˙stanbul: Ayyıldız, 1968. Fosdick, Raymond. The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1989. Freely, John. A History of Robert College I-II. Istanbul: YKY, 2009. Garlitz, Richard. “Academic Ambassadors in the Middle East: The University Contract Program in Turkey and Iran, 1950–1970”, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Ohio University, 2008. Gates, Caleb. Not To Me Only. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1940. Go¨kalp, Ziya. Tu¨rkc
u¨lu¨g˘u¨n Esasları, I˙stanbul: MEB, 1972. Go¨nlu¨bol, Mehmet. Olaylarla Tu¨rk Dıs¸ Politikası: 1919–1965. Ankara: Siyasal, 2006. Grabill, Joseph. “Cleveland H. Dodge, Woodrow Wilson, and the Near East.” Journal of Presbyterian History 48, No. 4 (1970): 249– 64. ———. Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East: Missionary Influence on American Policy, 1810 –1927. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971. Greenwood, Keith. Robert College: The American Founders. I˙stanbul: Bog˘azic
i University Press. Grew, Joseph. A Turbulent Era. Boston: Houghton, 1952. Gu¨rsel, Ali. “Cumhuriyet Do¨neminde Sag˘lık Personeli ve I˙stihdamı Politikaları”, Asia Minor Studies, Cil 4, Sayı 8. ¨ niversitesi Siyasal Gu¨ru¨n, Kamuran. Dıs¸ I˙lis¸kiler ve Tu¨rk Politikası. Ankara U Bilgiler Faku¨ltesi Yayınları, Ankara: 1983. Hakkı, Murat Metin The Cyprus Issue: A Documentary History, 1878–2006. London: I.B.Tauris, 2007. Hale, William. Turkish Foreign Policy: 1774–2000. London: MPG, 2002. ———. The Political and Economic Development of Modern Turkey. London: Routledge, 2014. ———. “The Traditional and the Modern in the Economy of Kemalist Turkey: The Experience of the 1920s” in Jacob Landau, ed. Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey. Brill: 1984. Hall, Richard. The Balkan Wars 1912–1913. London: Routledge, 2012. Hamlin, Cyrus. Among the Turks. Istanbul: BU Press, 2013. Haniog˘lu, S¸u¨kru¨. Atatu¨rk an Intellectual Biography. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2011. ———. “Blueprints for a Future Society: Late Ottoman Materialists on Science, Religion and Art” in Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy, ed. Elisabeth Ozdalga, London: Routledge, 2005. Harris, George. Ataturk’s Diplomats and Their Biographies: The Foreign Service Under Ataturk. Istanbul: ISIS, 2010.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

217

———. Troubled Alliance: Turkish-American Problems in Historical Perspective 1945–1971. New York: MW Books, 1972. Heper, Metin. I˙smet I˙no¨nu¨: The Making of a Turkish Statesman, Leiden: Brill, 1998. Hopkins, Peter. “Conducents for the Performance of Experimental activity: An Investigation into the Development of Modern Science in Republican Turkey”. Unpublished PhD, Loughborough University, July, 1981. Hortac
su, Mahmut O¨nder. “Robert Kolej Mu¨hendis Mektebi’nin Tarihi” in The Anatomy of a Tradition: 150 Years of Robert College “Robert Kolej Mu¨hendis Mektebi’nin Tarihi”. Istanbul: Istanbul Research Institute, 2013. Huntington-Dodge, Elisabeth. The Joy of Service. New York: YWCA, 1979. Inan, Afet. Tarih Uzerine I˙nceleme ve Makaleler. Ankara: Akin Matbaasi, 1960. I˙nan, Arı. Prof.Afet I˙nan. I˙stanbul: Remzi, 2005. Karabulut, Umut. “Cumhuriyet’in I˙lk Yıllarında Sag˘lık Hizmetlerinie Toplu Bir Bakıs¸”, DEU¨ Atatu¨rk I˙lkeleri ve I˙nkılap Tarihi Enstitu¨su¨ C¸ag˘das¸ Tu¨rkiye Tarihi Aras¸tırmaları Dergisi, Cilt 6, Sayı 15 (2007). Karpat, Kemal. Turkey’s Politics: The Transition To A Multi-Party System. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1959. Kaufman, Joyce. A Concise History of US Foreign History. London: Rowman, 2010. Kay, Lily E. The Molecular Vision of Life: The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology and Caltech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Kerwin, Robert. “The Turkish roads program”, The Middle East Journal, 4 (1950). Khalaf, Samir. Protestant Missionaries in the Levant: Ungodly Puritans, 1820–1860. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Khurana, Rakesh. From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession. Princeton University Press: Princeton, 2007. Kılıc
, Kıvanc
. “The Central Institute of Hygiene: Modernism and Gender in Early Republican Turkey” Rockefeller Archive Center Research Report, 2010, http://www.rockarch.org/publications/resrep/kilinc.php. Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York: Easton, 1994. Kocabas¸og˘lu, Uygur. Anadolu’daki Amerika. Kendi Belgeleriyle 19. Yu¨zyılda Osmanlı I˙mparatorlug˘u’ndaki Amerikan Misyoner Okulları. Ankara: I˙mge, 2000. Koc
ak, Cemil. Tu¨rkiye’de Milli S¸ef Do¨nemi: 1938 –1945. I˙stanbul: I˙letis¸im, 1996. Kohler, Robert E. Partners in Science: Foundations and Natural Scientists, 1900– 1945. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Kozat, Burc
ak Keskin. “Reinterpreting Turkey’s Marshall Plan: Of Machines, Experts, and Technical Knowledge” in American Turkish Encounters, Selcuk Esenbel, Bilge Nur Criss, Tony Greenwood and Louis Marazzi eds. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011. Krige, John. American Hegemony and the Postwar Reconstruction of Science in Europe. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2006.

218

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Kurdas¸, Kemal. Odtu¨ Yıllarım: Bir Hizmetin Hikayesi. Ankara: METU, 1988. Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe. The Politics of Knowledge: The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1989. Lerner, Daniel. The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York: The Free Press, 1958. Lockman, Zachary. Field Notes: The Making of Middle East Studies in the United States. Stanford University Press: 2016. Lowry, Heath. An Ongoing Affair: Turkey and I. I˙stanbul: C¸itlembik, 2008. MacDonald, Dwight. The Ford Foundation: The Men and the Millions. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1956. Magat, Richard. The Ford Foundation at Work: Philanthropic Choices, Methods, and Styles. New York: Plenum Press, 1979. Marcosson, Isaac. “Kemal Pasha.” The Saturday Evening Post 20 (October 1923). Mardin, S¸erif. Young Turks: The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought: A Study in the Modernization of Turkish Political Ideas. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2000. Maybury, Robert. Technical Assistance and Innovation in Science Education. New York: Wiley, 1975. Mills, Mary Patrick. A Bosporus Adventure, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1934. Murphey, Rhoads. “Osmanlıların Batı Teknolojisini Benimsemesindeki Tutumları: Efrenci Teknisyenlerin Sivil ve Askeri Uygulamalardaki Rolu¨”, Osmanlılar ve Batı Teknolojisi, I˙stanbul U¨niversitesi Edebiyat Faku¨ltesi Yayınları, I˙stanbul 1992. Nankovich, Frank. “The Rockefeller Foundation, China and Cultural Change”, The Journal of American History, Vol. 70, No. 4 (March, 1984). Neal, Homer A., Tobin L. Smith and Jennifer B. McCormick, Beyond Sputnik: US Science Policy in the Twenty First Century. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2008. Ninkovich, Frank. The Wilsonian Century: US Foreign Policy Since 1900, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999. Northrop, Eugene. Riddles in Mathematics. UK: Penguin, 1975. Nurdog˘an, Arzu M. “Robert Koleji Mu¨hendislik Okulu (1912)”, Divan, Cilt 14 Sayı 26 (2009/1). Og˘uz, Orhan. 80 Yıl: Cumhuriyet’e Yas¸ıt Bir Hayat, I˙stanbul: Dog˘an, 2004. Okyar, Osman. “Ataturk’s Quest for Modernism” in Jacob Landau ed. Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey, Leiden: Brill, 1984. ¨ lc
en, Ali Nejat. “1923–1938 Do¨neminde Birinci ve I˙kinci Sanayi Planları” in O Atatu¨rk Do¨nemi Ekonomi Politikası ve Tu¨rkiye’nin Ekonomik Gelis¸mesi Semineri. Ankara, SBF Yayınları, 1982. ¨ rnek, Cangu¨l. Tu¨rkiye’nin Sog˘uk Savas¸ Du¨s¸u¨nce Hayatı: Antikomunizm ve O Amerikan Etkisi. Istanbul: Can, 2015.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

———. “Hegemonya Mu¨cadelesi Bag˘lamında Filantropi ve Sosyal Bilimler: 1953 Yalova Konferansı O¨rneg˘i”, Amme I˙daresi Dergisi, Cilt 46, Sayı 3, Eylu¨l 2013. Ozbalkan, Mu¨slim. Gizli Belgelerler Barıs¸ Go¨nu¨llu¨leri (Ant, 1970). Ozoglu, Hakan. Admiral Mark Bristol and the Turkish Republic, American Turkish Encounters, Selcuk Esenbel, Bilge Nur Criss, Tony Greenwood and Louis Marazzi eds. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011. ¨ zpekcan, Meliha. “TBMM Tutanaklarına Go¨re Cumhuriyetin Ðlk On Yılında O Sag˘lık Politikamız”, Tu¨rkler, XVII, Ankara, Yeni Tu¨rkiye Yayınları, 2003. ¨ ztu¨rk, Cemil. I˙mparatorluktan Ulus Devlete Tu¨rk I˙nkilap Tarihi. I˙stanbul: Pegem, O 2007. ¨ ztu¨rkmen, Arzu. “Turkish American History Reflected in the Life Story of O Howard Reed” in Turkish-American Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011. Pakın, Esra. “American Studies in Turkey During the ‘Cultural’ Cold War”, Turkish Studies. Cilt 9, Sayı3, Eylu¨l 2008. Parmar, Inderjeet. Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012. ———. “To Relate Knowledge and Action: The Impact of the Rockefeller Foundation On Foreign Policy Thinking During America’s Rise to Globalism: 1939–1945.” Minerva 40 (2002): 235. ———. “United States’ Rise to Globalism, 1939 – 1945.” Minerva 37 (1999): 355 – 78. ———. “American Foundations and the Development of International Knowledge Networks.” Global Networks 2, 1 (2002): 13 –30. Payas¸lıg˘lu. Tu¨rk Yu¨kseko¨g˘retiminde Bir Yenilig˘in Tarihi, Ankara: ODTU: 1996. Polatog˘lu, lknur Haydar. Osmanlı I˙mparatorlug˘unda Yabancı Okullar: Ocak Yayınları 1993. Reed, Howard. “Hacettepe and Middle East Technical University: New Universities in Turkey,” Minerva 13, no. 2 (Summer 1975). Renehan, Edward. The Monroe Doctrine: The Cornerstone of American Foreign Policy. New York: Infobase, 2007. Resmi Ziyaret. Tu¨rkiye Cumhurreisi Celal Bayar’ın Birles¸ik Amerika’yı Ziyaretinin Hikayesi: Ocak-Mart, 1954: The Story of the Tour of the United States by President Celal Bayar of Turkey, January– March 1954: (Birles¸ik Amerika Haberler Tes¸kilatı Ankara Merkezi Tarafından Nes¸redilmis¸tir, Published by the United States Information Service, Ankara). Ankara: United States Information Service. N.d. Rose, Kenneth. “The Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship Program in Turkey: 1925–1983.” (2008). http://www.rockarch.org/publications/resrep/pdf/ros eturkey.pdf (Accessed on 1 January 2016). Rose, Kenneth and Erdem, Murat. “American Philanthropy in Republican Turkey: The Case of Rockefeller and Ford Foundations.” The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, Research Center for International Political and

220

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Economic Relations Ankara: Ankara University, Faculty of Political Science Publications, 2002. Rustow, Dankwart. American’s Forgotten Ally. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1989. Sabev, Orlin. “War and Education in the 1910s: Robert College and American Girls’ College.” Conference on the 100th Anniversary of Balkan Wars. Istanbul, 2012. ———. Spiritus Roberti: Shaping New Minds and Robert College in Late Ottoman Society. Istanbul: BU Press, 2014. Samuelson, Richard. “John Quincy Adams’ Lost History of the Russo-Turkish War: Greek Independence and the Sacred Cause of Liberty.” In America and the Mediterranean, Massimo Bacigalupo and Pierangelo Castagneto eds. Turin: Otto Editore: 2003. Sander, Oral. Tu¨rk-Amerikan I˙lis¸kileri. Ankara: Siyasal Bilgiler Faku¨ltesi, 1979. Saray, Mehmet. Sovyet Tehdidi Kars¸ısında Tu¨rkiye’nin Nato’ya Giris¸i: III. Cumhurbas¸kanı Celal Bayar’ın Hatıraları ve Belgeler. Atatu¨rk Ku¨ltu¨r Dil ve Tarih Yu¨ksek Kurumu: Atatu¨rk Aras¸tırma Merkezi, Ankara: 2000. Scipio, Lyonn. My Thirty Years in Turkey. New Hampshire: Richard Smith, 1955. Sharkey, Heather, and Mehmet Ali Dog˘an eds. American Missionaries and the Middle East. Salt Like City: University of Utah Press, 2011. Shaw, Stanford, and Ezel Kural. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Singer, Morris. The Economic Advance of Turkey: 1938–1960, Ankara: Ayyıldız, 1977). So¨nmezog˘lu, Faruk. I˙ki Savas¸ Arasında Tu¨rk Dıs¸ Politikası. Istanbul: Der, 2006. Soysal, Funda. “The Ottoman Period of Robert College.” In Bir Geleneg˘in Anatomisi: Robert Kolej’, in 150 Yılı (The anatomy of a tradition: 150 years of Robert College), Cem Akas¸ ed., 44–5. I˙stanbul: Suna ve I˙nan Kırac
Aras¸tırmaları Enstitu¨su¨, 2013. Spanier, John, and Steven Hook. American Foreign Policy. Washington: CQ, 2010. “Special Message to the Congress on Greece and Turkey.” The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid¼10499 (Accessed on 14 February 2015). Tekeli, I˙lhan. and Selim I˙lkin, Uygulamaya Gec
erken Tu¨rkiye’de Devletc
ilig˘in Olus¸umu Ankara: ODTU¨ Yayınları, 1982. Terziog˘lu, Arslan. “Cumhuriyet Do¨nemi Tu¨rk Tıbbına ve Tıp Eg˘itimine Kısa Bir Bakıs¸”, I˙stanbul U¨niversitesi Yakın Do¨nem Tu¨rkiye Aras¸tırmaları Dergisi, No 2, 2002. Toynbee, Arnold. A Study of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946. Tunaya, Tarık Zafer. Tu¨rkiye’nin Siyasıˆ Hayatında Batılılas¸ma Hareketleri. ¨ niversitesi Yayınları, 2004. I˙stanbul: Bilgi U Tunc
ay, Mete. Tu¨rkiye Cumhuriyetinde Tek Parti Yo¨netiminin Kurulması. Ankara: Tarih Vakfı, 1981.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

Us, Asım. Hatıra Notları, 1930 –1950. I˙stanbul: Vakit, 1966. ¨ sdiken, Behlu¨l. “Transferring American Models for Business and Public U Administration” in American Turkish Encounters, Selcuk Esenbel, Bilge Nur Criss, Tony Greenwood and Louis Marazzi eds. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011. Uslu, Nasuh. The Cyprus Question as an Issue of Turkish Foreign Policy and TurkishAmerican Relations: 1959–2003. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2003. ———. Turkish-American Relationship Between 1947 and 2003: The History of a Distinctive Alliance. New York: Nova Publishers, 2003. Vandemark, Brian. American Sheikhs: Two Families, Four Generations and the Story of America’s Influence in the Middle East. New York: Dover, 2012. Weiker, Walter. The Modernization of Turkey: From Ataturk to the Present Day. New York: HM, 1981. Widmer, Ted. “The Center of the World.” in Bir Geleneg˘in Anatomisi: Robert Kolej’in 150 Yılı: (The anatomy of a tradition: 150 years of Robert College), Cem Akas¸ ed. I˙stanbul: Suna ve I˙nan Kırac
Aras¸tırmaları Enstitu¨su¨, 2013. Yalc
ınkaya, Alper. Learned Patriots: Debating Science, State and Society in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Empire. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2015. Yanıkdag˘, Yu¨cel. Healing the Nation: Prisoners of War, Medicine and Nationalism in Turkey: 1914 –1939, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013. Yetkiner, Cemal. “American Merchants, Before Ambassadors: Protestant Missionaries and Early American Experience in the Ottoman Empire: 1820–1860.” in American Turkish Encounters, Selcuk Esenbel, Bilge Nur Criss, Tony Greenwood and Louis Marazzi eds. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011. Yılmayan Millet Tu¨rkiye Cumhurbas¸kanı Celal Bayar’ın Amerika Birles¸ik Devletlerine Yaptıg˘ı Ziyaretin Kronolojik Hikaˆyesi ve Sec
ilmis¸ Nutuklar: 28 Ocak- 27 S¸ubat 1954. IBM World Trade Corporation: 1955. Yorgancıog˘lu, Derya. “Reconstructing the Political and Education Contexts of the Metu Project”, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Middle Eastern Technical University, Department of Architecture, 2010. Zunz, Olivier. Philanthropy in America: A History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton, University Press, 2012. Zu¨rcher, Erik J. Turkey: A Modern History. London: I.B.Tauris, 2004. http:// www.isbank.com.tr/TR/hakkimizda/bizi-taniyin/tarihimiz/o-gunlerdenbugunlere/Sayfalar/o-gunlerden-bugunlere.aspx

INDEX

Abrams Charles, 65 – 6 Adıvar Halide Edip, 133 American Aid Agency, 80 American Studies, 112, 134– 5, 192, 199 Ankara University, 71, 93, 102, 113– 15, 126, 134, 138, 196 Atatu¨rk, Mustafa Kemal, 3, 27, 39, 64, 121, 132, 136, 152, 154, 160, 172, 187, 201 Atatu¨rk University, 12, 47, 64– 5 Ballantine, Duncan, 12, 64, 66–8, 99, 109, 119, 131–2, 151, 193, 195, 257, 258 Barkan, Omer Lutfu, 100, 102, 128 Barnard, Chester, 41, 42, 45, 107, 118, 194 Bayar, Celal, 6, 7, 59, 63, 66, 88, 109, 145, 148, 153–4, 165, 172– 4, 186, 197

Bristol, Mark, 3 –4, 28, 34, 143, 151, 162, 167 Buchanan, Norman, 92 –3, 102– 5, 115, 184, 187 Carnegie Foundation, 13, 51–2, 106, 108 Cento, 64, 68 CHP (Republican People’s Party), 4– 7, 60, 61, 76, 99, 114, 121, 200 Cold War, 1, 9, 13– 14, 62, 74, 116 Collins Ralph, 10, 32– 7, 39– 41, 144, 162 Cyprus, 8, 11, 82, 148 Demirel Su¨leyman, 7– 8, 80, 84, 148, 153, 155 Democrat Party, 5 –7, 61, 66, 68, 73, 89, 130, 145 Directorate of Railways, 57, 58

224

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

Dodge, Cleveland, 2, 57, 157, 167, 188, 274 Dodge, Elisabeth, 151, 169 Dog˘ramacı, Ihsan, 10, 15, 45– 7, 144, 166 Dulles, Foster, 111, 154 Ecevit, Bulent, 7, 135, 140, 148, 155 Economic and Social Studies Board, 95, 98 Eczacıbas¸ı, Bulent, 10, 90– 1, 97, 185 Eisenhower, Dwight, 6, 7– 8, 64, 67, 111, 146, 155, 175, 190 Ertugrul, Muhsin, 139 Egypt, 42, 112, 123, 194 family planning law, 47, 49 Feyziog˘lu, Turhan, 68– 9, 76, 79, 83, 93, 102, 175, 177, 184 Fis¸ek, Nusret, 10, 47– 8 Fosdick, Raymond, 13, 41, 87, 99, 158–9, 189 Gates, Caleb, 53 – 5, 58, 144, 170 Gates, Frederick, 21 – 3, 25 –6, 31, 143, 158 Gu¨rsel, Cemal, 7, 68, 76 Gulek, Kasım, 60, 61, 99, 132 Garwood, David, 100, 127, 196– 8, 202 Germany, 54 – 5, 62, 71, 97, 99, 152, 164

OF MODERN

TURKEY

Greece, 5, 56, 99, 170 Gunn, Selskar, 10, 32– 5, 40 – 1, 144, 162– 3 Harvard University, 9, 11, 25, 61, 79, 85–6, 88 –9, 91 –3, 105– 9, 113, 115, 120, 129, 135, 146 IHD (International Health Division), 32, 35 – 8, 40, 42– 4, 99, 158, 160, 162, 164, 165 Inalcık, Halil, 129 Inonu, Ismet, 5, 33, 152– 3, 170 Institute of World Affairs, 88 Istanbul University, 4, 38, 44– 5, 71, 89, 92 –3, 100, 105, 112– 13, 183, 187, 191– 2 Iverson, 71, 89, 183 Iz Fahir, 110, 131– 2, 199 Karal, Enver Ziya, 100, 109, 187 Karasu, Bilge, 133, 199– 200 Kennedy, John F., 11, 69, 148, 176, 181, 190 Kerwin, Robert, 10, 78, 81– 2, 93– 8, 100– 1, 108, 112, 116, 128, 145– 6, 176– 9, 184– 5, 190–2, 198 Kiper, Cemal, 42, 47 Koc, Vehbi, 90, 97 Korean War, 6 Kurat, Akdes Nimet, 110, 126

INDEX

225

Kurdas, Kemal, 10, 76, 78, 80, 82, 146, 177, 180 Kuyucak Hazım Atıf, 90, 93, 99, 167, 183

Neyzi, Nezih, 90– 2 Northrop, Eugene, 10, 74– 83, 95, 98, 104, 145–6, 176– 80

Lewis, Geoffrey, 127, 129, 197

Okyar, Osman, 101– 2, 105, 111– 12, 187, 191, 196 Opium Crisis, 8, 11 Oxford University, 115, 120, 127, 132

Mardin, Ebu’l-Ala, 128, 198 Marshall, John, 10, 93, 99 – 101, 108– 9, 112, 115, 120–44, 147– 8, 165, 186– 7, 190– 203 Marshall Plan, 9, 12, 59 Menderes, 6, 63, 66, 68, 121, 132, 153–4, 171, 175, 182 METU, 10, 16, 52, 53, 66– 9, 76, 78 –83, 145– 6, 174– 5, 180– 1, 185 Middle East, 5, 13– 14, 42, 46, 61 –3, 65– 6, 68, 93, 104, 107, 108–12, 179, 191– 2 Ministry of Defense, 57, 171 Ministry of Education, 16, 57, 64, 70 –3, 76, 78, 82, 90, 94, 97, 129, 139, 171 Ministry of Health, 37–8, 40, 82, 166 Nasır Zeki, 40, 161, 163, 165 NATO, 5, 6, 8, 13, 82, 160, 161, 162, 166 near east, 1, 6, 12, 28, 30, 31, 62, 79, 89, 92, 100, 105– 6, 111– 12, 116, 118– 26, 145, 147, 151, 169, 191, 195–6

Peace Corps, 11, 69, 176 Point Four Program, 48, 64, 167, 173 Reed, Howard, 127, 129, 179 Sarc
, Omer Celal, 90, 100, 105, 110, 191 Saydam, Refik, 10, 27, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 75, 165 Sayın, Afife, 92, 102, 128 Scipio, Lyonn, 53– 6, 58, 168–71 Sevin, Nureddin, 139, 202 Soviet Union (Soviets), 4 – 6, 9, 57, 63, 74, 83, 145, 170 Soviet Studies, 110, 191 Stassen, Harold E., 6, 64 –8 Stevens, David, 106, 117– 21, 147, 189, 193– 4 Stone, Robert, 90, 92 Tanpınar, Ahmed Hamdi, 132, 191– 92 Tanyol, Cahit, 99

226

AMERICA

AND THE

MAKING

Timur, Hıfzı, 99 – 100, 111–12, 128, 186, 191 Truman, Harry S., 5, 59, 64, 153, 173 Truman Doctrine, 5, 59 Tubitak, 146 Tunaya, Tarık Zafer, 109, 127, 152, 191 Ulgener, Sabri, 93, 105 Ulken, Hilmi Ziya, 99– 100 UNESCO, 74, 127 United Kingdom, 67, 110, 115, 128, 197 United Nations, 7, 44, 66, 67, 69 USIS (United States Informaiton Service), 13, 138 Velidedeoglu, Hıfzı Veldet, 100–1 Ward, Champion, 70–1, 74 Westernisation, 1, 3, 7, 10, 30, 48, 52, 68, 83, 101, 111,

OF MODERN

TURKEY

113, 116, 121, 122, 124– 5, 132, 136, 138, 141, 147– 8, 151, 187, 193, 197 Wilson, Woodrow, 2, 54, 105, 169 World War I, 24, 27, 54, 58, 61, 105, 143, 152 World War II, 4, 11, 42, 44, 51, 59, 92, 106, 118, 141, 147 Yalc
ın, Aydın, 10, 101–2, 108, 187 Yalman, Ahmet Emin, 10, 100– 1, 110, 182– 3 Yalman, Tunc
, 140, Yazıcı, Bu¨lent, 91, 93, 105, 184 Yorukoglu, Kadri, 115, 130, 191, 196, 198– 9 YWCA (Youth Woman’s Christian Association), 28 Zorlu, Fatin Ru¨s¸tu¨, 63, 66