Name an underdog. Name another. Keep going. Now, how many of those underdogs were people or teams? Personally, if I named the first five underdogs that came to my mind, all would be people or sports teams. But this doesn’t give fair consideration to the underdogs that can’t be classified into these two categories. So, who can be an underdog?
Dictionary definitions yield some information. Merriam-Webster defines an underdog as “a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest” (underdog). Though vague, the definition does imply that an underdog should be a person or team, since “loser” is used to describe a person or team in our vernacular, as is a “contest”. So does this definition allow today’s underdog, Turkey, to really be an underdog?
Perhaps, it would help to use an analogy in order to think of a country as a person. A talk show and a talk show host could be underdogs (like Oprah and her former show). A talk show host like Oprah has overcome adversity. And a talk show may be placed on a poor TV channel, yet achieve success. So what if we think of Turkey as this underdog? Turkey’s people, policies, and success (economic and political) can be compared to the show’s producers, style and content, and profits. Success despite neighboring crises is like being on a bad channel. If this TV show and host is an underdog, and Turkey can be related to a show and host like this, then by extension, Turkey can be considered an underdog.
So then let’s examine what makes Turkey an underdog, keeping in mind this analogy of a talk show. To start, Turkey comes from a region in which many nations are struggling. Here's a map of the region (thanks, Google Maps):
The
highest PPP (Purchase Power Parity) ranking of those neighbors (specifically Egypt, Greece, Syria, Libya, Bulgaria, and Georgia) is 27 by Egypt, with the others much
lower (courtesy of CIA Factbook). Furthermore, these nations are facing
political chaos, too. There’s a civil war in Syria, a recent revolution in
Egypt, and widespread protests in Greece. This region is the bad TV channel. Turkey
has faced adversity, but succeeded in this underdog role. The GDP ranking for
the nation is 17. There is a stable democracy. And Turkey has continued to succeed in the current economic recession. So if Turkey overcame the odds, how
did they do it?
To
keep this from becoming a heavy academic journal, I’ve identified what I
believe to be the two biggest reasons for Turkey’s victories, based on this paper from the
University of Michigan.
1) Strong National Identity - After World War I, the struggling Ottoman Empire officially collapsed, forming several new nations. The Turks were left without a land to call their own. The Turks fought the Sultan and external nations for their independence, forming Turkey in 1923 as a republic. This strong national identity has encouraged stability and cohesion in Turkey, producers who see eye to eye.
2) Departure from the Norm – After establishing independence as a republic, Turkey continued to pursue reforms. For one, Turkey used legislation to create a Turkish state and not a religious one, separating church and state, a large departure from the Ottoman Empire. Turkey also pursued economic reforms, bringing about industrialization. Turkey departed from the norm to prosper with the right policies or the show's form and content.
Turkey is clearly an underdog, like a talk show or talk show host. And with the two points above as a guide, we have an idea on how Turkey achieved success. But are these ideas applicable to other underdogs or do they just apply to Turkey? Is this how underdogs win? Or are these ideas gravy, tasty only with the right meal?
I really liked your talk show analogy. Nicely done!
ReplyDeleteIndeed, like a talk show, Turkey has become or is an underdog. I would agree that similar circumstances can be applied to other underdogs,but maybe a third term should be applied. It wasn't only that Turkey established itself as a nation and "departed from the norm", it took steps to make itself successful. I argue that some sort of last term regarding the ability of the underdog to become successful it necessary because underdogs have become not only those who are at a disadvantage, as its definition suggests, but are able to overcome those to become partly, if not wholly, successful.
ReplyDeleteSo, would you argue that success is inherent to being an underdog? For example, if the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" US Olympic hockey team were to lose to the Soviet Union (when the ultimate goal was to beat the Soviet Union), would the team no longer be an underdog, despite other successes? I would thus amend your statement slightly to say that though an underdog needs success, this success must not be complete and needs only be unexpected. Would you agree?
Delete