当前位置: X-MOL 学术History Compass › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Bringing the imperial back in: Reconsidering governance in the late Ottoman Empire, 1839–1923 (Part II)
History Compass Pub Date : 2021-07-20 , DOI: 10.1111/hic3.12679
Thomas Kuehn 1
Affiliation  

This is the second of two connected articles that survey recent trends in the historical scholarship of Ottoman imperial governance from the beginning of the Tanzimat state building efforts in the 1830s to the end of empire in the early 1920s. In both articles, I examine how historians have answered the question of what was imperial about the ways in which the Ottoman Empire was governed during this period. Throughout this two-part series, I argue that an approach that pays attention to the capacity to govern, as Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper put it, “different people differently” through a broad repertoire of rule balancing this politics of difference with the politics of incorporation, is more conducive to bringing out the complexities of late Ottoman governance than teleological assumptions that consider the empire during this period on a linear path towards the nation state. Part I demonstrated that starting from the 1990s, scholarship on the empire's peripheries in Transjordan, Mount Lebanon, Yemen, and Albania was instrumental in reframing the study of late Ottoman governance by taking its imperial dimensions seriously. In Part II, I will continue this line of inquiry by reviewing pioneering studies that located the politics of difference and incorporation across the empire and not just in its peripheral regions. Here, I will also discuss a body of innovative scholarship that uses the analytical lenses of governmentality, techno-politics, and International Law to shed light on the novel material, logistical, and legal capacities developed by the Ottoman state especially during the Hamidian period. In the final section, I will turn to studies that suggest that practices of Ottoman imperial governance remained relevant for the running of some of the empire's successor states.

中文翻译:

让帝国回归:重新考虑奥斯曼帝国晚期的治理,1839-1923(第二部分)

这是两篇相关文章中的第二篇,这些文章调查了从 1830 年代坦齐马特国家建设努力开始到 1920 年代初期帝国结束的奥斯曼帝国统治历史学术研究的最新趋势。在这两篇文章中,我研究了历史学家如何回答关于奥斯曼帝国在此期间统治方式的帝国问题。在这个由两部分组成的系列文章中,我认为一种关注治理能力的方法,正如 Jane Burbank 和 Frederick Cooper 所说,通过广泛的规则来平衡这种差异政治与成立,比将这一时期的帝国视为走向民族国家的线性路径的目的论假设更有利于带出奥斯曼帝国晚期治理的复杂性。第一部分表明,从 1990 年代开始,关于外约旦、黎巴嫩山、也门和阿尔巴尼亚的帝国外围的学术研究有助于通过认真对待帝国层面来重新构建对晚期奥斯曼统治的研究。在第二部分中,我将通过回顾开创性的研究来继续这条探究路线,这些研究将差异和融合的政治定位于整个帝国,而不仅仅是其外围地区。在这里,我还将讨论一系列创新奖学金,这些奖学金使用政府管理、技术政治和国际法的分析镜头来阐明新颖的材料、后勤、以及奥斯曼国家发展起来的法律能力,尤其是在哈米迪亚时期。在最后一部分,我将转向研究表明,奥斯曼帝国统治的实践仍然与帝国某些继承国的运作相关。
更新日期:2021-08-10
down
wechat
bug