It was a summer's day in 2016. Unaware of my bias and stereotypes, I went to a religious publishing company in Taksim (Istanbul) to interview a religious conscientious objector, Mehmet. It was Ramadan and it was hot. On my way there, I finished a bottle of water, assuming that he would be fasting, and it would not be appropriate to drink water in front of someone fasting. When I got there, the scene I had pictured in my mind was proved completely wrong. I found him in a shabby music room, smoking and drinking alcohol. From the first moment of the interview, I understood that his religious identity differed from my own understanding of religion. Mehmet's perspective illustrated how a wide range of motivations and beliefs could lead individuals to declare their conscientious objections, while Davut and Gökhan, on the legal side, showed me how the law is a vital tool in the struggle of a social movement aiming to bring about change. They revealed once again the necessity to carry the struggle into the legal arena. And, who could forget Atlas's endless energy, Özlem's constructive anger and Meltem Nur's hope for change?

I finished my fieldwork, having regained my faith in the idea that ‘change is possible’. All the interviewees revealed that conscientious objectors in Turkey, even though they are few in number, provide an intellectually rich and wide perspective on our militarised world. They challenge the social and historical factors contributing to militarism. They seek to raise awareness of how militaries convince youth to be part of their mechanism. Historically, the military persuaded young people to participate by integrating the concepts of ‘nation-in-arms’ and ‘citizensoldier’ into society. These concepts have preserved their validity in contemporary Turkey with the myth of ‘every Turk is born a soldier’, constituting the main concern of the conscientious objectors. Objectors aim to challenge these myths and their predetermined roles. Rather than following the roles assigned to them, they want to (re)shape their place in society themselves. They refuse to adhere to socially constructed norms that grant the TAF a strong position and determine the roles of ‘good citizens’.