In the analysis of great social transformations, when the objective determinations surrounding subjects are ignored or pushed into the background, historical explanation arises merely out of the results of the will and practices of certain groups or individuals whose acts are supposedly beyond objective constraints to a large extent. In such explanations, focusing solely on successes, failures, virtuousness and evilness of the subjects in question, history is reduced to contingent acts of historical agencies. However, in the thesis of strong state tradition, which is largely dominant in the literature about the Ottoman-Turkish modernization, subjects are presented as carriers of a state tradition, which is claimed to be inherited from the Ottoman Empire. It is claimed that under the rule of the Unionists, who took over the legacy of state tradition, and their successors Kemalists, civil society and intermediate strata were excluded from political processes and their development and further flourishing were prevented to a great extent. Thus, it is maintained that the historical development trajectory of the country was determined by a revolution from above conducted by the military and civilian bureaucrats who took over the Ottoman state tradition. This explanation does not appear to be an example of subject-centered historiography since it links the will and practices of subjects to an essence (strong state tradition) that comes from the depths of centuries. However, this appearance is misleading. In the thesis of strong state tradition -aside from all empirical and other methodological problems involved in the historical data on which this thesis is based-, as a general rule, the historical movement advances through the decisions and actions of certain subjects since the notion of “state tradition” essentially serves a trampoline throwing subjects out of objective determinations. This thesis, in fact, reproduces subject-centered historiography in a gradual way with its notion of “state tradition” functioning as an intermediate stage in its reproduction of this historiographical form. Furthermore, this is an inevitable result of its methodology. Referring to superficial similarities supposedly existing between different phenomena, the thesis of strong state tradition postulates an inner connection between them without ever attempting at explaining in concrete terms how this connection exists. In a concrete analysis, the factor of ‘Ottoman state tradition’ remains as a presumption that cannot be concretely included in the research plan. Since the notion of state tradition fails to explain any historical development concretely, the will and practices of subjects necessarily becomes the main source of historical explanation. Consequently, in the studies following the premises of the strong state tradition school, the analysis of Ottoman-Turkish modernization virtually always ends up being a mere critique of the thoughts and acts of the subjects. However, the analysis of modernization in Turkey needs to move beyond the exaltation or criticism of the Young Turks, the Unionists and Kemalists. Such an analysis requires reducing subjects to footnotes vis-à-vis objective determinations.