This article maintains that the treatment of the Ottoman/Turk in the English School of International Relations, as in broader Western scholarship, is Eurocentric and highlights less frequently utilized concepts to restructure our thinking on the Ottomans. In Eurocentric historical narratives, the Ottomans are represented as an abnormal entity or as the very opposite of Europeanness. This peculiar representation anachronistically impacts upon European Union–Turkey relations today as the Europeans conflate the dissolved Ottoman Empire with contemporary Turkey. In an attempt to move forward, I turn to Martin Wight’s concepts to recast the Ottomans as a potential European superpower rather than as an abnormality in European life and then to Herbert Butterfield’s “academic history” as one way of dissociating the Ottoman past and the Turkish present. Both moves can help reimagine the Ottoman/Turk on more positive and balanced terms.
About-El-HajR. A. (1967). Ottoman diplomacy at Karlowitz. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 87, 498–499.
2.
BentleyM. (2005). Herbert Butterfield and the ethics of historiography. History and Theory, 44, 55–71.
3.
BevirM. (2011). Why historical distance is not a problem. History and Theory, 50, 24–37.
4.
BraudelF. (1949). La Mediterranee et le monde Mediterraneen a l'epoque de Philippe II[The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II]. Paris, France: Collins.
BryceD. (2013). The absence of Ottoman, Islamic Europe in Edward W. Said’s orientalism. Theory, Culture and Society, 30, 99–121.
8.
BullH. (1995). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
9.
BullH. (1977). Introduction: Martin Wight and the study of international relations. In WightM.BullH. (Eds.), Systems of states (pp. 1–20). Leicester, England: Leicester University Press.
10.
ButterfieldH. (1950). The tragic element in modern conflict. The Review of Politics, 12, 147–164.
11.
ButterfieldH. (1951a). The scientific versus the moralistic approach in international affairs. International Affairs, 27, 411–422.
12.
ButterfieldH. (1951b). History and human relations. London, England: Collins.
13.
ButterfieldH. (1966). The new diplomacy and historical diplomacy. In ButterfieldH.WightM. (Eds.) Diplomatic investigations: Essays in the theory of international politics (pp. 181–192). Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.
14.
BuzanB. (1993). From international system to international society: Structural realism and regime theory meet the English school. International Organization, 47, 327–352.
15.
CallahanW. A. (2004). Nationalising international theory: Race, class and the English school. Global Society, 18, 305–323.
16.
DeibertR. J. (1997). ‘Exorcismus Theoriae’: Pragmatism, metaphors and the return of the medieval in IR theory. European Journal of International Relations, 3, 167–192.
17.
EppR. (1998). The English School on the frontiers of international society: A hermeneutic recollection. Review of International Studies, 25, 47–64.
18.
GadamerH. G. (2004). Truth and method (2nd ed.). London, England: Continuum.
19.
HartmuthM. (2008). De/constructing a ‘Legacy in Stone’: Of interpretative and historiographical problems concerning the Ottoman cultural heritage in the Balkans. Middle Eastern Studies, 44, 695–713.
20.
İnalcıkH. (1978). Impact of the Annales school on Ottoman studies and new findings. Review, 1, 69–96.
21.
İnalcıkH. (2006). Turkey and Europe in history. Istanbul, Turkey: Eren Press.
22.
İnalcıkH. (2012). Seçme Eserler-V. Rönesans Avrupası: Türkiye’nin Batı Medeniyetiyle Özdeşleşme Süreci, 3. Baskı[Selected works-V. Renaissance Europe: The process of Turkey’s self-identification with the Western Civilization] (3rd ed.). İstanbul, Turkey: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
23.
KarakaşC. (2013). EU-Turkey: Integration without full membership or membership without full integration: A conceptual framework for membership alternatives. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51, 1057–1073.
24.
KellnerH. (2011). Beyond the horizon: Chronoschisms and historical distance. History and Theory, 50, 38–50.
25.
LewisB. (2002). What went wrong? Western impact and Middle Eastern response. Oxford, England: Phoenix.
26.
MakdisiU. (2002). Ottoman orientalism. The American Historical Review, 107, 768–796.
MikhailA.PhilliouC. M. (2012). The Ottoman Empire and the imperial turn. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 54, 721–745.
29.
MoudourosM. (2014). Rethinking Islamic hegemony in turkey through Gezi Park. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 16, 181–195.
30.
NaffT. (1984). The Ottoman Empire and the European states system. In BullH.WatsonA. (Eds.), The expansion of international society (pp. 143–170). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
31.
NecipoğluG. (1989). Süleyman the magnificent and the representation of power in the context of Ottoman-Hapsburg-Papal rivalry. The Art Bulletin, 71, 401–427.
32.
NeumannI. B. (2003). The English school on diplomacy: Scholarly promise unfulfilled. International Relations, 17, 341–369.
33.
NeumannI. B. (2010). Sustainability and transformation in diplomatic culture: The case of Eurocentricism. In ConstantinouC. M.DerianJ. (Eds.), Sustainable diplomacies (pp. 128–147). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
34.
NeumannI. B. (2011). Entry into international society reconceptualised: The case of Russia. Review of International Studies, 37, 463–484.
35.
NeumannI. B.WelshJ. (1991). The Other in European self-definition: An addendum to the literature on international society. Review of International Studies, 17, 327–348.
36.
OrwellG. (1949). 1984. New York, NY: Harcourt.
37.
PhilipsM. (2011). Rethinking historical distance: From doctrine to heuristic. History and Theory, 50, 11–23.
38.
PhilliouC. M. (2008). The paradox of perceptions: Interpreting the Ottoman past through the national present. Middle Eastern Studies, 44, 661–675.
39.
RadoŞ. (2016). Paris’te Bir Osmanlı Sefiri: 28 Mehmet Çelebi’nin Fransa Seyahatnamesi[An Ottoman envoy in Paris: The France travelogue of 28 Mehmet Çelebi]. İstanbul, Turkey: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
40.
RuacanI. Z. (2018). Beyond the Westphalian rainbow: a dissident theory of supranational systems. Territory, Politics, Governance, 6, 259–276.
41.
RumeliliB. (2012). Liminal identities and processes of domestication and subversion in international relations. Review of International Studies, 38, 495–508.
42.
SabatosC. (2015). The Ottoman captivity narrative as a transnational genre in central European literature. Archiv Orientalni, 83, 233–254.
43.
SahlinsM. (1981). Historical metaphors and mythical realities: Structure in the early history of the Sandwich Islands kingdom. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
44.
ŞahinK. (2018). Staging an empire: An Ottoman circumcision ceremony as cultural performance. The American Historical Review, 123, 463–492.
45.
SaidE. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York, NY: Pantheon.
46.
SchweizerK.BlackJ. (2006). The value of diplomatic history: A case study in the historical thought of Herbert Butterfield. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 17, 617–631.
ShapiroA. (1997). Fixing history: Narratives of World War I in France. History and Theory, 36, 111–130.
49.
SteinH. F. (1989). The indispensable enemy and American-Soviet relations. Ethos, 17, 480–503.
50.
WæverO. (2002). Four meanings of international society: A trans-Atlantic dialogue. In RobersonB. A. (Ed.), International society and the development of international relations theory (pp. 80–144). London, England: Continuum.
51.
WatsonA. (1982). Diplomacy: The dialogue between states. London, England: Routledge.
52.
WatsonA. (1992). The evolution of international society: A comparative historical analysis. London, England: Routledge.
53.
WatsonA. (2001). Forum. Review of International Studies, 27, 467–470.
54.
WatsonA. (2007). Hegemony and history. New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
WeberM. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
56.
WigenE. (2014). Go West! Turkey’s entry into international society. International Relations, 28, 468–478.
57.
WightM. (1977). Systems of states (BullH., Ed.). Leicester, England: Leicester University Press.
58.
WightM. (1991). International theory: The three traditions (WightG.PorterB., Eds.). Leicester, England: Leicester University Press.
59.
WohlforthW. C.LittleR.KaufmanS. J.KangD.JonesC. A.HuiV. T.…BrennerW. L. (2007). Testing balance of power theory in world history. European Journal of International Relations, 13, 155–185.
60.
YurdusevN. (2003). International relations and the philosophy of history: A civilizational approach. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
