This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 21 May 2015, At: 05:24

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Citizenship Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccst20

Active citizenship in Turkey:

learning citizenship in civil society
organizations
a
Didem Çakmaklı
a
Department of International Relations and Political Science, Koç
University, Rumelifeneri Yolu, Sariyer, 34450 Istanbul, Turkey
Published online: 20 May 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Didem Çakmaklı (2015): Active citizenship in Turkey: learning citizenship in
civil society organizations, Citizenship Studies, DOI: 10.1080/13621025.2015.1006174

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2015.1006174

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015
 Citizenship Studies, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2015.1006174

Active citizenship in Turkey: learning citizenship in

civil society organizations
Didem Çakmaklı*

Department of International Relations and Political Science, Koç University,

Rumelifeneri Yolu, Sariyer, 34450 Istanbul, Turkey
(Received 4 November 2013; final version received 11 August 2014)

This article analyzes whether participation in civil society organizations (CSOs) in

Turkey enables the learning of active citizenship. I conceptualize active citizenship
along two axes. The first axis includes its defining dimensions (civic action, cohesion,
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

self-actualization) while the second axis includes the types of learning (cognitive,
pragmatic, affective) active citizenship requires. The study presents in-depth analysis
of participant experiences in four CSOs in Turkey. Data are derived from semi-
structured interviews with CSO members and volunteers. Findings reveal the
mechanisms that link changes which occur to CSO participants to the various
dimensions of active citizenship. The analysis points toward the potential for change
in how citizenship is both learned and practiced in Turkey.
Keywords: active citizenship; civic education; civil society organization; Turkey;
citizenship

Introduction
On 29 May 2013, an unanticipated movement was triggered when concerned citizens
rushed to Taksim’s Gezi Park to save it from being demolished. Protests transformed into a
countrywide movement where a vast range of grievances, most rooted in the dismissive
attitude of the government, were voiced. Previous movements in Egypt, the USA, Greece,
and other regions of the globe raised questions regarding the nature of the Gezi protests.
In this unprecedented movement lies a diverse and innovative approach to protest. In a tiny
park in the middle of Istanbul’s busiest square, protestors settled in their tents, put up
a kitchen where food was donated, and set up an infirmary where doctors and nurses
volunteered when protests turned violent. Chants and songs were composed, classical
music concerts were given, a library was set up, and flags and t-shirts with diverse logos
were designed. One man decided to stand still in protest for 8 hours, and dubbed the
‘standing man’, became a symbol of peaceful resistance.
The diversity of the individuals of the movement was extraordinary, particularly for
a society so divided along political, ethnic, and religious lines. The movement was not
directed by any one organization. While a group called the ‘Taksim Platform’ did become
somewhat of a spokesperson for the movement, this platform was composed of
representatives from a wide range of organizations. Students, trade unions, professional
groups, environmentalists, women’s groups, LGBT activists, anti-capitalist Muslims,
Kurdish nationalists, Turkish nationalists, Kemalist youth groups, and the ‘unaffiliated
protestor’ all came together. This display, not necessarily of acceptance, but certainly one

*Email: dcakmakli@ku.edu.tr

q 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 D. Çakmaklı

of tolerance, was probably equally shocking to the protestors themselves as it was to any
observer.
The Gezi movement became a consolidated platform for those with little or no political
representation, in a strong single party political system. Much has been written on the Gezi
movement, its roots, the characteristics of the protestors, and the government’s reaction
(Özkırımlı 2014). What is particularly intriguing is how such a creative, multicultural,
multi-ideological, and novel form of citizenship resistance mobilized in a country where
citizenship has been defined, dictated, and practiced as passive and dutiful. The Gezi
protests set the stage for this question which motivates this research to understand how
sites and forms of citizen participation in Turkey are changing. In its section on civil
society, the European Commission’s 2013 progress report on Turkey notes that the ‘Gezi
Park protests in Istanbul and related protests across Turkey reflected the emergence of
vibrant, active citizenry’ (European Commission 2013, 11). By analyzing participation in
civil society organizations (CSOs), this research aims to understand whether and in what
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

ways CSO participation changes citizenship practices.

Studies on citizenship remain relevant as citizenship continues to change parallel to
dynamic global politics. Studies trace these transformations to resolve concerns regarding
how and where citizenship is practiced and who the citizen is (Lelandais 2013; Baban
2014). Traditionally defined as a status within the nation state, recent conceptualizations
of citizenship, such as post national citizenship, move the citizen beyond the borders of the
nation state (Soysal 1998), and theories on universal citizenship (Linklater 2007) move it
to the global level. Kymlicka’s theory on multicultural citizenship (Kymlicka 1996)
addresses challenges to citizenship in ethnically and culturally diverse settings, while for
Işın and Nielson (2008) citizenship is defined as acts and the pursuit of rights. More
recently, the term ‘active citizenship’ emerges to address contemporary concerns
regarding the decline of citizen participation in democratic societies (Putnam 2000; Crick
Report 1998). These contemporary theories on citizenship challenge us to move beyond a
formal, particularly status based, understanding of citizenship and to embrace changes to
how citizenship is perceived, learned, and practiced today.
An active citizenry is critical to democratic societies to ensure that voices are heard
and governments are held accountable. In light of contemporary events of increased
citizen activity globally and in Turkey, scholarship on the ‘active citizen’ becomes vital.
The Turkish context presents an interesting case to evaluate whether and how active
citizenship can be learned and whether such a process can break some of the barriers to
Turkey’s traditional citizenship. Discourse on citizenship in Turkey is embedded in the
republican tradition, in which the Turkish citizen is defined by his/her duties toward the
state in a passive, dutiful type of citizenship (Keyman and Icduygu 2003). The objective of
this article is thus to understand firstly whether participation in CSOs in fact contributes to
the development of active citizenship and secondly whether this learning process has the
potential to transform citizenship practices in a way that generates change in dutiful
citizenship in Turkey. Results indicate that participation in CSOs in Turkey do in fact
develop practices of active citizenship. These practices, detailed below, challenge
Turkey’s traditional understanding of citizenship. While such change points to a potential
for the CSO to act as a site for the learning of active citizenship, since results refer to CSO
participants only, results do not imply an overall transformation to citizenship practices
in Turkey.
The first section of the paper addresses the historical legacy as well as contemporary
debates that shape citizenship in Turkey. The second section is a theoretical discussion of
active citizenship, where the concept is defined and its indicators for analysis are
 Citizenship Studies 3

presented. This is followed by the analysis and findings of the paper. Finally the
conclusion is a discussion of the implication of the findings for transforming citizenship
in Turkey.

Citizenship in Turkey
Historical legacies as well as sustained tensions between formal and substantive
citizenship characterize how citizenship is understood and practiced in Turkey today. The
transition from the Ottoman Empire to a nation state required the construction of a legal
framework for how citizens of the new Turkish Republic would be identified and
categorized (Isyar 2005; Yeğen 2004; White 1999; Aybay 1998; Kadıoğlu 1995 cited in
Ünsal 1998, 20). This framework determined which groups were Turkish citizens, which
were granted minority status, and which groups were deemed Turks without recognition of
difference. Sparked by the hardship of a struggle to establish the Republic, a nationalistic
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

discourse was considered vital to the new nation (Ünsal 1998). The Republic opted to
emphasize Turkishness (Ünsal 1998, 14) to ensure unity and allegiance and justify state
interests over citizen interests (Ünsal 1998, 15). Developing such citizenship, in a newly
emerging nation state, also required a centralized form of government and this centralized
form of politics has persisted in Turkey’s politics. This nationalistic and state-centric
reading of citizenship has formulated the formal definition of citizenship in Turkey. These
characteristics that define citizenship around terms of nation, ethnicity, duty, and
allegiance have rooted, in Turkey, a tradition of dutiful and passive citizenship.
The way in which this tradition reflects on Turkish society and citizenship is the
hierarchical structure between state and citizen that emerges. In a more Republican
citizenship tradition, state priorities exceed individual priorities. The citizen has duties
toward the state that exceed rights that the state may be obligated to guarantee. A good
citizen is one who dutifully fulfills his/her service to the country in the best way he/she can
(Keyman and Icduygu 2003). The good citizen trusts that the state acts in his/her interest
and does not need to challenge it. The good citizen engages in community service to
support the state. The nationalist or ethnicity-based element that is part of this inherited
legacy also strengthens the state over the individual. By emphasizing a universal approach
to citizenship, it evades rights-based issues on multicultural or difference-based
citizenship.
Issues surrounding citizenship comprise a significant part of contemporary Turkish
politics, evident particularly in deliberations on how to define citizenship in the
constitutional reform process. The constitution currently defines citizenship as follows:
‘Everyone bound to the Turkish State through the bond of citizenship is a Turk.’ Universal,
civic readings of this definition highlight it as uniting differences through a bond to the
Turkish State. This is challenged, however, by ethnic readings emphasizing that this
definition of citizenship is defined through Turkish ethnicity (Yeğen 2004; Keyman and
Kanci 2011). In light of this duality, studies have moved beyond the formal definitions of
citizenship to address more substantive conceptualizations of citizenship in Turkey with
an emphasis on multicultural characteristics and alternative practices of Turkey’s citizens.
A citizen may not accept his/her formal status yet can practice citizenship in pursuit of its
transformation. This process of transformation has been going on particularly for the past
three decades. Many scholars point to the 1980s as a breaking point in which Turkish
society begins to resist the strong state imposed, homogeneous understanding of nation
and citizenship to realize and articulate differences (Keyman and Öniş 2007; Keyman and
Icduygu 2003). This process reflects a series of domestic as well as global factors
 4 D. Çakmaklı

intertwined to change how citizenship is perceived and practiced in Turkey (Keyman and
Icduygu 2005; Şimşek 2004; Kadioglu 2002). The process of globalization in Turkey,
starting primarily in the 1980s, and Turkey’s EU accession process are some of the major
developments that have led to these changes. Simultaneously, domestically, ethnicity,
religion, and other identity-based movements surfaced in pursuit of rights (Keyman 2005).
These dynamics have changed conceptualizations, legal practices, and non-formal
practices of citizenship. With the increased visibility of plural identities and external
factors such as pursuit of EU accession to support their visibility, Kadioglu (2007) argues
that the once nation-based conception of citizenship has increasingly become
denationalized. Citizenship is practiced and rights are contested beyond nation state
boundaries. Turkey’s EU accession process has been a major dynamic in this process and
has led to significant legal and constitutional change, particularly regarding the status of
formal and non-formal minorities (Keyman and Icduygu 2005; Kadioglu 2002; Ünsal
1998). Citizens of Turkey also recognize the EU to be a watchdog over the Turkish State
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

and an entity that can be appealed to when rights are violated. This has led to a process of
Europeanization of citizenship in Turkey. For many disadvantaged groups seeking rights
or contesting their status, the most frequently appealed to institution is the European Court
of Human Rights. Rumelili et al. find that Turkish citizens with no formal European
citizenship are able to enact European citizenship as a result of such legal access to
European institutions and their normative support (Rumelili and Keyman 2013; Rumelili,
Keyman and Isyar 2011).
The literature addressed above is indicative of the tension between Turkey’s historical
legacy and contemporary developments and between formal and substantive under-
standings of citizenship. The tension between formal and substantive citizenship while
conceptually much debated has little empirical work to reflect it. It is in fact this tension
which defines how individuals relate to the larger community and the state in Turkey. This
relation is what we refer to as citizenship practice, a relation that is determined not only by
the expectations established by the polity but also by the experiences that lead individuals
to realize different scripts for themselves as they define themselves as citizens. Active
citizenship as detailed below reflects the potential for groups to practice their citizenship in
various forms and sites despite their formal status, while taking steps to potentially
transform formal citizenship in the process. The extent to which active citizenship is
learned and/or promoted will be indicative of whether a truly universalistic and
encompassing citizenship can develop in Turkey. The state-centric and nationalistic
elements of citizenship will remain a barrier to Turkey’s objective of democratic
consolidation. The ability to learn active citizenship practices becomes a critical tool in
breaking these barriers.

Active citizenship
This section introduces the conceptual framework through which active citizenship in
Turkey is assessed. It provides a definition of active citizenship and sets the CSO as the site
of the study. The previous section made clear that studies on citizenship in Turkey need to
pay closer attention to the mechanisms through which and sites in which active citizenship
is being fostered in Turkey. This section outlines the indicators of active
citizenship. Whether there are mechanisms in the CSOs studied that enable the
development of these characteristics will point to the CSO as a learning site for active
citizenship. Having analyzed the range of definitions in diverse fields of political science
and education, I define active citizenship along two axes: (1) dimensions of active
 Citizenship Studies 5

citizenship and (2) types of learning that active citizenship education requires. The
dimensions that define active citizenship are civic action, social cohesion, and self-
actualization. The types of learning include three methods of learning: cognitive,
pragmatic, and affective.

Active citizenship
Dimensions Types of learning

Civic action Cognitive

Social cohesion Pragmatic
Self-actualization Affective

The practice of active citizenship occurs when individuals are willing and able to
engage in civic acts, when they develop social cohesion and when they are able to self-
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

actualize and exercise their agency. Civic action or civic engagement is defined as acts
conducted by an individual or a group to address issues that concern a larger community
(Son and Lin 2008, 331). CSO volunteerism or membership is itself a key civic act.
In addition, taking part in a protest, lobbying a political party, interacting with local
political officials, or organizing to provide services are some examples of civic acts.
Analysis will identify whether CSO participation triggers such civic acts as well as
whether it leads to increased engagement in CSOs. Civic action is about greater citizen
participation, ensuring that more people engage to strengthen participatory and
representative democracy, and give the citizen a greater role in the process of governing
(Farouk and Husin 2011; Hoskins and Mascherini 2009). Active citizenship as
participation in a democratic context also requires diverse, marginalized, disadvantaged
groups to participate (Ribiero et al. 2012; Mayo and Annette 2010; Ross 2007). Social
cohesion entails both the development of citizenship practices that bring together diverse
groups and the development of a sense of belonging to a particular community.
Acceptance of differences and the multicultural nature of democratic societies today are
included in many definitions of active citizenship (Hoskins and Crick 2010; Janmaat and
Piattoeva 2007). Active citizenship education thus addresses the knowledge, skills, and
values needed in order to achieve understanding of differences in cultures and identities to
develop an egalitarian and inclusive approach (Mayo and Annette 2010; Hoskins and
Crick 2010). Finally, self-actualization implies individual-level changes to identity,
values, skills, and habits which affect the individual’s agency (Bennett, Wells, and Rank
2009; Janmaat and Piattoeva 2007; Dimitrov and Boyadjieva 2009). Self-actualization is
about being able to act in one’s interest and express one’s self. At the same time it is about
greater awareness of self, shaping of one’s identity, including strengths, weaknesses,
preferences, and interests. Agency is ensured through particular skills and values that
empower the individual.
The second dimension of active citizenship, how it is learnt, is also critical for the type
of citizenship that emerges. Citizenship, in moving beyond status, also becomes a
competence that can be learned through civic education (Naval, Print, and Veldhius 2002).
Much scholarship on active citizenship posits that skills related to the practice of
citizenship can be acquired (Benn 2000; Delanty 2003). Civic education literature
emphasizes the necessity to diversify learning methods to enhance the learning of active
citizenship. These methods aim to complement formal, cognitive, in-school civics
education (Brooks and Holfold 2009). Civic education today requires learning of
knowledge, skills, and particular habits, making it a way of living (Naval, Print, and
 6 D. Çakmaklı

Veldhius 2002). Civic competence is achieved through different types of learning, each
developing different skills necessary for the practice of active citizenship: cognitive,
pragmatic, and affective objectives (Sheerens 2011; Hoskins and Mascherini 2009; Naval,
Print, and Veldhius 2002). Cognitive learning is the learning of skills, facts, and
knowledge about politics, political institutions, events, and actors. This dimension is
generally achieved by formal educative methods, such as civics classes offered in schools
and the dissemination of written materials. Pragmatic learning is learning to take action
and learning through experience. This approach to civic education points out that
citizenship can be learned through the actual practice of citizenship. It emphasizes an
interactive learning approach. Affective learning encompasses the learning of particular
attitudes, behaviors, and values that encourage attachment to one’s community. Such
methods may include increased experiential learning at school, taking part in after-school
extracurricular activities, or involvement in community activities (Keser, Akar, and
Yildirim 2011; Cleaver and Nelson 2006). Thus the link between concepts and values
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

learned through school curriculums and the practice of citizenship and learning through
experience are established (Park 2007; Cleaver and Nelson 2006, 34). Different methods
of teaching develop different skills, habits, and knowledge. The learning of active
citizenship emphasizes the necessity for all three types of learning to complement one
another. Pragmatic civic education methods will give the individual hands-on experience
of what cognitive teaching methods may only present in writing. The extent of affective
learning that occurs will determine the individual’s relation to the CSO community as well
as other communities that emerge from the experience. The degree to which each type of
teaching is fostered in a CSO will have implications for the type of civic education
occurring.
Studies on active citizenship have explored various sites including the classroom,
after-school activities, and the work place (Keser, Akar, and Yildirim 2011; Onyx, Kenny,
and Brown 2012; Benn 2000). As an increasingly visible site, CSOs become a key site in
which individuals can potentially develop citizenship skills (Houtzager and Acharya 2011;
Ribiero et al. 2012). Literature on civic engagement points to how associations empower
individuals to take part in politics and others emphasize their role in providing civic
education (Ribiero et al. 2012; Houtzager and Acharya 2011). Park (2007) conducts a
comparative study of NGOs in the UK and South Korea to identify how they reinforce
formal civic education programs through their various activities, and finds they are
effective in connecting formal and less formal civic education programs. Beyond these
studies, empirical studies are rare in this area. While it is widely believed that CSOs can
play an important role in developing active citizenship, the mechanisms through which
this may be possible require further empirical analysis. This study contributes to an
understanding of CSOs as alternative educational sites by identifying the mechanisms that
link CSO participation to the learning of active citizenship.

Analysis
The analysis below presents the primary mechanisms at play that link participation in the
CSO to the dimensions of active citizenship and the types of learning that occur to achieve
them. The study is based on data collected from four CSOs. Semi structured interviews
were conducted with a total of 35 members and volunteers. Participants interviewed were
selected through a snowballing method. Interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed
using Atlas.ti, a qualitative data analysis program. Selection of the four CSOs,
representative of a wide spectrum of criteria that define CSOs in Turkey, is based on a
 Citizenship Studies 7

comparative case study research design. Beyond their divers issue areas, they show
variation on features such as type of participation (volunteer versus membership based),
the types of activities implemented to execute their objectives, ideology, and variation on
whether the CSO is rights based or obligations based. The objective is to identify what
mechanisms within a diverse range of CSOs foster active citizenship. While the
transformation to citizenship in Turkey is a concern for this research, its results are limited
to the kinds of changes that occur and the extent to which they occur within the CSO,
setting the stage for further empirical study.
Ten TEGV volunteers (6 males, 4 females), 10 TOD volunteers (8 males, 2 females),
8 Ka.Der members (all females) and 7 Habitat volunteers (6 males, 1 female) were
interviewed. Using Atlas.ti, interviews were coded based on indications of the three
dimensions of active citizenship and types of learning. Interview questions aimed to
extract information on these dimensions by asking participant perspectives on the
structure and activities of the CSO, in what ways they enable their participation, how
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

participating in a CSO may have led to changes in themselves, and their general
perceptions of citizenship. All the interviews were conducted in Istanbul. While the
geographic scope is limited to Istanbul, the mechanisms that are identified provide the
necessary information regarding CSO experiences that can be utilized in future studies
throughout the country. Also, the in-depth methodological approach to studying
individual experiences aims to identify the extent of impact, more than the scope of
impact. Extensive study of a smaller number of CSOs reveals that the impact of
participation in a CSO on the individual is deep. Thus while the scope of the study may be
limited geographically and in number of CSOs, the extent of impact is much more
intense, which is key to understanding its potential to create change. Below is a brief
description of each of the four CSOs in this study.

TEGV (Educational Volunteers Foundation of Turkey)

TEGV provides after-school education for children aged 7– 16. It conducts a wide range of
activities using interactive teaching methods to develop skills and values such as self-
confidence, critical thinking, creativity, and non-discrimination. Volunteers are required to
commit to at least 2 hours per week for 16 weeks during which they conduct one of the
activities they have been trained for.

Ka.Der (The Association for the Support of Women Candidates)

Ka.Der is a women’s organization which aims for the equal representation of women and
men in all areas of life, particularly equal representation in elected/appointed decision-
making positions. Most of its work is conducted by the smaller group of staff and board
members.

Habitat (Habitat Center for Development and Governance)

Habitat aims to support youth participation in local and national decision-making

processes. In addition, their activities target disadvantaged groups such as women,
children, and the disabled. Habitat provides training and other educational activities on a
number of issues, including computer technology, financial management, strategic local
governance, women’s computer training, and youth leadership.
 8 D. Çakmaklı

TOD (The Turkish Hearths Association)

TOD’s stated mission is ‘the development of national culture and intellect, the
strengthening of national unity and societal build, and the glorification of Turkishness.’
It conducts activities that aim to protect and enhance Turkish nationalism and culture such
as history, language, music, arts, and literature.
Responses to interview questions reveal evidence regarding how participating in a
CSO affects individuals in terms of active citizenship practices. The most encompassing
question directly asks the individual how participating in a CSO has changed him or her.
Another question asks what they think ‘active citizenship’ is, and whether their
participation has made them active citizens (based on their own definitions) and how. Yet
another asks what the greatest benefit of participating in a CSO has been for them. All
these questions aim to depict whether and how CSO participation changed the individual.
While a couple of respondents state that they have not changed at all or do not answer the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

question asked, a significant majority of respondents point to various ways in which they
feel participating in a CSO has changed them. Below, I present the most frequently stated
‘changes’ gathered under four categories that emerge: (1) self-confidence, (2) increased
awareness, (3) tolerance, and (4) satisfaction. While each of these qualities came up in all
four CSOs, there was certainly variation. This paper aims to present preliminary
mechanisms and thus will not focus on the differences between CSOs. Identifying these
four types of change comprises the first step of the analysis. The changes identified
confirm similar results in studies that assess volunteerism in Turkey (TEGV 2010; TÜSEV
2013). The objective of this paper is to assess whether these changes to the individual
foster practices of active citizenship and if so what mechanisms link these changes to
various dimensions of active citizenship. The following sections take a deeper look into
each of the four changes to identify how respondents feel they occurred and whether the
mechanism can be linked to civic action, social cohesion, or self-actualization.
The most frequently stated effect of CSO participation on the individual is the
development of self-confidence. While the development of self-confidence is a common
theme, what contributes to it varies among individuals. Analysis of interviews where
individuals state they have become increasingly self-confident reveals that there are three
major mechanisms at work that foster self-confidence. The first is attainment of
knowledge. CSO participation leads to increased knowledge of issues pertaining to the
work of the CSO as well as to community and national political issues. Knowledge on the
CSO is disseminated through seminars, publications, email groups, protests, and other
activities. Becoming more knowledgeable makes one able to formulate and express one’s
opinions and develop overall communication skills. One habitat volunteer states ‘you
learn to say “yes, I have an idea, this is who I am” in a CSO . . . the colors you like, what
you want to do, the life you want to live, you learn these through the CSO’ (Habitat
volunteer). Another volunteer states that ‘knowledge is power, but many things are not
acquired by reading a book. Self-confidence, communication with people, management
skills, these are all weak in education in Turkey. Civil society in Turkey is successful in
filling in these gaps’ (Habitat volunteer). These examples point primarily to the
development of self-actualization. Learning to speak up where they may have not before,
developing and expressing their own ideas reflect ways in which the individual is able to
exercise his/her agency.
The process of getting to know one’s self is one of the most critical effects that almost
all participants refer to and is the second mechanism that contributes to self-confidence
development. This mechanism results in the individual discovering their potential
 Citizenship Studies 9

strengths and realizing their agency: ‘I gained self confidence. I became aware of myself of
what I am capable of doing. This is not something you learn in school. I realized myself in
practical terms. I realized my skills and had the opportunity to develop them’ (Habitat
volunteer). This mechanism particularly fosters self-actualization and encourages active
citizenship practices. By discovering or developing skills and values that delineate his/her
capabilities as an individual, he/she strengthens his/her sense of identity. This process is
expressed well by a Ka.Der member:
It [KA.DER] gave me an identity. I went to Ka.Der when I was very confused . . . (about)
being a woman, my personal experiences, my community, Turkey . . . I feel like now I can say
I am a feminist . . . I couldn’t before. I wasn’t like this before I went to Ka.Der . . . I first saw
and gained social gender awareness there. (Ka.Der member)
The third mechanism that promotes self-confidence is the creation of networks within
the CSO and beyond. An important aspect of CSO participation that participants refer to is
that it is easier to make a statement, implement a project, or make a difference when you
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

do not have to act alone. This mechanism contributes to the development of a kind of self-
confidence that induces civic action. Many respondents state that being a part of a
community makes them feel stronger and encourages their engagement within the CSO as
well as society in general. The process of learning that cultivates self-confidence is an
amalgamation of cognitive, pragmatic, and affective learning. Cognitive learning is
fundamental to acquiring knowledge, the first mechanism that advances self-confidence.
Pragmatic learning such as participation in seminars, protests, or the simplest interaction
between CSO members also induces knowledge. The practical experience in these various
activities also reveals to individuals information about themselves contributing to self-
actualization. And finally, emphasis on networks built by participants point to a growing
attachment to a particular community which reflects the process of affective learning.
The second type of change expressed by CSO participants is increased awareness.
Once again access to knowledge plays a significant role in creating awareness. Almost all
CSOs prioritize the production and dissemination of knowledge to its participants (and the
general community) through various channels. Respondents emphasize that engagement
in the CSO has made them more knowledgeable in general. It has alerted them to issues
that other CSOs are involved with, and for many it has developed sensitivity toward
community, national and international political issues. One TEGV volunteer states ‘you
become more sensitive towards events in your community and the country. I used to just
skim the news. Now I read the news more carefully, particularly anything concerning
education’ (TEGV volunteer). This places upon the participant a sense of responsibility
to act. As the individual becomes aware, he/she feels responsible to act to change,
ameliorate, or protest. This is an example of how knowledge/awareness through increased
sense of responsibility leads to greater civic action. One member of The Association for
the Support of Women Candidates (Ka.Der) explains how knowledge disseminated has led
her to be more active:
I get information from Ka.Der. That is the most important factor to becoming active. There is
all the information about what Ka.Der is doing but also there is all the information coming
from Ka.Der about other things . . . what other women’s organizations are doing and this
information sometimes makes me more active. (Ka.Der member)
Another way that participation in a CSO triggers greater awareness is the exposure to
and interaction with others in the CSO and target groups. Witnessing other life
experiences, especially negative or controversial experiences, is likely to trigger civic
action by the participant who becomes adamant to ameliorate or defend a situation.
 10 D. Çakmaklı

It places upon them a sense of responsibility that enhances civic engagement. One member
of Ka.Der states:
I became more aware of my rights regarding women’s issues. I became aware of the legal
changes regarding women prior to my membership and then followed other changes. Then, by
participating in Mor Çatı1 I learned about violence against women and about what a woman
experiencing violence is supposed to do. My knowledge moved beyond just theory to what
needs to be done in practice. With Ka.Der I became more demanding regarding rights in
general. For example, I would never get up on a Sunday morning to take part in a protest but
I do now . . . once you gain that awareness you do it. (Ka.Der member)
These examples point to how CSO participation, by way of greater awareness, fosters
primarily the civic action dimension of active citizenship. All three types of learning
trigger such action. Cognitive learning occurs through the information disseminated by
CSOs. Pragmatic and affective learning are evident in how engaging in CSO activities
triggers further engagement as well as closeness to the community at hand, CSO members
themselves, and target groups. That sense of responsibility that urges the individual to act
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

is a result of developing an attachment to the CSO community. Reading about injustice

may not be as effective in triggering civic action as witnessing injustice.
The third type of change voiced by respondents is how they have become more
tolerant toward ‘others’ as a result of their experience in the CSO. Most state that this
results from meeting people of diverse backgrounds within the CSO, or exposure to
diverse groups of people and settings through interaction with target groups. This does not
imply that all CSOs promote an agenda of multiculturalism, equality, or diversity, but
rather that individuals who participate in CSOs are likely to be exposed to these issues.
One Habitat volunteer states ‘we are always in the field, constantly in touch with
people . . . the “others” in my head are gone . . . groups I had never met yet had been
prejudiced against, different religious groups, different ethnic groups’ (Habitat volunteer).
A second mechanism that induces tolerance which emerges in the interviews is that CSOs
provide an environment which allows for different opinions to be voiced and debated. For
an organization such as Ka.Der, for example, which aims to unite different political parties
under the same objectives, the difficulty in this itself achieves greater tolerance among
its members. A Ka.Der member states:
Getting to know people from all circles of life and seeing their perspective of life is very
important. Politics is different all together. It encompasses very different people. Diversity is
very important. Ka.Der’s equal distance principle is very important . . . you can see how they
(different political parties) look at the same issue in different ways. You learn that there is not
one right but many rights . . . interacting with different people has been invaluable. (Ka.Der
member)
What seems to be occurring through this exposure as well as environment for debate and
learning is the development of empathy and the resulting sense of community. Several
respondents state that they feel empowered to be able to act as a ‘we’ rather than an ‘I’.
One TOD member describes how she feels empowered by her communication with other
members and how this has enabled her to understand and accept differences:
what leads to empowerment is communication. You begin to understand one another.
You realize that something you may not consider to be a problem may be a problem for
someone else. Caring about that person’s concerns and acting on them together empowers
you. (TOD member)
These are all examples and critical mechanisms for social cohesion to be learnt in a CSO.
The main type of learning occurring here is pragmatic. It is the physical interaction and
communication between individuals of such diverse political, ethnic, religious, or other
 Citizenship Studies 11

differences that makes them aware of such differences and through this interaction more
accepting. It is impossible to say that all members are equally accepting and tolerant of
‘others’ but the struggle to work toward a common goal among such diversity certainly
makes a difference. For those who do break down barriers in this area, affective learning
also contributes to develop a sense of community among diverse groups. Some
participants highlight that working toward a common goal develops a sense of community
beyond the differences of the individuals. Cognitive learning also occurs, particularly in
CSOs that explicitly promote diversity and where this stance emerges in their literature as
well as seminars and trainings. However, what is written may not necessarily be
implemented, and thus the extent of pragmatic learning is indicative of whether the CSO is
able to foster social cohesion among its members.
The fourth and final type of change that arises in the responses is that CSO
participation leads to a sense of satisfaction, a feeling of being content. Participants state
that the CSO has made them proud of themselves, given them a sense of achievement,
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

made them feel stronger, and overall more content. The mechanisms that trigger these
feelings contribute to active citizenship practices, particularly the development of self-
actualization and social cohesion. The most frequently stated reason for feeling satisfied is
the ability to help others and make others happy. The ability to help another individual
creates a sense of self-achievement and satisfaction which may boost one’s confidence or
feeling of content, both contributing to self-actualization. Fulfilling a given responsibility
is also stated as a reason for feeling satisfied. This feeling of responsibility and knowing
that one is able to uphold such responsibility also results in increased respect for one’s self.
By strengthening character through satisfaction or achievement, the individual feels better
able to cope with all areas of life. One volunteer for TEGV states that ‘when I don’t do
anything I feel like I am living a selfish life. I find that people who are dedicated to social
responsibility projects are better able to cope with their personal problems too’ (TEGV
volunteer). He also states, ‘psychologically I feel stronger. I realize that sharing something
with children, helping people is good for me and enables me to stand stronger in the face of
difficulties’ (TEGV volunteer).
This sense of strength and safety also results from being part of a community. For some,
interaction and the ability to socialize enable one to manage some of the difficulties of living
in what one participant describes to be an ‘individualized, atomized society’ (TOD
member). Thus they feel stronger through the support they receive from members of their
respective CSO communities. One TOD member states, ‘participating in a number of
activities such as blood drives, book donation campaigns . . . contributed to my sense of
responsibility. Otherwise, I would have just been an individual, lived on my own, lived for
myself’ (TOD member). This attachment to community as a result of fulfilling
responsibilities and feeling satisfied for what one has contributed induces particularly the
social cohesion dimension of active citizenship. The types of learning that are prominent
here are pragmatic and affective. The act of making someone else happy, or aiding them,
is the pragmatic learning process that enhances social cohesion and self-actualization.
At the same time the affective learning process of becoming increasingly immersed in a
community provides the necessary social support for the individual to develop a more secure
and stronger sense of self, again contributing to social cohesion and self-actualization.

Conclusion: transforming citizenship in Turkey?

The above results indicate that CSO participation enables a learning environment which
can develop active citizenship practices. The four most frequently stated ways in which
 12 D. Çakmaklı

individuals feel they have changed are having gained self-confidence, becoming more
aware, becoming more tolerant, and feeling more satisfied and content. Participants
interviewed, in expressing how they have changed though CSO participation, present
critical indicators for how active citizenship practices have taken effect. By becoming
more knowledgeable and immersed in new networks, participants develop self-
actualization and civic action skills. Their resulting self-confidence leads them to be
more active and to question and critique acts and decisions concerning them. Achieving
greater awareness through knowledge and empathy with those they interact with makes
individuals more able and willing to be active. Exposure to diversity enables individuals to
expand their understanding of the communities that comprise not only their CSO but also
the country as a whole. This social cohesion is achieved by exposure to difference and
development of empathy, making individuals more tolerant. And finally self-actualization
is further developed by a sense of satisfaction attained by fulfilling responsibility and
aiding others. Results also show that CSO participation is most effective in developing the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

self-actualization dimension of active citizenship. There are several mechanisms at play

that develop self-actualization, thus contributing to the range of changes that a participant
experiences.
It was established in the first section of this article that citizenship in Turkey is
characterized by a state-centric, nationalist, passive, republican type of citizenship. Each
dimension of active citizenship contributes to resisting these characteristics. In the passive
type of citizenship, individuals are defined by their duties toward the state. Little in
citizenship discourse in Turkey highlights agency, the individual, individual rights, and
individual differences. The development of self-actualization among CSO participants
helps individuals realize their own potential and establish a relationship with the state
where they can demand and prioritize they rights and be aware of the state’s responsibility
toward them and not just their responsibility toward the state. Both through the
development of civic action and self-actualization individuals become more active beyond
the CSO. A majority of the interviewed participants noted that they were involved in more
than one CSO as well as other civic acts. Such civic action involves the individual in a
range of issues concerning the community or country, again breaking barriers regarding
traditional conceptualizations of governing institutions. It enables the individual to
involve him or herself in governing processes through CSOs or other civic acts. One
member of Ka.Der states,
I believe that civil society has an important impact on governance. All our lives we lived in
this country without taking part in governing. We thought that being a good citizen was just
doing your job well . . . by participating in a CSO you contribute directly to governing of the
country. You gain a voice to speak. It makes a difference when you speak. (Ka.Der member)

The development of social cohesion fosters a greater sense of community, encouraging

individuals to take responsibility for their communities. This helps distance the individual
from the state, by creating smaller or local governance structures through which rights and
responsibilities can be contested and acquired. Citizens will choose to take responsibility
where they may normally expect state services. Also, social cohesion, to the extent that it
can foster greater tolerance and awareness of diversity, will help to break the unitary and
nationalistic character that depicts citizenship in Turkey. For a country like Turkey, where
society is divided on many levels, exposure to difference in settings that advocate greater
social cohesion is perhaps one of the most critical aspects of transforming citizenship in
Turkey. That CSO participation exposes individuals to difference, enhances empathy, and
creates tolerance will help defy this fundamental barrier to citizenship in Turkey.
 Citizenship Studies 13

This study also points to the potential for different types of learning and different sites
for learning to influence citizenship in Turkey. However, further empirical investigation
that applies these results to citizenship practices outside of the CSO is necessary to fully
understand their impact on citizenship practices in Turkey in general. The CSO is
identified here as an effective site in which cognitive, pragmatic, and affective learning
methods can effectively be utilized to create novel forms of learning citizenship. By
teaching individuals to become more self-confident, aware of themselves, aware of their
communities, tolerant, and content in general, the CSO becomes an important school
where individuals become active citizens. And engaging as active citizens, these citizens
can challenge many of the codes and practices of citizenship in Turkey.
Further implications of this study are that CSOs in Turkey are a critical institution for
the development of active citizenship and thus those that enable the mechanisms discussed
above should be central to civil society development in Turkey. The expansion and
development of civil society in Turkey will contribute to transforming citizenship
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

practices in Turkey. These implications while promising must be approached with caution
as several caveats must be addressed. First, civil society participation in general is
significantly low, so the percentage of the population that is exposed to such a learning
process is limited. A greater role for CSOs and greater rates of participation will certainly
be necessary for there to be a steady impact on transforming citizenship in Turkey. Such a
transformation to citizenship will be based on a long-term process of change. Second, a
comparative stage of the study is necessary to reveal what types of CSOs develop what
mechanism for active citizenship and whether particular types of CSOs may reinforce
elements of dutiful, passive citizenship in Turkey. Further research that explores a wider
range of CSOs and that will distinguish between the CSOs to present a more comparative
dimension of the mechanisms revealed is necessary. With these caveats in mind, however,
results of this study point toward the role of CSOs in Turkey in enabling a critical step
toward turning Turkey’s dutiful citizens into active citizens.

Acknowledgement
I am grateful to Bahar Rumelili and the two anonymous reviewers of Citizenship Studies for their
invaluable comments on several drafts of this paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Note
1. Mor Çatı is a civil society organization that provides support for women who are victims of
physical abuse.

References
Aybay, R. 1998. “Tebaa-I Osmani’den ‘T.C. Yurttasi’na Gecisin Neresindeyiz?” In 75 Yilda
Tebaa’dan Yurttas’a Dogru, edited by Arun Unsal, 37 –42. Istanbul[Q]: Tarih Vakfi Yayinlari.
Baban, F. 2014. “Secular Spaces and Religious Representations: Reading the Headscarf Debate in
Turkey as Citizenship Politics.” Citizenship Studies 18 (6 – 7): 644– 660. doi:10.1080/13621025.
2013.865900.
Benn, R. 2000. “The Genesis of Active Citizenship in the Learning Society.” Studies in the
Education of Adults 32 (2): 241– 256.
 14 D. Çakmaklı

Bennett, W. L., C. Wells, and A. Rank. 2009. “Young Citizens and Civic Learning: Two Paradigms
of Citizenship in the Digital Age.” Citizenship Studies 13 (2): 105– 120. doi:10.1080/
13621020902731116.
Brooks, R. M., and John A. K. Holford. 2009. “Citizenship, Learning and Education: Themes and
Issues.” Citizenship Studies 13 (2): 85 – 103. doi:10.1080/13621020902749027.
Cleaver, E., and J. Nelson. 2006. “Active Citizenship: from Policy to Practice.” Education Journal
98: 34 – 37.
Crick Report. 1998. Advisory Group on Education and Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy
in Schools. Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools. London:
QCA.
Delanty, G. 2003. “Citizenship as a Learning Process: Disciplinary Citizenship Versus Cultural
Citizenship.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 22 (6): 597– 605. doi:10.1080/
0260137032000138158.
Dimitrov, G., and P. Boyadjieva. 2009. “Citizenship Education as an Instrument for Strengthening
the State’s Supremacy: An Apparent Paradox?” Citizenship Studies 13 (2): 153– 169. doi:10.
1080/13621020902731165.
European Commission. 2013. Turkey 2013 Progress Report, Brussels. October 16, 2013.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

Farouk, A. F. A., and A. Husin. 2011. “Civic Education in an Emerging Democracy: Students’
Experiences in Malaysia’s Projek Warga.” Asian Social Science 7 (3): 154– 164. doi:10.5539/
ass.v7n3p154.
Hoskins, B., and R. D. Crick. 2010. “Competences for Learning to Learn and Active Citizenship:
Different Currencies or Two Sides of the Same Coin?” European Journal of Education 45 (1):
121– 137. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01419.x.
Hoskins, B. L., and M. Mascherini. 2009. “Measuring Active Citizenship Through the Development
of a Composite Indicator.” Social Indicators Research 90 (3): 459– 488. doi:10.1007/s11205-
008-9271-2.
Houtzager, P. P., and A. K. Acharya. 2011. “Associations, Active Citizenship, and the Quality of
Democracy in Brazil and Mexico.” Theory and Society 40 (1): 1 – 36. doi:10.1007/s11186-010-
9128-y.
Işın, E. F., and G. M. Nielson. 2008. Acts of Citizenship. London: Zed Books.
Isyar, B. 2005. “The Origins of Turkish Republican Citizenship: The Birth of Race.” Nations and
Nationalism 11 (3): 343– 360.
Janmaat, J. G., and N. Piattoeva. 2007. “Citizenship Education in Ukraine and Russia: Reconciling
Nation-Building and Active Citizenship.” Comparative Education 43 (4): 527– 552. doi:10.
1080/03050060701611920.
Kadıoğlu, A. 1995. “Milletini Arayan Devlet: Türk Milliyetc iliğin Ac mazları.” [A State in Search of
its Nation: The Dilemmas of Turkish Nationalism] Türkiye Günlüğü 33: 91 – 101.
Kadioglu, A. 2002. “Denationalization of Citizenship? The Turkish Experience.” Citizenship Studies
11 (3): 283– 299.
Kadioglu, A. 2007. “Denationalization of Citizenship? The Turkish Experience.” Citizenship Studies
11 (3): 283– 299. doi:10.1080/17450100701381839.
Keser, F., H. Akar, and A. Yildirim. 2011. “The Role of Extracurricular Activities in Active
Citizenship Education.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 43 (6): 809– 837. doi:10.1080/00220272.
2011.591433.
Keyman, F. 2005. “Articulating Citizenship and Identity: The ‘Kurdish Question’ in Turkey.”
In Citizenship in a Global World: European Questions and Turkish Experiences, edited by
E. F. Keyman and A. Icduygu, 267– 288. London: Routledge.
Keyman, F., and A. Icduygu, eds. 2005. Citizenship in a Global World: European Questions and
Turkish Experiences. London: Routledge.
Keyman, F., and T. Kanci. 2011. “A Tale of Ambiguity: Citizenship, Nationalism and Democracy in
Turkey.” Nations and Nationalism 17 (2): 318– 336. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2010.00462.x.
Keyman, F., and A. Icduygu. 2003. “Globalization, Civil Society and Citizenship in Turkey: Actors,
Boundaries and Discourses.” Citizenship Studies 7 (2): 219 – 234. doi:10.1080/
1362102032000065982.
Keyman, F., and Z. Öniş. 2007. Turkish Politics in a Changing World: Global Dynamics and
Domestic Transformations. Istanbul: Bilgi University Press.
Kymlicka, W. 1996. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
 Citizenship Studies 15

Lelandais, G. E. 2013. “Citizenship, Minorities and the Struggle for a Right to the City in Istanbul.”
Citizenship Studies 17 (6– 7): 817– 836.
Linklater, A. 2007. Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity.
London: Routledge.
Mayo, M., and J. Annette, eds. 2010. Taking Part? Learning for Active Citizenship and Beyond.
Leicester: NIACE.
Naval, C., M. Print, and R. Veldhuis. 2002. “Education for Democratic Citizenship in the New
Europe: Context and Reform.” European Journal of Education 37 (2): 107– 128. doi:10.1111/
1467-3435.00097.
Onyx, J., S. Kenny, and K. Brown. 2012. “Active Citizenship: An Empirical Investigation.” Social
Policy and Society 11 (1): 55 – 66. doi:10.1017/S1474746411000406.
Özkırımlı, U., ed. 2014. The Making of a Protest Movement in Turkey. Basingstok: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Park, S. Y. 2007. “NGOs Provision of Citizenship Education in England and South Korea.” CitizEd
Report. Accessed May 2013. http://www.citized.info/?strand¼0&r_menu¼res
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York:
Simon and Schuster Paperbacks.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:24 21 May 2015

Ribiero, A. B., M. Rodrigues, A. Caetano, S. Pais, and I. Menezes. 2012. “Promoting Active
Citizenship: The Critical Vision of NGOs over Citizenship Education as an Educational Priority
Across Europe.” International Journal of Progressive Education 8 (3): 32 –47.
Ross, A. 2007. “Multiple Identities and Education for Active Citizenship.” British Journal of
Educational Studies 55 (3): 286– 303. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00380.x.
Rumelili, B., and F. Keyman. 2013. “Enacting European Citizenship Beyond the EU: Turkish
Citizens and European Political Practices.” In Enacting European Citizenship, edited by E. Isin
and M. Saward, 66 – 83. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rumelili, B., F. Keyman, and B. Isyar. 2011. “Multi-layered Citizenship in Extended European
Orders: Kurds Acting as European Citizens.” Journal of Common Market Studies 49 (6):
1295– 1316. 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02192.x.
Sheerens, J. 2011. “Indicators on Informal Learning for Active Citizenship at School.” Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 23: 201–222.
Şimşek, S. 2004. “New Social Movements in Turkey Since 1980.” Turkish Studies 5 (2): 111–139.
doi:10.1080/1468384042000228611.
Son, J., and N. Lin. 2008. “Social Capital and Civic Action: A Network-Based Approach.” Social
Science Research 37 (1): 330–349. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.12.004.
Soysal, Y. N. 1998. “Toward a Postnational Model of Membership.” In The Citizenship Debates,
edited by S. Gershon. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
TEGV. 2010. Gönüllülük ve Sürdürebilirlik Araştırması Sonuc Raporu. Istanbul: Infacto Research.
TÜSEV. 2013. Türkiye’de Gönüllülük: Gönüllülüğün Rolünün ve Kagtkılarının Keşfedilmesi. UNV
Program Turkey.
Ünsal, A., ed. 1998. 75 Yilda Tebaa’dan Yurttas’a Dogru. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi Yayinlari.
White, P. J. 1999. “Citizenship Under the Ottomans and Kemalists: How the Kurds were Excluded.”
Citizenship Studies 3 (1): 71 – 102.
Yeğen, M. 2004. “Citizenship and Ethnicity in Turkey.” Middle Eastern Studies 40 (6): 51 –66.
doi:10.1080/0026320042000282874.