ABSTRACT

Debating Turkey’s membership around the question of whether Turkey would become a member or not—form of integration—is a non-debate given the history of relations that is characterized by ‘ups and downs’ in the last five decades. Embarking on Gramscian historical materialism, this research debates socio-economic content of ongoing integration. It questions whether there is a hegemonic pro-EU membership and whether there are any alternatives. The analyses rely on interviews conducted at two critical junctures in 2010 and 2017. I shall argue that pro-membership is hegemonic which is contested by two rival class strategies: Ha-vet and neo-mercantilism, none of which stands as an overall alternative. The future trajectory is uncertain. Despite negative tone of the political discourses especially in the post-15th July coup attempt, pro-membership is still hegemonic. Yet, it is becoming more difficult for capital groups to lead through ‘moral and intellectual leadership’ for an integration model relying on market liberalization (negative integration) without a perspective of membership—without a clear social dimension (positive integration).

摘要

鉴于过去五十年来两国关系的历史以“起伏不定”为特征，围绕土耳其是否会成为成员国（一体化形式）的问题进行辩论是不容置疑的。着手葛兰西历史唯物主义，这项研究辩论了社会经济持续集成的内容。它质疑是否有霸权的亲欧盟成员国以及是否有其他选择。这些分析依赖于在2010年和2017年两个关键时刻进行的采访。我将争辩说，赞成成员资格是霸权主义，这受到两个相互竞争的阶级策略的挑战：Ha-vet和新重商主义，没有一个可以作为整体替代方案。未来的轨迹是不确定的。尽管政治言论带有负面色彩，尤其是在7月15日后的政变企图中，亲会员制仍然是霸权主义。然而，对于资本集团而言，要依靠“道德和知识领导力”来领导一种依赖市场自由化（负向一体化），没有成员资格视角，没有清晰的社会维度（正向一体化）的一体化模式，就变得越来越困难。