"Gentlemen” in uniform: Western manners and military prestige

The military of the Republican era, which was depicted as the “highest level of social bodies” (Baki Reference Baki1932, 53), defined its duty as something far beyond simply carrying out the military profession, describing it as a form of “state guardianship” and “protecting and safeguarding the Republic” (Erkanlı Reference Erkanlı1973, 377). In this context, the military viewed knowledge and practice of modern Western manners as essential to belonging to the universal (and singular) notion of “civilization”; in essence, Western etiquette was seen as a marker of being civilized. From this viewpoint, modern etiquette was even compared to a form of positive science with universal rules, being described as “almost a kind of science” (adeta bir çeşit fen) (Savaşçın Reference Savaşçın1938, 2). This analogy is illustrative, as when etiquette is assumed to be a form of science, imposing modern rules and regulating even the most intimate aspects of personal behavior is deemed legitimate. Similarly, the etiquette rules, presented as a condition for becoming a citizen of the new regime, were described as “civil obligations in civilized societies” (Safveti Ziya Reference Safveti1927, 1). From this viewpoint, Turkish officers were expected to be “as noble and pure in spirit in the realm of etiquette as they were courageous and resolute on the battlefield” (Baki Reference Baki1932, 57). “Being strong like a Turk” was no longer seen as sufficient for the Turkish soldier; now the importance of being recognized as “a gentleman like a Turk” (Türk gibi centilmen) was frequently emphasized (Ancın Reference Ancın1970, 12; Yaşantımızda Görgü ve Protokol Kuralları n.d., 4).

The fear of being excluded from what Abdullah Cevdet (Reference Abdullah1927, 12) referred to as the “gentlemen’s world” (kibar âlemi), or the anxiety of failing to be “civilized,” became a central motivation for the officers to embrace Western manners. This anxiety was fueled by the belief that falling short of “civility” would not just damage an officer’s prestige but more importantly tarnish the reputation of the military and the image of Turkish soldiers as a whole. For example, in the printed version of a 1930 conference on etiquette, Major Ömer Lütfü (Reference Lütfü1930, 5) expressed this concern as follows:

The idea that Western-origin etiquette rules have universal significance and, therefore, must be adopted is a recurring theme in early Republican texts for officers. In an etiquette lecture he delivered at the Staff College in 1928, later published, Lieutenant Colonel Ali Remzi (Reference Ali1928, 7) stated, “We cannot remain aloof from customs and practices that have become international, that is, those which have become inherent to humanity.” This statement encapsulates the emphasis on universal civilization, the key to which lies in mastering its etiquette. According to, for example, Colonel Zekâi Dorman (Reference Dorman1951, 6), “officers are recognized and esteemed as the most distinguished members of society in every country” mainly because they learn these rules as part of their professional training and apply them with military discipline.

By “civilization,” these texts refer not merely to material progress but, in Elias’s sense (Elias Reference Elias2000), to the historical process of increasing social restraint, refinement of manners, and emotional self-control. Turkish military etiquette texts tended not to view the Kultur–Zivilisation distinction, as defined by Elias (Reference Elias2000), as inherently marked by tension. The universality of civilization – and by extension Western manners – is often legitimized in a Gökalpian tendency of reconciliation, by claiming that these principles align with the Turkish nation’s culture, that is, its national and inherent customs and traditions (Gökalp Reference Gökalp2018, 46; Türkgenç Reference Türkgenç2021). As shown below, it is often argued that modern etiquette rules, such as those on cleanliness and respect for elders, are already ingrained in Turkish culture. It was emphasized as early as 1911 that “Islamic and national manners are compatible with European etiquette in many respects” (Usul ve Adab-ı Muâşeret 1911, 5). Therefore, the argument goes, one of the primary objectives of etiquette training for officers is to “integrate national traditions” into modern etiquette, thereby making it “infused with our own essence” (Dorman Reference Dorman1951, 5), for “the rules of [Western] etiquette are not contrary to our national traditions and customs” (Kurtbek Reference Kurtbek1939, 6; Okçabol Reference Okçabol1940, 8; Sılanoğlu Reference Sılanoğlu1967, 8).

While some texts argue that modern etiquette is compatible with Islam, these views are both rare and vary across different periods. In texts from the early Republican period, references to Islam are minimal, if not entirely absent. Rather than confronting religious traditions, there is a tendency to bypass them. One example showing open disregard is the etiquette manual written by Seyfi Kurtbek (Reference Kurtbek1939, 68), which states that “in this era … the necessity of religious holiday visits is obsolete.” However, from the 1950s onwards, although still brief, there is a noticeable increase in the inclusion of religious themes in etiquette manuals for officers. For example, in the 1962 manual offering guidance to young officers, Brigadier General Faruk Güventürk (Reference Güventürk1966, 6) advises, “You should be religious, but not bigoted or ignorant.” In the following decades, topics like “religious holidays” began to appear more frequently in etiquette manuals, as seen in a late twentieth-century text stating, “On religious holidays, a congratulatory ceremony is held for personnel within the same garrison” (Protokol ve Görgü Kuralları El Kitabı 1999, 109).

Another Gökalpian element is how these texts present the learning and adoption of modern etiquette – by officers and society alike – through a Durkheimian lens of social solidarity. From this perspective, in a society based on the division of labor, “once solidarity develops on such a wide scale,” etiquette can no longer be monopolized by any one group (Remzi Reference Ali1928, 6). However, this seemingly inclusive view that treats modern etiquette as a form of social education and appears to reject Bourdieu’s idea of “distinction” (Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1986) is in fact quite limited. Although the adoption of etiquette is seen as necessary for all of society, officers are expected to lead the way, as they are considered best suited to learn and convey these rules. In this respect, the notion of social solidarity reflected in these texts reveals a distinct elitist and hierarchical undertone.

In fact, this hierarchy is considered both entirely legitimate and essential for officers. A key source of this perspective is undoubtedly the “total war” concept or the “army-nation” idea, primarily influenced by Colmar von der Goltz, which prevailed in the Turkish military throughout much of the twentieth century. Goltz’s major book The Nation in Arms (Das Volk in Waffen) Goltz (Reference Goltz1887) was translated into Turkish in 1884, just a year after its German release and before its English translation (Akmeşe Reference Akmeşe2005, 69; Grüßhaber Reference Grüßhaber2018). Goltz’s views on the Prussian officer model and militarism profoundly influenced late Ottoman and early Republican officers (Özcan Reference Özcan, Balta Paker and Akça2010), including Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and İsmet İnönü (İnönü Reference İnönü2014, 29). The concept of “total war,” popularized in militarist circles during and after World War I, asserts that modern warfare involves not only military forces but the full mobilization of society and its resources, making national defense the responsibility of all (Beşikçi Reference Beşikçi2012, 2–8). In this viewpoint, officers, as the authority entrusted with teaching and supervising this crucial duty, should serve as the true vanguards of society. Thus, as Goltz suggested, “military institutions must not only provide military education but also instill high moral principles in future officers, distinguishing from the general society” (Hanioğlu Reference Hanioğlu2023, 80, 83, 87).

This “social leadership” (mürşid) role involves not only maintaining military discipline under total war conditions but also fostering modern etiquette as a way of ensuring discipline throughout society. Colonel Zekâi Dorman (Reference Dorman1951, 3), who defined etiquette as a form of “discipline,” succinctly captures this perspective:

The assumed link between military discipline and modern etiquette is significant. Existing studies highlight that modern etiquette rules serve as a tool for disciplining and controlling individuals, functioning as a form of Foucauldian “biopower” in shaping the “ideal citizen” (Dandiboz Reference Dandiboz2014, 8; Schick Reference Schick and İşli2020, 14; Ural Reference Ural2008, 172). Etiquette texts for officers, in particular, frame modern manners as integral to military discipline. In this view, effective military leadership necessitates the blending of discipline and etiquette: “We are convinced that the social discipline, morality, and self-control embedded in these [etiquette] rules are key factors in the development of leadership and command qualities” (Genel ve Askeri Görgü ve Toplumsal Yaşam Kuralları 1983, v). For an officer to effectively influence the soldiers under his command, his rank and authority alone are deemed insufficient. An officer is expected to serve as a role model through his manners, appearance, and conduct toward both subordinates and superiors, thereby promoting discipline within the unit (Dorman Reference Dorman1951, 6).

This notion of military discipline also encompasses the issue of morale. Mastering modern etiquette rules is deemed essential not only for the success of the army but also for maintaining a high level of morale. If one pillar of victory is the army’s high morale, and etiquette contributes to this morale, then from this pragmatic perspective, officers’ adoption of modern etiquette is not only a civil necessity but also a military imperative (Ancın Reference Ancın1970, 8; Yaprak Reference Yaprak1956).

Etiquette as respectability and self-surveillance

Reflecting a pragmatic approach, officers’ etiquette manuals consistently stress that adherence to Western manners helps military personnel become “loved and respected” by society:

The notion that modern etiquette “earns military personnel respect in the eyes of the nation” persists in manuals throughout the twentieth century. Moreover, the theme of being “loved and respected” appears not only in the more numerous Army (Land Forces) manuals but also in those for the Air Force, Navy, and Gendarmerie (Görgü ve Nezaket Kuralları 2003, 7–8; Hava Kuvvetlerinde Muaşeret 1967, 5; Protokol ve Görgü Kuralları El Kitabı 1999, i).Footnote ⁵

The stress on being “loved and respected,” “influential,” or “esteemed” through proper manners extends beyond elevating the officer’s professional status. It reflects the view that the military should lead society’s cultural modernization by exemplifying modern etiquette. As noted, although promoting Western etiquette throughout society was seen as a form of cultural mobilization, officers still regarded themselves as socially privileged. This belief reflects the expectation that modern etiquette would both uphold officers’ elitist leadership and promote society’s cultural transformation.

It is worth noting that the Turkish military’s elitism is ideological rather than class-based, distinguishing its members by education, beliefs, and manners. Since the Ottoman era, when the Military Academy (Harbiye) was largely ignored by the upper classes, the officer corps has predominantly been shaped by the middle and lower-middle classes, a trend that continued into the Republican period (Ateş Reference Ateş and Türkmen2023, 838; Gürses Reference Gürses2021, 179–180; Kışlalı Reference Kışlalı1974; Uyar and Varoğlu Reference Uyar and Varoğlu2008, 183).

Another key reason the military embraced Western etiquette is the belief that it aligns with its own existing codes of conduct and protocol. Etiquette texts that cover both protocol and social manners often state that “protocol rules … are intertwined with and applied alongside social norms in public life” (Fenmen Reference Fenmen1990, 11). Lieutenant General Erdoğan Öznal (Reference Öznal1992, Preface, 8) agrees, stating that “no separation can be made between civil and military protocol and etiquette rules; the fundamental behavioral principles are the same, although soldiers may have specific stylistic differences.” Major General Yaşar Büyükanıt, later Chief of General Staff (2006–2008), succinctly explains this in the preface to an etiquette book for the Military Academy:

Although the content of etiquette texts evolved, this perspective remained constant during the Republican period, with officers’ texts typically drawing on three main sources. The first source comprises general etiquette books, including those in English and French (Deniz Reference Deniz1969), alongside earlier officers’ etiquette texts. The second source is the official protocol adopted by the Turkish military. Despite having its own rules, protocol is typically not treated as distinct from modern etiquette. Many texts, in both title and content, portray the two as inseparable (Bahriyede Nezaket ve Protokol Kaideleri 1966; Deniz Subayları için Protokol Kuralları 1976; Protokol: Askeri Görgü ve Nezaket Kuralları 2007; Protokol ve Görgü Kuralları El Kitabı 1999; Sosyal Davranış Kuralları ve Protokol 2003). The third source is the Military Internal Service Law, first published in 1935, along with the regulations outlining its implementation (“Ordu Dâhilî Hizmet Kanunu” 1935). This law, covering various aspects of military practice such as subordinate–superior relations, discipline, and dress codes, was systematized in 1961 and has undergone several revisions since (Kılıç Reference Kılıç2021, 4–5, 27).

Seeing modern etiquette as part of the military profession led to its rapid inclusion in military school curricula. Etiquette rules have been taught to cadets, predominantly from middle- and lower-middle-class backgrounds, both through occasional lectures at military schools and within courses such as “Introduction to Military Profession” (Ordu Bilgisi) or “Internal Service and Military Writing and Speaking Procedure” (Kara Harp Okulu Tarihçesi 1973). Although Turkish military academies throughout the twentieth century offered little room for social science courses like sociology and operated more as “semi-engineering departments” (Uyar and Varoğlu Reference Uyar and Varoğlu2008), the swift inclusion of etiquette in their curricula highlights the significance attributed to this subject.

However, the military’s strong commitment to Western etiquette also appears to have been driven by a deep-seated collective anxiety. This anxiety rests on the belief that, whether in uniform or civilian clothes, the behavior of Turkish officers is constantly scrutinized by external observers, both at home and abroad. Therefore, any failure to display civilized manners will be swiftly noticed by the “external gaze,” tarnishing the reputation of both the officers and the military (Remzi Reference Ali1928, 7). The texts strongly reflect the psychology that officers’ adherence to etiquette is constantly monitored from the outside, particularly by the “Western gaze” (Ahıska Reference Ahıska2010, 26), as in the statement that “society’s eye is always upon us” (Ancın Reference Ancın1970, 11).

The anxiety that officers, as “candidates for the new Western man,” were scrutinized by a Western gaze intent on “demeaning national pride” was especially strong in the early Republican period (Işın Reference Işın2023, 168). However, although its intensity has decreased over time, this psychology has persisted well into the twenty-first century. The anxiety of being scrutinized by the external gaze is also prevalent in etiquette books aimed at the general public (Deniz Reference Deniz1969, 1; Sılanoğlu Reference Sılanoğlu1967, 169). Thus, both the texts addressed to the general public and those written specifically for officers emphasize the cultivation of “self-regulation” as a means of preempting external scrutiny (Ural Reference Ural2008, 209).

The officer who cares for his appearance

Books on officers’ etiquette prioritize and classify aspects of modern manners according to what is deemed most important within the military context. The emphasis on personal hygiene and appearance-and-attire (kılık kıyafet) has consistently ranked among the most highlighted aspects, as it represents an area where both general and military, as well as Western and national, notions of decorum most readily converge. Even the first etiquette manual for officers stressed that becoming an officer begins with cleanliness, instilled in military schools. The manual also praises Colmar von der Goltz for his pivotal role in “introducing the cleanliness inspection” at the Military Academy (Usul ve Adab-ı Muâşeret 1911, 5). Moreover, in their “Advice to My Children” booklets, officers also named cleanliness as the most important lesson (Demirhan Reference Demirhan1939, 58–59; Karabekir Reference Karabekir2023).

Though cleanliness has many aspects, Republican-era etiquette texts, reflecting the military’s aversion to beards and mustaches, strongly emphasized officers shaving daily, even on days off (Lütfullah Reference Lütfullah1930, 5–9). “Shaving was perhaps the most practical solution to giving the Republican individual a European appearance” (Işın Reference Işın2023, 158). In fact, there was no official ban on growing beards or mustaches in the Turkish military until the 1980s. After the 1980 military coup, due to the claimed ideological associations of facial hair at the time, a ban was introduced through an amendment to the 1961 Internal Service Law in 1983 (June 23 – 2861/1). Exceptions were made for wartime or extended field duties, with permission granted by the Chief of General Staff. Despite the lack of a formal ban for many years, officers largely followed the etiquette recommendation to avoid beards and mustaches, demonstrating the influence of this emphasis.

Cleanliness and a neat appearance are seen foremost as marks of good military discipline. It is often stressed that “an officer’s discipline can be judged by the care he takes in his appearance-and-attire” (Genel ve Askeri Görgü ve Toplumsal Yaşam Kuralları 1983, II-3, 45). Since officers in uniform represent the military and the state as well as themselves, this behavior is seen not as a choice but as a duty (Muzaffer Reference Muzaffer1939, 29). An even more interesting point is the belief that officers who adhere to these standards would earn greater respect and obedience from their subordinates, thereby becoming more widely regarded as role models (Protokol ve Görgü Kuralları El Kitabı 1999, 23; Öznal Reference Öznal1992, 43). One author of an etiquette text recalls choosing a military career as a child after admiring “soldiers in clean clothes, shiny boots, and gleaming appearances” (Baki Reference Baki1932, 54). Evidence suggests that cadets at the Military Academy in the late 1930s, such as Adnan Çelikoğlu (class of 1940), took this suggestion seriously (Gökşen Reference Gökşen2023, 78).

When reflecting on their military school years, officers often recall the extreme attention to cleanliness and appearance-and-attire exhibited by administrators. For example, Özden Örnek (Reference Örnek2017, 115), a 1962 Naval Academy graduate and later Naval Forces Commander (2003–2005), recalls that appearance-and-attire, along with frequent inspections, were “the most emphasized issue” at the academy. Atilla Kıyat (Reference Kıyat2010, 44), a 1963 Naval Academy graduate, recalls similar inspections, even when departing for leave. Nevzat Bölügiray (Reference Bölügiray2009, 63), a 1944 Military Academy graduate, shares similar memories with attention to cleanliness and attire. Officers at the Staff College were expected to maintain even higher standards. Selahattin Tanç (Reference Tanç2017, 88–89), who entered the Staff College in 1937, recalls how the commander, Lieutenant General Ali Fuat Erden, monitored students’ adherence to etiquette, even observing them “with his binoculars.” Similarly, Hüseyin Sezgin (Reference Sezgin2018, 34), a 1971 graduate of the Army Staff College, remembers, “We had never been so attentive to our attire.”

Although officers admit this meticulousness sometimes made their student lives difficult, they rarely complain about it. Conversely, as they aged and rose to command, they became strong advocates of linking cleanliness, dress etiquette, and military discipline, and sought to instill this in their subordinates. Indeed, Muzaffer Taytak (Reference Taytak2017, 36), a 1984 Military Academy graduate, recalls senior officers criticizing “scruffy” young officers for their lack of meticulousness in both military and civilian settings. In another example, M. Oktay Alnıak (Reference Alnıak2020, 5), a 1961 Military Academy graduate who later taught at military schools, even coined a motto he often had his students recite: “Dress well, speak little, work hard.”

The officer encountering women

A key theme in officer etiquette books, particularly emphasized in the early Republican period, is the set of rules for officers’ interactions with women in both official and social settings. Similar to the new regime’s discourse, which framed the changing status of women as a cornerstone of the Republic’s Westernization project (Sancar Reference Sancar2022, 17), the texts addressed to officers portray etiquette in interactions with women as a key indicator of cultural modernization. Therefore, emphasis is placed on the idea that as social gatherings now “involve both men and women” (kadınlı erkekli), “respect for women is considered one of the most essential principles of etiquette in modern civilization” (Herkesin Bilmesi Lazım Gelen Muaşeret Usulleri 1927, 7, 14). It is underscored that as “Turkish women, as civilized individuals, have integrated into social life” with the Republic, the need to be “well-versed in etiquette” in interactions with women, who are now “a respected personality in the entire civilized world,” became of utmost importance (Savaşçın Reference Savaşçın1938, 2).

Etiquette texts often use the term “lady” (bayan) instead of “woman,” repeatedly emphasizing that “ladies come before men.” They urge that this be recognized and upheld as “the law of contemporary society” (Yaşantımızda Görgü ve Protokol Kuralları n.d., 18). For example, for this reason, the man must always be the one to initiate the greeting with women (Lütfullah Reference Lütfullah1930, 19), and, in a handshake, “it is considered impolite for a man to extend his hand before a woman offers hers” (Genel ve Askeri Görgü ve Toplumsal Yaşam Kuralları 1983, 6).

One of the most striking features in the issue of relationships with women is the emphasis on politeness, often idealized and overstated. The claim that “being polite towards women is among the foremost refinements a man can exhibit in the world” (Ancın Reference Ancın1970, 27) clearly exemplifies this perspective. Consequently, many principles framed as universal in these texts seem more like lofty but impractical ideals than usable guidelines. Such overstatements are exemplified by rules such as “A man should always stand when a lady enters the room” and “He must remain standing until the lady allows him to sit” (Ancın Reference Ancın1970, 59; Hava Kuvvetlerinde Muaşeret 1967, 25).

However, these texts reflect a paradox as they acknowledge women’s entry into the public sphere under the Republic yet continue to reinforce patriarchal stereotypes. Even as they frame the treatment of women as a marker of civilization, some texts explicitly describe women as “weak and inferior” (zayıf ve dûn), and “thus in need of help and respect” (Herkesin Bilmesi Lazım Gelen Muaşeret Usulleri 1927, 14). A more troubling example is the suggestion that, due to their perceived inadequacies in scholarly and political matters, “the best topics of conversation with women are poetry, literature, and matters related to household duties,” to avoid potentially offending them (Okçabol Reference Okçabol1940, 20, 24). Further examples of patriarchal prejudice include the recommendation that an officer approaching “a lady in the company of a man” should first address the man (Öznal Reference Öznal1992, 11), and that young officers wishing to meet “young ladies” should first be introduced to their parents (Hava Kuvvetlerinde Muaşeret 1967, 51). Vüs’at O. Bener (Reference Bener2014, 80–81), a 1941 Military Academy graduate and future literary figure, recalls seeking his superior Captain Cemal Madanoğlu’s help as a young lieutenant to obtain permission from a girl’s family to dance with her at a ball in the Bergama officers’ club (orduevi).

The admission of female students to military academies in 1955 did not significantly alter how officers’ etiquette books addressed the issues outlined above. The first female students (seven in total) graduated from military academies in 1957, but the admission of female students was halted after the 1960 military coup. This practice was resumed in 1992 and has continued without interruption since then (Hürhan Reference Hürhan2016, 1–7; Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinde Bayan Subaylar 1980, 1). However, the number of female students in military academies and, consequently, female officers at various levels within the Turkish military remains very low, and it is hard to claim that their presence has significantly challenged the male-dominated view of etiquette.Footnote ⁶

As officer housing (lojman) became more widespread from the 1960s onward, etiquette texts increasingly incorporated rules for daily life within these residences, including guidance on interactions between junior and senior officers’ families as well as with women (Protokol: Askeri Görgü ve Nezaket Kuralları Reference Öznal2007, 14). Indeed, life in officer quarters broadened the scope of the military profession by bringing officers’ spouses and children into the military community (Şahin Reference Şahin2021, 319).

The strict superior–subordinate dynamics in soldiers’ social lives also have a determining influence on their interactions with women. This is particularly evident in relationships with “officers’ wives” or in interactions between spouses, as reflected in etiquette books for officers. The directives and suggestions in this case thus demonstrate how the idealized rhetoric of politeness in relations with women often remained largely symbolic. For example, military authorities insisted that a form of hierarchy be observed among officers’ wives as well: “military personnel’s wives should show the necessary respect to the wives of superior military personnel in private gatherings and passenger vehicles, regardless of age, and should offer their seat when required” (Oktay and Erdener Reference Oktay and Erdener1995, 21). Moreover, “the fact that the superior’s wife is younger than the subordinate’s wife does not excuse the subordinate from adhering to the rules of politeness” (Protokol ve Görgü Kuralları El Kitabı 1999, 19). In addition to emphasizing that women must understand the “duties of being a military wife,” there is also a warning that women should not “overshadow their husbands by constantly taking the spotlight and speaking too much” (Görgü ve Nezaket Kuralları 2003, 107–108).

Women, namely “officers’ wives,” are constantly advised to remain “reasonable.” Remarkably, an officers’ etiquette book, published as recently as 2007, includes a section called “Clothing for Ladies” advising that “a lady who knows how to dress properly understands the importance of resisting the temptations of fashion” (Protokol: Askeri Görgü ve Nezaket Kuralları Reference Öznal2007, 39). Despite the new regime’s discourse of women’s emancipation, which itself often remained purely rhetorical (Sancar Reference Sancar2022, 15–22), officers’ etiquette books reveal an underlying belief that women’s place in the public sphere has, or ought to have, clear limits.

There were also other boundaries. For example, despite belonging to one of Turkey’s most educated institutions, cadets and young officers often remained shy, inexperienced, and even anxious in their daily interactions with women. For many military students and young officers from modest, provincial, and often conservative backgrounds, the divide between men and women remained pronounced. The etiquette rules for interacting with women often proved impractical for them. For instance, Kenan Evren (Reference Evren1990, 39–40), a 1938 Military Academy graduate and leader of the 1980 coup as Chief of Staff, recalls in his memoirs how, as a high-school student, he was overwhelmed by fear and excitement when the “most beautiful girl from Balıkesir” accidentally touched his arm in a cinema. In another example, Bektaş Tufan Güneş (Reference Güneş1998, 24), a 1976 Military Academy graduate, recalls that the school command’s insistence on “seriousness, maturity, and dignified behavior” meant that cadets were not even allowed to “hold their girlfriends’ hands outside closed spaces in those years.”

Theoretical advice alone usually did little to change deeply ingrained behaviors, especially when reinforced by patriarchal biases. For example, although military personnel are instructed never to address colleagues’ wives as “sister” (abla, bacı) or yenge,Footnote ⁷ the practice of calling each other’s wives yenge apparently persists even among higher-ranking officers (Yazıcıoğlu Reference Yazıcıoğlu2020, 161). This reflects a patriarchal reflex, whereby the term yenge, used in male-to-male interactions to refer to wives, is thought to mitigate sexual tension and promote trust among men by reinforcing women’s subordinate position within the male domain (Eriş Reference Eriş, Çiftci and Bora2021, 26–28).

The officer at the dining table

Another recurring topic is table manners, a theme that extends not only to these texts but to all etiquette books (Reference İşli and İşliİşli 2020a, 25–31). The disproportionate focus on this issue indicates that in its cultural modernization the Turkish military’s primary concern and fear of ridicule lay in adopting a modern dining style. The didactic statement, “Eating is not an easy task,” stands as one of the most fitting expressions of this emphasis (Muzaffer Reference Muzaffer1939, 151). For instance, when Münif Paşa, a nineteenth-century Ottoman statesman and intellectual, asserts that “to understand the degree of a person’s civilization, it is enough to have a meal with him,” he, in fact, implied this very emphasis (quoted by Cevdet Reference Abdullah1927, 7, 37). For military personnel, one of the most succinct expressions of this concern is the saying, “A soldier who does not know how to wield a weapon in battle or a fork and knife at a banquet is no officer” (Hava Kuvvetlerinde Muaşeret Reference Kansu1967, vii; Yaşantımızda Görgü ve Protokol Kuralları n.d., 4).

Expressions such as “The dining table is the finest measure of a civilized man’s manners” illustrate how table manners imposed pressure, turning each meal into a “challenging exam” of social conduct (Kansu Reference Kansu1939, 7). Table manners clearly held particular importance during military school years. For instance, M. Celaleddin Orhan (Reference Orhan2001, 19) recalls that in 1914, when he entered the Naval High School, the school commander, Şevket Bey, took special care with modern table manners and, to better teach the students these rules, invited “the maître d’ of the Tokatlıyan, the most renowned hotel of the time.” Similarly, Sadri Özel (Reference Özel2007, 19), who entered the Işıklar Military High School in 1981, remembers that great importance was given to teaching table manners, noting that many students were unfamiliar with modern dining practices. He remarks that “the number of those who did not know which hand to use for the fork and knife was considerable.”

Although etiquette manuals carefully detailed and idealized Western table manners, their swift and complete internalization was difficult for members of Muslim–Turkish society. For centuries, they had dined with spoons at floor tables, and it was only toward the end of the nineteenth century that they gradually encountered the concepts of dining rooms, dining tables, and even forks (Bozkurt Reference Bozkurt and Özcan2015; Enver Paşa’nın Eşi Naciye Sultan’ın Hatıraları 2023, 21–23; Samancı Reference Samancı2013). Thus, similar to relationships with women, where ingrained behaviors and local customs were not easily replaced by idealized knowledge, officers in matters of table manners often sought a “middle ground,” blending everyday customs with formal rules, or adapting to the situation by using one or the other.

One of such challenging table manners is how to use the knife. The knife, which is consistently emphasized to be held with the right hand, is an essential tool on modern dining tables, especially for meat dishes. Some texts overstress this point, going as far as to warn that “every meal should be eaten with a fork and knife” (Lütfü Reference Lütfü1930, 56). In military schools, there were even commanders who “made the students eat spinach with a knife, just for the sake of training” (Örnek Reference Örnek2017, 91). However, because the right hand holds the knife, the rule that “food is eaten with the left hand, as in all European countries” (Öznal Reference Öznal1992, 178–179) is often cited but proves difficult to follow in a society traditionally accustomed to eating with the right hand. The repeated warnings in etiquette texts suggest that Republican-era officers had difficulty adopting the use of the dining knife and eating with the left hand. Especially for military students from conservative or rural Anatolian backgrounds, the Islamic tradition that emphasizes using the right hand for such actions as eating and handshaking, while reserving the left for “less respectable” tasks (e.g. personal hygiene after using the toilet), likely heightened this difficulty. A frequent compromise seems to have been to use the knife to cut the meat or similar food, then switch the fork back to the right hand to continue eating – a method still widely common in Turkish society today. Yet, the admonition that “it is wrong to abandon the knife and rely solely on the fork” suggests that this approach was not well regarded (Bahriyede Nezaket ve Protokol Kaideleri 1966, 27; Dorman Reference Dorman1951, 74; Kurtbay Reference Kurtbay1991, 92). Nevertheless, due to the ongoing practice of switching the fork to the right hand after using the knife, some flexible texts allow “both methods,” while requiring the knife to be used with the right hand in “formal settings” (Hava Kuvvetlerinde Muaşeret Reference Kansu1967, 127). This flexibility is also found in etiquette texts aimed at the general reader by the end of the twentieth century (Görgü Ansiklopedisi 1980, 52).

This challenge was most evident at dining tables with Western hosts or guests. For example, Selahattin Tanç (Reference Tanç2017, 157–158), who served as Military Attaché in London in 1953, recalls this stress, noting that he struggled with using a fork and knife at dinners with attachés and their families. In a more extreme example, Güngör Türkeli (Reference Türkeli2004, 81), who entered the Air Force Academy in 1956, recalls that he could never get used to the rigidly enforced dining style, which involved the use of fork and knife (which they dubbed the “American Style”), implemented in the school’s cafeteria.

Another point of tension between Western table manners and local customs for Turkish soldiers was bread consumption. In Turkish culinary culture, especially in poor and lower-middle-class households, bread is eaten abundantly. Confronted with Western etiquette, which usually treats bread as secondary and consumed sparingly, soldiers felt pressured to curb this ingrained habit. Thus, even in early etiquette texts for officers, it is noted that, especially at formal tables, “asking for extra bread is impolite” (Reference İşli and İşliİşli 2020b, 70). The warning, “It is rude to eat bread immediately upon sitting at the table,” serves as another reminder to officers who, guided by traditional table habits, might instinctively reach for the bread (Dorman Reference Dorman1951, 73). Warnings like “Bread should not be dipped in sauce” or “Bread should not be bitten whole” are also attempts to curb traditional reflexes in Western dining settings (Muzaffer Reference Muzaffer1939, 154).

This “bread stress,” which grew more intense at lower ranks, was perhaps most acutely felt and remembered during the Turkish military’s deployment to the Korean War (1950–1953). Examples include the shock Turkish soldiers felt on their voyage to Korea aboard an American ship due to the scarcity of bread, their reluctance to ask for bread at various dinners in Korea, and complaints from units about inadequate bread rations (Dora Reference Dora1963, 29–30; Ergüngör Reference Ergüngör1954, 18; Erkmen Reference Erkmen1951, 21; Sayılan Reference Sayılan1996, 116–118; Yalta Reference Yalta2005, 75; Yazıcı Reference Yazıcı1963, 86). As observed from soldiers’ autobiographies, one likely compromise was that, while bread was eaten relatively freely at home, soldiers adhered to Western table manners when dining with Western guests or abroad.

The officer dancing

Early Republican-era texts repeatedly emphasized that officers’ ability to dance in modern style was essential to joining the circle of civilization. “Dances in modern fashion” refer to dance styles deemed respectable in Western societies of the era, especially at more formal events like balls. This form of dancing was considered “a necessity of the new way of life” (Kurtbek Reference Kurtbek1939, 145). Therefore, statements such as “Not knowing how to dance is shameful” (Muzaffer Reference Muzaffer1939, 157) or, more specifically, “Knowing the foxtrot, tango, and waltz is a civilized need” (Savaşçın Reference Savaşçın1938, 20), are examples of the almost excessive importance placed on dance in the early Republican period. This situation represents a distinction from late Ottoman etiquette texts, which regarded dance not as an absolute obligation for the Ottoman man joining “civilized societies,” but as a social convention to which one should be sufficiently familiar in order to handle when necessary (Tunç Yaşar Reference Tunç Yaşar2016, 159).

The military’s strong focus on dance aligned with the new regime’s stance, as dance was almost state endorsed in the early Republic, seen as crucial for Westernization (Öztürkmen Reference Öztürkmen2016, 10). Dance was regarded as a barometer of civilization, a measure of just how refined an officer was. Accordingly, “Officers, as everywhere, must prove at dance gatherings and official balls that they are examples of social progress” (Dorman Reference Dorman1951, 82). Therefore, questions of which dances are appropriate for officers, how to dress for balls and dance gatherings, and especially how to behave toward women, hold a prominent place in etiquette manuals for officers. While dance is promoted as a mark of civilization, officers are also cautioned against “excessive display” on the dance floor, underscoring the importance of bodily self-control. They are expected to choose styles that “reflect their dignity” and to avoid “inappropriate” dances such as the “charleston or rumba” (Muzaffer Reference Muzaffer1939, 128).

The importance that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk attached to dance, evident in his own participation and his urging others to join, is highlighted in the accounts of both his close associates (Altay Reference Altay2022, 378, 382) and the young officers who met him on such occasions (Tanç Reference Tanç2017, 66). This approach reflected the era’s fascination with balls (Cantek Reference Cantek2003, 263–264), seen by the new regime as a “symbol of modernity and civilization” (Kendirci Reference Kendirci2022, 203). As depicted by Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu (Reference Karaosmanoğlu1994, 116) in his famous novel Ankara, balls, where men and women in contemporary Western attire danced to Western music, served key markers of civilization in promoting Western cultural transformation. Spread across both major cities and Anatolian towns, balls were viewed not just as social events, but as a form of “educational activity” on Western-style entertainment (Öztürkmen Reference Öztürkmen2016, 21). Men dancing with women at balls evoked a kind of utopia. In Muslim–Turkish society, where the divide between male and female spaces had been almost impermeable, particularly in entertainment, “these dances symbolized a rare breach of that barrier” (Ural Reference Ural2008, 159–160). This made the etiquette of balls even more significant, as balls were seen as “serious gatherings that required extremely careful and meticulous conduct” (Okçabol Reference Okçabol1940, 74).

The encouragement of officers to dance began as early as their school years. For example, Özden Örnek (Reference Örnek2017, 195) recalls that in the first year at the Naval Academy, class officers encouraged them to dance, mentioning that “since we had our own break room that year, we started a dance lesson program,” where “good dancers taught those who did not know.” Cemal Madanoğlu (Reference Madanoğlu1982, 43) remembers that during the training period before his assignment to the regiment, he and his peers received lessons in manners and dance (“tango, foxtrot, waltz”) after graduating from the Military Academy in 1926. The proliferation of officers’ clubs, where officers socialized and spent leisure time with their families, further reinforced dance’s role as a means of socialization. For example, Neriman Ertem (Reference Ertem2005, 75, 113, 166), whose father and husband were both officers, recalls attending balls at officers’ clubs in places like Devrek, İskenderun, and Adapazarı during the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, noting that they “danced a lot” on many occasions.

Notably, the early Republican regime’s effort to create a “national dance” by modernizing folk dances, as in Selim Sırrı Tarcan’s zeybek, is absent from etiquette manuals. Even though Atatürk supported these projects and even performed the zeybek at a ball in Bursa (Öztürkmen Reference Öztürkmen2016, 23, 37, 123, 127), etiquette texts seem to have avoided mentioning such folk dances, which were meant to embody both national and modern ideals. However, it is also clear that not all officers were equally pleased with the dominance of Western dance styles when exposed to Western etiquette. For example, Ahmet Er (Reference Er2007, 32), a 1950 Military Academy graduate, recalls keeping his distance from Western music and dance as a student and wishing instead to see local and national dances embraced, but finding little support:

Faruk Güventürk (Reference Güventürk1966, 267), who graduated from the Military Academy in 1933, expresses a sharper objection in his etiquette manual, written as advice for the “good commander and staff officer”: “The paths to civilization do not lead through bars, balls, gambling, or jazz, but through schools, universities, laboratories, and virtuous family homes.”

However, from the late 1960s onward, the military’s rigid focus on dance in etiquette texts began to relax. Dance continued to be included in etiquette manuals, but the significance attributed to it seems to have gradually diminished. More notably, dance came to be described less as a symbol of civilization and more as a form of recreation and exercise: “After a tiring day or week, dancing to gentle music in a refined setting relaxes the mind and soothes the nerves, while also loosening muscles and enhancing movement fluidity and grace” (Hava Kuvvetlerinde Muaşeret Reference Kansu1967, 79; Protokol ve Görgü Kuralları El Kitabı 1999, 141). The emphasis on dance in officers’ etiquette texts had further diminished by the late twentieth century. In a 2003 manual, for example, it is only briefly mentioned under “miscellaneous topics” instead of being a separate section (Sosyal Davranış Kuralları ve Protokol 2003, 143–144).