Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi / The Journal of International Social Research Cilt: 12 Sayı: 63 Nisan 2019 www.sosyalarastirmalar.com Volume: 12 Issue: 63 April 2019 Issn: 1307-9581 Doi Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2019.3228 BYZANTIUM ASCRIBED AS THE "OTHER" IN PRIMARY SCHOOL HISTORY TEXTBOOKS IN LATE PERIOD OF OTTOMAN EMPIRE İrfan Davut ÇAM  Abdullah MARTAL  Abstract The purpose of this study is to show in which contexts the Byzantium Empire is handled in primary school history textbooks in late period of Ottoman Empire, which kind of negative ascriptions it was targeted with, or how it was ascribed as the "other". Unravelling significant findings regarding the image of Byzantium in late period of Ottoman Empire when important transformations occurred in regard of identity construction, this study also endeavours to cast a light on the meanings and missions ascribed to the concept of "us". Designed as a qualitative research towards this purpose, the primary material of the study consists of history textbooks prepared for use in primary schools of the period in question. 15 of these books were chosen. Criteria for this selection included the books in question being prepared in accord with the curriculum in force at the time as well as being approved by the Ministry of Education. Document analysis method was employed to collect data related to the subject of the study from these textbooks. Collected data were analysed with the content analysis technique. According to the results construed from these data the Byzantium Empire was not a subject of history textbooks in all its aspects. It was brought under attention in the context of Islam and especially in the context of Turkish history, but therein it was attributed with negative qualities in various ways and ascribed as the "other". Keywords: Late Period of Ottoman Empire, Primary School, History Textbooks and Byzantium. 1. Introduction 1.1. A Theoretic Assessment on "Us" and the "Other" Ideology remains one of the fundamental concept on which definitional agreement could not be established in social sciences. This concept was formulised differently by Antoine Destutt de Tracy, Karl Marx, V.İ. Lenin, A. Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Max Weber and many others since its initial suggestion, and it was brought into light in regard of various functions. One of these functions relate to identity. In other words, ideology has the function to develop unity, solidarity and consensus between members of a social group and to build an identity in this framework (Gutek, 2014, 178). This function was brought to like in schools, common and formal educational institution, especially in textbooks prepared in accord with an official curriculum. As sources which determine the lines of "legitimate knowledge" and convey and reproduce this knowledge at each use, textbooks are loaded with various messages for the people they address directly with their covers, the images they contain, the language they use and the subjects they include or exclude. Through these messages the textbooks constitute sources which display the codes of dominant and normal discourse in a country, determining which subjects can be discussed and which subjects are relegated as taboo only. More importantly, as one of the fundamental sources telling the "official story" of a social group, the textbooks provide a narration of the members comprising the social group, the history of the social group, the current position of the social group and finally the future vision of the social group. In other words, the textbooks position the state and the society in the historical context and create an awareness of membership/belonging, i.e. a concept of "us" (Çayır, 2014, 1, 9). The purpose of constructing a concept of "us" is to create individuals who think the same way, who holds similar values, and who display common attitudes and behaviours. Display of the ideas, values, attitudes and behaviours in question is aimed to sustain existence in the lines drawn by the dominant discourse. As a matter fact, only those who accept being part of "us" can remain in these lines and are generously rewarded by the dominant power. Otherwise they are marginalised as the "other" and face being deprived from many rights. In this framework, ideology is not only a way of representing "us", but also a way of representing the "other" which gives meaning to the foregoing (Parlak, 2005, 84; Dijk, 2015, 28). In this context, teaching the concept of "us" is not sufficient on its own in construction of an identity. It must also be clarified who and what is the "other". As a matter of fact, it is not possible to discuss identity or social groups in a society where the concept of "us" exists, but the concept of the "other" does not (Tekeli, 2015, 2).  Res. Assist., Ondokuz Mayıs University, Faculty of Education, Department of History Education, (irfan.cam@omu.edu.tr).  Prof. Dr., Dokuz Eylul University, Faculty of Education, Department of History Education, (abdullah.martal@deu.edu.tr).