1

THE SUBMITTED VERSION OF THE ARTICLE - PLEASE DO NOT CITE THIS VERSION AND SEE THE ORIGINAL DEFINITIVE VERSION FOR CITATION:

Nefes, T. S. (2015) ‘Scrutinizing impacts of conspiracy theories on readers’ political views: a rational choice perspective on anti-Semitic rhetoric in Turkey’, British Journal of Sociology 66(3): 557-575. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12137 Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-4446.12137/abstract

Scrutinizing impacts of conspiracy theories on readers’ political views: Anti-Semitic

rhetoric in Turkey

Although conspiracy theories have been politically significant throughout history, there have

been only a few empirical studies about their influence on readers’ views. Using content analysis

of an anti-Semitic best-selling conspiracy theory in Turkey, the Efendi series, and semi-

structured interviews with its readers from different political views, this paper reveals the effects

of the conspiracy theories on readers’ political perspectives. The findings suggest that while the

right-wingers are reactive to the Jewish origins of the Dönmes, the left-wingers oppose them as

dominant bourgeois figures. The paper concludes that left- and right-wing adherents use the

conspiratorial accounts rationally in line with their political beliefs and ontological insecurities.

It expands the existing academic literature, which conceptualizes conspiracy theories either as

paranoid delusions or as neutral, rational narratives, by showing that they can be both.

KEYWORDS: Conspiracy theories, ontological security, Dönmes, Turkey, Sèvres syndrome,

anti-Semitism

Introduction

In her insightful analysis of Turkish nationalism in the twenty-first century, Çırakman (2011)

surveys popular books, TV series and public displays of slogans. Citing a number of popular

2

conspiracy theories about the Dönme community, such as those articulated by Yalçın (2004,

2006) and Küçük (2006), she finds that there is both self-promotion of Turkishness and increased

xenophobia towards minorities. This paper takes this observation as its starting point and

investigates the impacts of conspiratorial accounts about Dönmes on readers’ political views in

Turkey. It looks into the ways in which the Efendi series (Yalçın 2004, 2006), a popular best-

selling conspiracy account of Dönmes, is interpreted by people from different political views.

This study demonstrates that readers interpret the conspiratorial accounts in the Efendi series

pragmatically, according to their political orientations and ontological insecurities, without

plunging into anti-Semitism, and, therefore, the conspiratorial accounts function as conduits of

ontological insecurities, particularly the Sèvres syndrome, as well as anti-Semitic prejudice in

Turkey. This conclusion contributes to the existing academic literature, which understands

conspiracy theories either as paranoid delusions or as neutral, rational narratives, by showing that

the conspiratorial accounts are not only rational explanations but also relevant to political

anxieties and ontological insecurities in Turkey.

After giving a brief historical description of Dönmes and the conspiracy theories about the

community, the paper outlines the relevant academic literature and the research methods it used.

Subsequently, it discusses the findings.

The Dönme community and the conspiratorial rhetoric

a. A short history of the Dönme community

The Dönme (meaning ‘convert’ in Turkish) community comprises the followers of acclaimed

Jewish messiah Sabbatai Sevi (1626–1676) (Scholem 1971). Sevi lived in the Ottoman Empire

and had many followers, which led the Empire to force him to convert to Islam (Şişman 2002).

3

Although he lost the majority of his followers after the conversion, those who continued to

follow him formed the Dönme community. They also converted to Islam but maintained their

belief in Sabbatai Sevi. In public life, Dönmes were known and acted as Muslims; however, they

practiced their worship of their messiah in private (Baer 2010). The Dönme community is a

secret society, hiding its true religious identity from the public. They attempt to preserve this

secrecy by avoiding marrying outsiders, such as Jews and Muslims. The community was divided

into three subsects—Karakaşlı, Kapancı, and Yakubi (Şişman 2008)—due to disputes over who

incarnated Sevi’s spirit. This shaped the main organisation of the community, as these subsects

specialized in different trades and did not marry each other. Unsurprisingly, there is no exact

information about the demographics of Dönmes, but Şişman (2010: 16) estimates that there are

currently around eighty thousand people of Dönme origin in Turkey, of which only three to four

thousand still follow Sevi.

A few important historical moments occurred in the Dönme community. In the early twentieth

century, some Dönmes, such as Mehmed Cavid Bey, assumed important roles in the ruling pro-

modernisation party, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). Second, Dönmes, seen by the

authorities as Muslim Turks, were deported to Turkey in the population exchange between

Muslim Turks in Greece and the Orthodox Greeks in Turkey in 1924 (Bali 2008). Third, Dönme

families were included in the non-Muslim category, the Capital Tax of 1942 in Turkey, which

imposed heavy taxes on non-Muslim minorities (Içduygu et al. 2008: 367). Last, the community

returned to public attention in the 1990s, especially through the works of Ilgaz Zorlu.

b. The conspiratorial accounts about Dönmes

4

The Dönme community has been a popular subject of conspiracy theories in Turkey since the

early twentieth century. These accounts accused the community of secretly dominating or

manipulating Turkish politics and culture. The conspiratorial rhetoric emerged after the 1899

visit of Theodor Herzl, the head of the World Zionist Organisation, to purchase Palestine from

the Ottoman sultan, Abdulhamid II, to establish a Jewish state. The sultan did not grant the

request, and when he was overthrown by a CUP-organized coup d’état in 1908, some claimed

that this was Jewish revenge for his refusal to sell Palestine. The involvement of Dönme

Mehmed Cavid Bey’s and Jewish freemason Emmanuel Carosso in the event was used as proof

of the conspiracy. These conspiratorial accounts were propagated primarily by the Abdulhamid

II’s supporters with Islamist orientation (Nefes 2010: 83).

The conspiracy theories regarding Dönmes can be viewed in three distinct periods: the single-

party period (1923–1950), multi-party democracy period (1950–1990), and post-1990 period

(Bali 2008). First, in the single-party period, Karakaşzade Rüşdü, a self-acclaimed member of

the group, submitted a petition to the Turkish parliament demanding that the deportation of

Dönmes from Greece in 1924 should be authorized only if they were willing to assimilate into

Turkish society. This was followed by a number of conspiratorial lines attacking the community

as a deceitful group that was degenerating the Turkish culture (Nefes 2012). The single-party

censorship over Islamist and far-right-wing groups reduced the possibility of publishing more

conspiracy theories.

Second, after the end of the single-party regime in 1950, right-wing and Islamist journals

published conspiratorial claims about the community as censorship decreased. Nazif Özge, an

acclaimed Dönme, blamed some members of the community for attempting to rape his wife in

5

1952, and this was followed up by the conspiracy theories (Bali 2002). The conspiratorial

accounts accused the community of political and cultural threats. The Turkish fascist Nihal Atsız

and conservative Necip Fazıl Kısakürek disseminated the conspiratorial rhetoric about the

community in their discussion with a journalist of Dönme background, Mehmed Emin Yalman,

which was sparked because Yalman organized a beauty contest in 1952. They argued that non-

Turkish and immoral cultural elements were deliberately introduced by the Dönme Yalman to

weaken the Turkish nation.

Third, following Ilgaz Zorlu’s works in the 1990s, many conspiracy theories about the

community became prevalent. They were not only proposed by right-wing and Islamist groups

but extended to left-wing and Kurdish groups (Bali 2008). For example, Efendi 1, written by

Soner Yalçın, a left-wing intellectual, spawned 75 editions and sold 170,000 copies, which is an

extraordinary market success in Turkey (Bali 2008). During this period, there was also a

widespread illegal market for photocopied books, hence ownership of the book is likely to be

more than the official numbers reveal. Moreover, 100,000 copies of the first edition of Efendi 2

were printed, which shows confidence in the book’s popularity. By the beginning of 2009,

Efendi 2 sold 114,000 copies (Nefes 2010). The left-wing accounts claimed that the community

members secretly ruled the country by using scientific rhetoric. In so doing, they popularized the

debate.

All in all, there are five persistent themes in the conspiracy theories: (a) Dönmes are the

intentionally hidden ruling elite in Turkey; (b) Dönmes established the Turkish Republic; (c) the

Dönme secrecy is a deliberate strategy to hide their agenda; (d) the community intentionally

6

dilutes the Turkish culture; (e) Dönmes are allied to foreign powers against the Turkish interests

(Nefes 2012: 424).

Delineating the political significance of the conspiracy theories about Dönmes

a. Academic literature on conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories claim to unveil the hidden but genuine working of power in society by

attributing omnipotent agency to secret groups and individuals. They have historically been

significant in politics: Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, who killed many in Norway

on 22 July 2011, was motivated by a conspiracy theory about Muslims (Fekete 2012); General

Franco’s army and the Nationalist camp in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s propagated that

they were fighting against a Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevist conspiracy (Rohr 2003); according to a

recent survey (Harris 2013), 37% of Americans believed that climate change was a hoax.

However, there are only a few studies on the influence of conspiracy theories on the political

beliefs of their readers. For example, Sapountzis and Condor (2013) illustrate that Greek citizens

from different political perspectives use conspiracy theories to challenge dominant assumptions,

social hierarchy and political legitimacy.

The literature on conspiracy theories can be divided into two main camps: classical-cultural

(Nefes 2012, 2013a, 2013b) or symbolist-realist (Rogin 1987). Although these are two different

ways of naming the division, they refer to the same criteria. The only difference is that Rogin

(1987) talks about the academic literature on demonology in the United States, while Nefes

(2012, 2013a, 2013b) discusses the scholarship on conspiracy theories worldwide. The classical

approach delineates conspiracy theories as a political pathology and underlines how conspiracy

7

literature leads readers to distorted, extremist views of marginal political groups (Aaronovitch

2009; Ben-Itto 2005; Cohn 1970; Hofstadter 1965; Pipes 1997; Robins and Post 1997). Byford

(2011) claims that conspiracy theories constitute a specific tradition of political explanation that

should be avoided because of its deficiencies. Goertzel (1994) states that conspiracy theories

promote monological belief systems, and that believing in one conspiratorial account will incline

readers to other monological explanations and lead them to think conspiratorially about politics

(Goertzel, 1994; Swami et al., 2010; Swami et al., 2011; Swami et al., 2013; Swami and

Furnham, 2012). Against this possibility, Sunstein and Vermeule (2009) suggest that government

officers should infiltrate conspiratorial circles to deconstruct their crippled epistemological

arguments in order to avoid the negative impacts of conspiracy thinking. The cultural approach

refutes this pathologization and argues that conspiracy theories are people’s rational attempts to

understand society and politics (Birchall 2006; Bratich 2008; Gray 2010; Knight 2000; Locke

2009; Olmsted 2009). Melley (2000) argues that today, agency panic—i.e., intense anxiety about

the loss of autonomy or self-control—drives people towards conspiracy theories, which provide

integral stories for the shattered personalities. According to Knight (2000), conspiracy theories

illustrate people’s quest to make sense of social reality.

Current academic literature oscillates between delineating conspiratorial accounts either as

value-laden, paranoid narratives or as rational but subjugated forms of knowledge. Fenster

(1999) states that there is a need to transcend this division, as the cultural approach misses the

value-laden nature of conspiracy theory and the classical view does not explain its socio-political

roots. Accordingly, while criticizing the pathologization of conspiratorial rhetoric, Fenster

(1999) highlights its symbolic dimensions and psychological nature. In line with that, this study

8

demonstrates both the symbolic and realist nature of conspiracy theories by paying attention not

only to ontological insecurities and anxiety in Turkish politics, but also to the ways in which

readers rationally interpret the conspiracy theories according to their political perspectives, like

Sapountzis and Condor (2013).

b. Understanding the conspiracy theories about Dönmes

This study shows that the conspiratorial accounts regarding Dönmes are related to the

ontological insecurity of Turkish politics—the Sèvres syndrome. To start with, Giddens (1992:

92) defines ontological security as people’s confidence ‘in the continuity of their self-identity

and in the constancy of the social and material environments of action’. Dupuis and Thorns

(1998) demonstrate that home ownership provides ontological security to people by providing a

constant address that enables them to construct a routine daily life. While ontological security

refers to the ability of an individual to locate him/herself within a social entity, ontological

insecurity is an anxiety about social existence and the continuity of social order. For example,

the possibility of large-scale human violence enabled by new technologies is an important

ontological insecurity in the contemporary Western world (Giddens 1992: 100). Ontological

(in)security does not only apply to individuals in society; scholarship also uses the concept to

explain states’ and parties’ political behaviour (Berenskoetter and Giegerich 2010; Mitzen 2006;

Steele 2005). Zarakol (2010) suggests that Japan’s and Turkey’s state denial of historical crimes

is because of these countries’ ontological insecurities with regard to being labelled as barbaric,

Eastern, or Asian. Other studies illustrate the ways in which nationalism and state policies are

sources of ontological security by providing feelings of stability and reliability (Huysmans 1998;

Kinvall 2004, 2006; Skey 2010; Staniševski 2011).

9

The academic literature on conspiracy theories provides various examples of the relationship

between conspiratorial rhetoric and ontological insecurities. Nefes (2012, 2013b) remarks that

people and political parties give meaning to their ontological insecurities by blaming Dönmes.

He sees the ontological insecurities of Turkish politics as an important factor that inclines people

towards conspiracy accounts about Dönmes. Knight (2000), Locke (2009), and Melley (2000)

view conspiracy theories as texts that provide readers with an understanding of society and the

continuity of their identity in it—i.e., ontological security. In line with that argument, this study

shows that the conspiracy theories in the Efendi series (Yalçın 2004, 2006) express ontological

insecurities and the readers make use of these ontological insecurities in their understanding of

the conspiracy theories. This might sound like the classical view’s pathologisation; however, this

paper highlights the socio-political factors that facilitate conspiratorial thinking and refers to

ontological insecurities in that context. It contextualizes conspiracy thinking about Dönmes by

referring to a specific ontological insecurity—the Sèvres syndrome.

i. The Sèvres syndrome

There are three important aspects of the Sèvres syndrome: (1) it is a significant ontological

insecurity in Turkey; (2) the syndrome takes Dönmes as an ideal source of anxiety; (3) right-

wing political groups, nationalists, and Islamists are more inclined to refer to the syndrome. First,

the Sèvres syndrome refers to anxiety about external enemies, particularly the Western countries,

and their collaboration with ethnic and religious minorities in Turkey to weaken and to carve up

the Turkish Republic (Aras 2009; Jung 2003). It emerged from the political ordeal created by the

Sèvres Treaty between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies at the end of the First World War. The

trauma was triggered by the treaty’s heavy conditions—including the allocation of large

proportions of the Ottoman territory to the Western countries and to the Kurdish and Armenian

10

minorities in the Empire. The treaty was annulled after the Turkish War of Independence (1919–

1923) by the Lausanne Treaty in 1923, which secured the current borders of the Turkish

Republic (Drorian 2005: 257). The Sèvres Treaty meant the end of the Ottoman Empire and its

struggle to stop its land loss to the Western powers and its minorities. It began to signify trauma

due to the lurking existential threat in Turkish politics, which influenced political views and

policy making. It was influential in shaping foreign policy (Aras 2009), attitudes towards the

Kurdish insurrection (Aydınlı 2002; Jung and Piccoli 2000; Robins 2003) and the European

Union (EU), as well as the education curriculum (İnce 2012; Webb 2011). The first line of the

Turkish national anthem, which underlines a determination and assurance against any possible

dismemberment of Turkey, can also be seen as an example of the syndrome: ‘No Fear! For the

crimson flag that proudly ripples in this glorious twilight, shall not fade’.

Second, the Dönme community is an ideal suspect of the Sèvres syndrome because the society is

an outsider to all categories of Turkish nationalism whether we describe it as ethnically (Turkish)

(Cağaptay 2003; Kirişci 2000) or religiously (Islam) (Aktürk 2009) oriented. Even the civic

territorial version of Turkish nationalism only partially includes the community because it does

not refer to any communities of a secret nature. The political groups that focused on civic

(Kemalists), ethnic (nationalists), and religious (Islamists) origin in regard to their political views

all disseminated the Sèvres syndrome. Nefes (2012) proposes that the syndrome created anxiety

about the loyalty of ethnic and religious minorities in Turkey, and Dönmes not only fit into these

two categories but are also a secret minority, which aggravates the mistrust. Indeed, the Turkish

state attempted to tax the community as a non-Muslim minority in 1942. This shows that despite

being a secret society, Dönmes are still under the gaze of the Turkish state.

11

Third, in the most comprehensive analysis of the syndrome to date, Göçek (2011) remarks that in

the early twentieth century, the Kemalist republican elite turned the Sèvres Treaty into a

syndrome and the Turkish military and right-wing political groups were responsible for its

reproduction. She adds that the syndrome recently started to fade away as the national security

perspective that gave rise to it was challenged by liberal political actors, such as the Justice and

Development Party (AKP). Nevertheless, the syndrome is still being used by political actors,

such as the elites of political Islam (Aras 2004; Guida 2008). Kemalist and right-wing political

groups are more likely to posit the Sèvres syndrome, while the liberal views tend not to refer to

it. Contextualising this within current Turkish politics, we can talk about the challenge of

multicultural discourse since the 1990s. The EU candidateship gave pace to this process

(Rumford 2001), thereby creating ontological tension with regard to national security (Rumford

2002: 274). In this context, ‘a coalition of anti-liberal forces’ involving right-wing nationalists

and Islamists as well as social democrat Kemalists found the contemporary changes dangerous

and evoked a sense of the Sèvres syndrome (Öktem 2007: 2).

Analytic strategy

a. Content analysis

The study analyzes the content of two well-known contemporary conspiracy theory books on

Dönmes: Efendi 1: Beyaz Türklerin Büyük Sırrı (Efendi 1: The Big Secret of the White Turks)

(Yalçın 2004) and Efendi 2: Beyaz Müslümanların Büyük Sırrı (Efendi 2: The Big Secret of the

White Muslims) (Yalçın 2006). The popularity of the books made it easier to find readers and

provided an opportunity to analyze the socio-political significance of a relatively prevalent

12

conspiracy account about Dönmes. Besides, the basic content of the series is representative of the

conspiratorial rhetoric about the community. The study focuses on two main questions: How

does the Efendi series describe the power relations and Dönmes’ role in Turkish politics? What

kind of political groups and threats are associated with the alleged Dönme conspiracies?

b. Qualitative interviews

I conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 readers of Soner Yalçın’s Efendi 1 and Efendi 2.

The interviews were designed to lead the respondents to describe the interaction between their

political opinions and the content of the conspiracy theories. They were asked about their

motives for reading the books, how these books affected their perception of politics, whether

they believed in the conspiracy theories about Dönmes, and how they accounted for these

accounts. They were selected through adverts on the Internet forum sites where the books were

discussed, by announcements distributed mainly through the Internet, and through the

snowballing technique of asking interviewees if they knew more people who read the books and

would be willing to participate in the study. As this study explores how the respondents’ political

orientations shape the ways in which they perceive and interpret the conspiracy theories, a

special effort was made to ensure diversity in regard to interviewees’ political views.

I allowed interviewees to choose the venue where they would feel most comfortable. These

places were mainly cafeterias, pubs, shopping malls, homes, and the workplaces of the

informants. Each interview lasted approximately 15 minutes, which allowed respondents enough

time to elaborate on their views. They were informed about the aims of the study, which,

therefore, meant there were no problems in terms of directing respondents towards the research

13

questions. Nonetheless, due to the controversial nature of the topic, the interviewees tended to

inquire about my ideas and the results of the study. In such circumstances, they were politely told

that they could learn my thoughts after completion of the interview. This was a strategy to avoid

engaging in an argument with the interviewee and thereby altering his/her views.

The Efendi series

a. The author

Soner Yalçın, the author of Efendi 1 (Yalçın 2004) and Efendi 2 (Yalçın 2006), is an

investigative journalist who wrote several books on Turkish politics and history (e.g., Yalçın

1996, 1999, 2000, 2001). He was the concept adviser for a popular television series with

conspiratorial themes—Kurtlar Vadisi (The Valley of the Wolves). He was also a producer of a

journalism programme on the Cable News Network (CNN) Turk channel for ten years. Between

2007 and 2012, he wrote for one of the most popular national daily newspapers in Turkey,

Hürriyet. He launched his online news website OdaTV in 2007. Soner Yalçın was arrested for an

alleged conspiracy to topple the government in 2011 and released 22 months later. Soner Yalçın

is a left-wing Kemalist intellectual who worked for journals of similar ideological orientation,

such as 2000’e dogru (Towards the 2000) and Aydınlık (Enlightenment), in the 1990s. He is

ideologically close to the Kemalist political groups that disseminate the Sèvres syndrome.

b. The content of the books

Efendi I: Beyaz Türklerin Büyük Sırrı (Yalçın 2004) describes political life in Turkey between

the second half of the nineteenth century and the mid-1950s via the story of an alleged Dönme

14

family, the Evliyazades. Efendi 1 claims that, through conspiracies, the Dönme sect has been

very powerful in Turkish history. Efendi 2 (Yalçın 2006) broadens the scope of the first book by

focusing on the alleged roles of Dönmes in Islamic sects. It contends that Dönmes have also been

influential through secretly dominating these groups. While Efendi 1 is about Turkish politics,

Efendi 2 also talks about a global conspiracy network in which Israel and the United States have

important roles. There are two important themes in these books: (1) they depict an influential

Dönme conspiracy as a part of global Jewish plots against the Turkish nation; (2) they extend the

use of the Islamist right-wing classical conspiracy theory to a more leftist and anti-imperialist

stance.

First, the books take as their premise the idea that the Turkish public is unaware of the Dönmes’

real power, which is linked to a global Jewish plot. The Efendi series describes the Dönme

community as a powerful elite that established the Turkish republic. Yalçın calls the Dönmes the

White Turks in the first book and the White Muslims in the second to refer to their supposed elite

character. This can also be read in the blurb of the first book, where the writer asks whether the

readers have any relatives who were prime minister, Miss Europe, or president of a major

Turkish football club such as Fenerbahçe or Galatasaray. He states that the Evliyazades have

such wealthy relatives and share a secret—their Dönme origins. Yalçın (2004: 462) adds that

‘some key positions’ are transferred ‘from fathers to sons’ in the Dönme community. Dönme

power is linked to a global Jewish plot. Yalçın (2004: 416) mentions an active Jewish lobby in

the Ottoman Palace. In both books, Yalçın (2004: 476, 2006: 135) accuses Jews of conspiring in

the problems between Turks and Greeks in Cyprus. He suspects that the owners of the

multinational corporation Ülker’s are secret Dönmes and, therefore, achieve success in the

international market by having ties to the international Jewish community (Yalçın 2006: 423). In

15

so doing, Yalçın ignores the differences between Dönmes and Jews and frames them as a power

block.

Second, Yalçın (2004, 2006) articulates his left-wing political perspective in various ways. He

accuses Dönmes of being the local agents of capitalism and his charges concentrate on Islamists,

capitalists, and liberal governments. Yalçın (2004, 2006) relates liberal and conservative political

actors who define their political positions in opposition to the single-party regime to the Dönme

community and its alleged conspiracies and warns that foreign states, like the United States, are

potential agents of capitalism. Yalçın (2006) also claims that the United States and the Jews have

always intervened in Turkish politics and have changed the natural course of history.

Furthermore, in Efendi 2, he denies the accusations of anti-Semitism by reiterating his leftist

stance (Yalçın 2006: 30) and speaks favourably of the policies of the one-party period in Turkey

in which the strong centre-left government of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) was in power

(Yalçın 2006: 381, 383). In this way, he transforms a classical right-wing conspiratorial frame to

a leftist-secular one.

The reception of the Efendi series

The readers had a rather positive attitude towards the books’ content in general. To start with, the

books’ conspiratorial line, which ignores the distinctions between Jews and Dönmes, was largely

accepted by the readers. Among all respondents, only one acknowledged the difference. In

addition, the books reflect on Dönmes as an omnipotent community, and this message was

accepted to varying degrees by nearly all respondents (n=28). One of the most repeated claims

among the respondents was: ‘I have never seen a poor Jew/Dönme’ (n=8). Samet stated, ‘I lost

my hopes about Turkey and its businessmen, politicians and army.’ Furthermore, some

16

respondents demonstrated conspiratorial thinking during the interviews. Meltem told me, ‘I will

not be surprised if you are also a Dönme.’ Utku was suspicious about the group’s capacity: ‘If

we find their trace somewhere, we should investigate it in more detail. These people did a lot of

things in history, and there is no reason for them to stop now.’

The interviews highlighted three factors that increased the likelihood of believing in the

conspiratorial lines. First, people who did not read on a regular basis seemed to be more

susceptible to believing the conspiratorial lines. Tümay, who did not usually read books, stated,

‘I learnt the things I had never known before. I learnt our history. From the Evliyazade family

until now… I also learnt that most of the powerful people are Dönmes.’ Damla stated, ‘It is

really hard for me to change my opinion with one book. Usually, I read books.’ Second, some

readers saw the lack of disavowal of the Efendi series by the alleged Dönme members as proof of

its authenticity. Serdar A remarked that, ‘I think Soner Yalçın did a good study to which nobody

objected. Therefore, I believe in the authenticity of the books.’ Third, some respondents were

impressed by the books’ ‘scientific rigour’. Cevdet noted that, ‘It is clear that Soner Yalçın did

research… For me, footnotes are very important. I believe the accounts of researchers more.’

However, people who were familiar with the methods of social sciences thought that the books

were pretentious. Barış claimed that, ‘If it was a scientific work, it would not deny societal

dynamics. There is no economy, no politics but Dönmes.’

The interpretation of the Efendi series among readers with different political views

As seen in Table I below, eight people described themselves as left-wingers, seven as social

democrats, nine as right-wingers, and another seven as apolitical, which shows a balanced

distribution regarding political stances. These political affiliations were based upon people’s own

17

definitions. Hence, some political views may intersect with others and each individual’s level of

involvement in each political view may vary. Additionally, two right-wingers identified

themselves as Islamists. While they can still be counted as right-wing, this paper discusses their

responses as a different category. Last, the social democratic stance in Turkey signifies a central-

leftist secular stance identified with the state ideology of Kemalism.

Table I about here

According to Table 1, 22 respondents were convinced, 5 were hesitant and 4 did not believe the

books’ theories. The right-wing readers, including the Islamists, were all convinced by the

books’ content. Following the right-wingers, the apolitical respondents were more sympathetic to

the books, as they were all either convinced or hesitant. While the majority of the social

democrats thought in parallel to the conspiracy theory, the left-wingers’ conviction was equally

distributed. In this sense, from right-wing to left-wing, we see that the respondents’ likelihood of

belief in conspiracies was reduced. Furthermore, 13 respondents indicated no change in their

political views, 3 readers stated that there was a change and 15 claimed that their views were

strengthened by the books. It should be stated that these data are rather introductory and

descriptive regarding the reception of the books and, because of the sample size, the paper

cannot generalize the findings. Below, the paper outlines the different approaches of the

divergent political perspectives.

a. Left-wing view

The left-wing adherents focused on the economic and political power of the group: ‘I see them as

threats, allied with imperialism and capitalism. They work against the interests of this country,’

Fetih claimed. None of the leftists were reactive to Dönme identity, even if they believed that

18

they rule the country secretly. Özlem stated, ‘I would not blame a Dönme. I would only try to

understand. I am not reacting to their identity. Many of the people around me may be Dönmes.’

The leftists related Dönme identity with economic power and believed that a repressed minority

might act in this way. It could be remarked that the left-wing point of view was empathetic to the

minority status of the Dönmes. Their problem was with capitalism rather than Dönme identity.

b. Right-wing view

With one exception, all of the right-wingers’ political ideas were strengthened by reading the

Efendi series. It could be suggested that the books’ political messages led the right-wingers,

including the Islamists, to hold more tightly to their political convictions. The right-wing

approach was shaped by the perception of the Dönme community as ethnic and religious

outsiders who exploit the country. They did not accept the supposed domination of the majority

by a non-local minority. Cevdet acknowledged this as follows:

Yakuzas are Japanese; they defend a Japanese identity. I understand that. They come out

of their own culture. Dönmes do not have Turkish identity. They came later. Their

cultural identity is Jewish. Therefore, it is wrong. When they speak of Turkey’s good, it

does not sound all right to me. I think many problems are because of them. I do not think

they are innocent.

c. Social democratic view

Most of the social democrats, with the exception of one individual who was unconvinced by the

books, approached the conspiracy theories about the Dönmes as natural events in politics. Six of

19

them believed in the Dönmes’ secret rule, but they did not react like the right-wing adherents.

Engin expressed this as follows:

As nothing in Turkey is as it appears, as conspiracies exist in Turkish politics, and as the

community did not act like Mafia, it did not bother me. In Turkey, even car-park owners

support each other, and in big countries secret plots happen, so the conspiracies did not

bother me. I even pitied Dönmes’ minority status.

In parallel, Nuray sympathized with the minority situation of Dönmes: ‘The books make me

realize that it is always hard to be a minority.’ In general, the social democrats did not develop

enmity towards Dönmes’ religious or ethnic identity. Even if they believed in the books’ claims,

they rationalized their beliefs in terms of working hard and the hardships experienced by the

community. Nurettin exemplified this as follows: ‘For me, Dönmes don’t pose problems. They

are intelligent and hard-working. I wish Muslims would do the same thing, but they are busy

with nonsense. They do not try to save the country from Dönmes’ rule.’ The only social

democrat who demonstrated a distinct attitude rejected all the arguments of the series and saw it

as an anti-Semitic piece.

d. Apolitical view

All the apolitical respondents were, to varying degrees, convinced of the Dönmes’ alleged

political power. Their reflection was a mixture of the tendencies among the right-wingers and the

social democrats. They took two distinct approaches. One was close to the right-wing approach,

which recognized Dönme power as a foreign threat. Orhan expressed his worries about the

Dönmes’ secret identity: ‘I do not blame all Hebrews, but being a hypocrite is a personal

characteristic, and this would be reflected in society. Dönmes appeared as Turks and Muslims

20

and then took us on their laps [a rather sexual explanation of the exploitation].’ He approached

the hidden crypto-Jewish character of Dönme identity as a potential threat to Turkish society.

The other type of response among the apolitical interviewees was close to the social democrats’

view and claimed that conspiracies are unavoidable aspects of politics. Murat argued that: ‘These

books taught me how colourful our social structure is. I have nothing against Dönmes. There are

always groups with power. Today, it is them, and tomorrow there will be others... I do not mind.’

Discussion and conclusion

The Efendi series depicts the Dönme community as the secret ruling elite of Turkish politics. The

books give voice to the Sèvres syndrome by describing a local minority in collaboration with

global powers, which poses a danger to the continuity of the Turkish nation-state. The series

reflects its author’s left-wing political perspective by mainly portraying the threat as a product of

the global capitalist system. It pragmatically transforms the Islamist and right-wing framework

of the conspiratorial rhetoric regarding Dönmes to a left-wing one and stays in line with the

Kemalist version of the Sèvres syndrome. In pursuing this argument, the books ignore the

difference between the Dönme and the Jewish communities.

Most of the readers accepted the books’ content; the majority bought into the books’ ignorance

of the Dönme-Jewish difference and saw them as one group. The readers’ interpretation of the

conspiratorial rhetoric varied according to their political views. To begin with, among the

respondents from the right-wing to the left, the rate of acceptance of the Efendi series’ content

decreased. Second, a few respondents created their own conspiracy theories and read more works

in that literature, but the majority integrated the conspiracy theories into their political views

instead of developing an entirely conspiratorial vision of politics. In most cases (n=15), people’s

21

political views were strengthened, or unchanged (n=13), and only three respondents altered their

perspectives. The conspiracy theories were rather used as tactics to legitimize people’s

discontent with authority. Third, the readers used the conspiracy theories pragmatically to affirm

their political standpoints. The leftists associated the conspiratorial accounts with the workings

of capitalism and the bourgeoisie and did not show an ethno-religious dislike or hatred like the

rightist respondents. From the left-wing to the right, along with the social democrats and the

apoliticals, the demonization of the Dönme identity as non-Muslim and non-Turkish outsiders

increased. The readers tended to envisage the Dönme figure as a political opponent: if their

political enemy was non-Muslim or non-Turkish, Dönmes became Jews; if it was capitalists, the

Dönmes were bourgeoisie. In parallel, the readers rejected the conspiratorial view when it did not

fit their ideological views or, to a lesser extent, when it failed to fulfil their criteria for reliable

research. Last, while accepting the conspiratorial content of the series, the readers confirmed the

Sèvres syndrome’s position that internal and external enemies plot to weaken and dismember

Turkey. However, they interpreted the conspiratorial accounts according to their political views

by either judging global capitalism, or the Jews, as responsible. The conspiracy theories, despite

being rooted in a historical anxiety in Turkish politics, were rationally used by the readers in line

with their political views.

All in all, this study makes two important points. First, it shows that the contemporary

conspiracy theories regarding Dönmes in the Efendi series echo and update the Sèvres syndrome

in Turkey; the conspiracy rhetoric emerges from the ontological insecurity of Turkish politics

and simultaneously feeds these anxieties. In addition, the findings demonstrate that the

conspiratorial lines of the Efendi series are pragmatically and rationally used by the readers to

confirm their own political views. Consequently, this paper proposes that, on the one hand, the

22

conspiratorial accounts of the books can be seen as conduits of the ontological insecurities,

paranoia and anti-Semitic prejudice in Turkish politics, and, on the other hand, they are rational

accounts that are used to understand power relations and do not turn anyone into an anti-Semitic

zealot or towards any political activism.

This conclusion lucidly illustrates that conspiracy theories can be both rational accounts, as the

cultural perspective argues, and paranoid, distorted narratives, as the classical perspective

proposes, at the same time. Hence, it transcends the classical-cultural or realist-symbolist divide

in the existing scholarship and is in line with Fenster’s (1999) call for overcoming this division.

The study also notes that the conspiratorial accounts are specific to their social and political

context, i.e., Turkish ethno-nationalist discourse. They are not merely false visions of marginal

and extremist groups, but have a place in mainstream Turkish politics due to the Sèvres

syndrome. The paper points out that an anti-Semitic or anti-minority discourse of intolerance can

arise from the Sèvres syndrome in Turkey. Future studies could look into the function of this

syndrome in state policies and politics concerning minorities living in the country, which could

provide a clear perspective about the socio-political roots of Turkish intolerance.

In addition, the readers’ rational and pragmatic use of the conspiracy theories indicates that these

accounts should not be classified as a delusional political pathology. The scholarship could

employ rational choice theory to understand the causes and significance of conspiracy theories.

Finally, the study contextualizes the Efendi series’ conspiratorial lines in Turkish politics and

underlines that the academic literature could empirically investigate the significance of

conspiracy theories in different contexts comparatively. In this way, the scholarship could

23

provide a valuable perspective for understanding the sociological roots of intolerance, bigotry

and hatred, a welcome perspective in a world that is becoming increasingly multicultural.

Bibliography

Aaronovitch, D. 2009 Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern

History, London: Jonathan Cape.

Aktürk, Ş. 2009 ‘Persistence of the Islamic Millet as an Ottoman Legacy: Mono-religious and

Anti-ethnic definition of Turkish Nationhood’, Middle Eastern Studies 45(6): 893–909.

Aras, B. 2004 ‘Failure of Political Islam in Turkey’,

http://www.turkishpolicy.com/images/stories/2004-01-evasivecrescent/TPQ2004-1-

abootalebi.pdf, accessed 03 April 2013.

Aras, B. 2009 ‘Turkey's Rise in the Greater Middle East: Peace-building in the Periphery’,

Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 11(1): 29–41.

Aydınlı, E. 2002 ‘Between Security and Liberalization: Decoding Turkey's Struggle with the

PKK’, Security Dialogue 33(2): 209–25.

Baer, M. 2010 The Dönme: Jewish Converts, Muslim Revolutionaries, and Secular Turks,

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bali, R. 2002 ‘Bir Dönmenin Hikayesi: Nazif Özge Kimdir?’, Tarih ve Toplum 38(223): 15–21.

Bali, R. 2008 A Scapegoat for All Seasons: The Dönmes or Crypto-Jews of Turkey, İstanbul:

ISIS.

24

Ben-Itto, H. 2005 The Lie that Wouldn’t Die: The Protocols of Elders of Zion, London:

Vallentine Mitchell.

Berenskoetter, F. and Giegerich, B. 2010 ‘From NATO to ESDP: A Social Constructivist

Analysis of German Strategic Adjustment after the End of the Cold War’, Security Studies

19(3): 407–52.

Birchall, C. 2006 Knowledge Goes Pop: From Conspiracy Theory to Gossip, Oxford: Berg.

Bratich, J. 2008 Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture, Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Byford, J. 2011 Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave

MacMillan.

Cohn, N. 1970 Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the

Protocols of Elders of Zion, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Çağaptay, S. 2003 ‘Citizenship Policies in Interwar Turkey’, Nations and Nationalism 9(4):

601–19.

Çırakman, A. 2011 ‘Flags and Traitors: The Advance of Ethno-nationalism in the Turkish Self-

image’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(11): 1894–912.

Drorian, S. 2005 ‘Turkey: Security, State and Society in Troubled Times’, European Security

14(2): 255–75.

Dupuis, A. and Thorns, D. 1998 ‘Home, Home Ownership and the Search for Ontological

Security’, Sociological Review 46(1): 24–47.

Fekete, L. 2012 ‘The Muslim Conspiracy Theory and the Oslo Massacre’, Race and Class

53(3): 30–47.

25

Fenster, M. 1999 Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Minneapolis,

MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Giddens, A. 1992 The Consequences of Modernity, London: Polity.

Goertzel, T. 1994 ‘Belief in Conspiracy Theories’, Political Psychology 15: 733–744.

Göçek, M. 2011 The Transformation of Turkey: Redefining State and Society from the Ottoman

Empire to the Modern Era, London, New York: IB Tauris.

Gray, M. 2010 Conspiracy Theories in the Arab World, London: Routledge.

Guida, M. 2008 ‘“The Sèvres Syndrome” and “Komplo” Theories in the Islamist and Secular

Press’, Turkish Studies 9(1): 37–52.

Harris, P. 2013 ‘One in Four Americans Think Obama May Be the Antichrist, Survey Says’,

The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/02/americans-obama-anti-christ-

conspiracy-theories, accessed 03 April 2013.

Hofstadter, R. 1965 The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, New York:

Alfred A. Knopf.

Huysmans, J. 1998 ‘Security! What Do you mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier’, European

Journal of International Relations 4(2): 226–55.

İçduygu, A., et al. 2008 ‘The Politics of Population in a Nation-building Process: Emigration of

Non-Muslims from Turkey’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 31(2): 358–89.

İnce, B. 2012 ‘Citizenship Education in Turkey: Inclusive or Exclusive’, Oxford Review of

Education 38(2): 115–31.

Jung, D. 2003. ‘The Sèvres Syndrome: Turkish Foreign Policy and its Historical Legacies’,

26

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_0709/jung_Sèvres/jung_Sèvres.htm

l, accessed 10 March 2013.

Jung, D. and Piccoli, W. 2000 ‘The Turkish-Israeli Alignment: Paranoia or Pragmatism?’,

Security Dialogue 31(1): 91–104.

Kinnvall, C. 2004 ‘Globalization and Religious Nationalism: Self, Identity, and the Search for

Ontological Security’, Political Psychology 25(5): 741–67.

Kinnvall, C. 2006 Globalization and Religious Nationalism in India: The Search for

Ontological Security, London: Routledge.

Kirişci, K. 2000 ‘Disaggregating Turkish Citizenship and Immigration Practices’, Middle

Eastern Studies 36(3): 1–22.

Knight, P. 2000 Conspiracy Culture: From the Kennedy Assassination to the X-Files, London:

Routledge.

Küçük, Y. 2006 Tekelistan: Isimlerin Ibranilestirilmesi, Istanbul: Salyangoz Yayınları.

Locke, S. 2009 ‘Conspiracy Culture, Blame Culture, and Rationalisation’, Sociological Review

57(4): 567–85.

Melley, T. 2000 Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America, London:

Cornell University Press.

Mitzen, J. 2006 ‘Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security

Dilemma’, European Journal of International Relations 12: 341–370.

Nefes, T.S. 2010 Towards a Sociology of Conspiracy Theories: An Investigation into

Conspiratorial Thinking on Dönmes, Unpublished thesis: University of Kent.

Nefes, T.S. 2012 ‘The History of the Social Constructions of Dönmes’, Journal of Historical

Sociology, 25(3): 413–39.

27

Nefes T.S. 2013a, in press. ‘The Function of Secrecy in Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories: The

Case of Dönmes in Turkey’ in: M. Reinkowski and M. Butter (eds) Conspiracy Theories,

De Gruyter.

Nefes T.S. 2013b, in press. ‘Political Parties’ Perceptions and Uses of Anti-Semitic Conspiracy

Theories in Turkey’, The Sociological Review 61(3).

Olmsted, K. 2009 Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I

to 9/11, New York: Oxford University Press.

Öktem, K. 2007 ‘Harbingers of Second Republic’, Middle East Report,

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero080107.html, accessed 11 March 2013.

Pipes, D. 1997 Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, New

York: Free Press.

Robins, P. 2003 Suits and Uniforms: Turkish Foreign Policy Since the Cold War, Seattle:

University of Washington Press.

Robins, R. and Post, J. 1997 Political Paranoia: The Psycho-politics of Hatred, New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press.

Rogin, M. 1987 Ronald Reagan the Movie and other Episodes of Political Demonology,

Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.

Rohr, I. 2003 ‘The Use of Anti-Semitism in the Spanish Civil War’, Patterns of Prejudice 37(2):

195–211.

28

Rumford, C. 2001 ‘Human Rights and Democratization in Turkey in the Context of EU

Candidature’, Journal of European Area Studies 9(1): 93–105.

Rumford, C. 2002 ‘Placing Democratization within the Global Frame: Sociological Approaches

to Universalism, and Democratic Contestation in Turkey’, The Sociological Review

50(2): 258–77.

Sapountzis, A. and Condor, S. 2013, in press. Conspiracy accounts as intergroup theories:

Challenging dominant understandings of social power and political legitimacy. Political

Psychology.

Scholem, G. 1971 The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality,

Allen & Unwin.

Skey, M. 2010 ‘A Sense of Where You Belong in the World: National Belonging, Ontological

Security and the Status of the Ethnic Majority in England’, Nations and Nationalism 16(4):

715–33.

Staniševski, D. 2011 ‘Fear thy Neighbour: Ontological Security and the Illusion of National

Purity’, Administrative Theory & Praxis 33(1): 62–79.

Steele, B. 2005 ‘Ontological Security and the Power of Self-identity: British Neutrality and the

American Civil War’, Review of International Studies 31: 519–40.

Sunstein, C. and Vermeule, A. 2009 ‘Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures’, The Journal of

Political Philosophy 17(2): 202–27.

29

Swami, V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T. and Furnham, A. 2010 ‘Unanswered Questions: A

Preliminary Investigation of Personality and Individual Difference Predictors of 9/11

Conspiracist Beliefs’, Applied Cognitive Psychology 24: 749–761.

Swami, V., et al. 2011 ‘Conspiracist Ideation in Britain and Austria: Evidence of Monological

Belief System and Associations between Individual Psychological Differences and Real-

world and Fictitious Conspiracy Theories’, British Journal of Psychology 102: 443–463.

Swami, V. and Furnham, A. 2012 ‘Examining Conspiracist Beliefs about the Disappearance of

Amelia Earhart’, The Journal of General Psychology 139: 244–259.

Swami, V., et al. 2013 ‘Lunar Lies: The Impact of Informational Framing and Individual

Differences in Shaping Conspiracist Beliefs about the Moon Landings’, Applied

Cognitive Psychology 27: 71–80.

Şişman, C. 2002 ‘Sabetaycılığın Osmanlı ve Türkiye Serüveni’, Tarih ve Toplum 223: 4–6.

Şişman, C. 2008 Sabatay Sevi ve Sabataycılar: Mitler ve Gerçekler, İstanbul: Aşina Kitaplar.

Şişman, C. 2010. ‘Cortijo de Sevi: Kültür Mirası Sabetay Sevi’nin Evi’nin Geçmişi, Bugünü,

Geleceği’, Toplumsal Tarih 196: 14–25.

Webb, E. 2011 ‘Resisting Anamnesis: A Nietzschean analysis of Turkey's National History

Education’, Journal of Contemporary European Studies 19(4): 489–500.

Yalçın, S. 1996 Binbaşı Ersever’in İtirafları, Istanbul: Kaynak Yayınları.

Yalçın, S. 1999 Hangi Erbakan, Ankara: Öteki Yayınevi.

Yalçın, S. 2000 Bay Pipo, Bir MİT Görevlisinin Sıra Dışı Yaşamı: Hiram Abbas, Istanbul:

Doğan Kitap.

Yalçın, S. 2001 Teşkilat’ın İki Silahşörü, Istanbul: Doğan Kitap.

30

Yalçın, S. 2004 Efendi: Beyaz Türklerin Büyük Sırrı, Istanbul: Doğan Kitap.

Yalçın, S. 2006 Efendi 2: Beyaz Müslümanların Büyük Sırrı, Istanbul: Doğan Kitap.

Zarakol, A. 2010 ‘Ontological (In)Security and State Denial of Historical Crimes: Turkey and

Japan’, International Relations 24(1): 3–23.