Ottoman Imperial Diplomacy: A Political, Social and Cultural History

By Doğan Gürpınar London and New York: I.B.Tauris, 2014, 350 pages, $99, ISBN ?????????????. Reviewed by Jibreel Delgado

Doğan Gürpınar’s most recent the institution of the Ottoman dip- contribution to Late Ottoman His- lomatic service in the shadow of the tory places the formation of mod- era of the mid-1800s, pro- ern Turkish nationalism not in any viding insight into the social status externally imposed ideology dia- of those involved in international metrically opposed to all that the diplomacy and their consideration Ottoman identity stood for, but of the skill of international rela- rather he finds it emanating from tions as another of the many types the reformist trends within the Ot- of “new knowledge” that Ottoman toman diplomatic service. Gürpınar situates reformers were looking to attain. Through- his study within the new paradigm generated out the following two chapters – “The routine by the work of a generation of historians, “be- of the diplomatic service and its encounters ginning with the avant-guarde study by Rifa’at abroad,” and “The mentalities and disposi- Abou-El-Haj… such as Linda Darling, Ariel tions of the diplomatic service: the great Salzmann, Butrus Abu-Manneh, and Beshara transformation” – the author traces intellec- Doumani” (p. 3). Starting in the 1990s, this tual developments from the Tanzimat genera- paradigm identified the early modern period tion to the generation of the Young Ottomans of the as a time of dyna- in the , the Hamidian mism and complexity, challenging earlier his- reforms, to the time of the and torians who gave a reductionist description Unionists of the Second Constitutional Era of the period as one of total decline and de- and the rise of the Turkish Republic. He does generation. Continuing along these lines, the so, all through the lens of the bureaucrats of current work under review along with Gürpi- the Ottoman Foreign Ministry. In the final nar’s other recent publication, Ottoman/Turk- two chapters – “The European patterns and ish Visions of the Nation, 1860-1950, trace the the Ottoman Foreign Office,” and “Passages of continuities between the early modern period the diplomatic service from the Empire to the and the late 19th to early 20th century. Republic” – Gürpınar argues that the roots of Turkish nationalist identity are to be found The book is divided into seven chapters with within the sociocultural and intellectual ex- an introduction and conclusion. The first changes taking place among Ottoman diplo- three chapters – “Nationalism and the ancient mats and their European counterparts, and regime: politics of the Tanzimat,” “Primacy of that many aspects of the conceptualization of international politics: diplomacy and appro- Ottoman identity that were being developed priation of the ‘new knowledge,’” and “A social in the transformative period of the Tanzi- portrait of the diplomatic service” – examine mat/Hamidian regime were then transferred

2015 Summer 11 BOOK REVIEWS

over into the conception of Turkish national Some critical comments can be offered re- identity. garding statements made by the author like his assertion that in the Hamidian era “for Gürpınar’s argument is explicitly based on the first time, the minds of the general public the idea of continuity between the Ottoman were a matter of concern” (p. 147). While it is Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the late 1800s in the 1860s that the notion of public opinion, and the formulation of Turkish nationalist “efkar-ı umumiye,” dominates the Ottoman values of the early 1900s. The author’s use of political landscape, it should not be assumed Bourdieusian sociological theory is particu- that the notion did not exist in earlier periods larly noteworthy in helping to explain the so- of history albeit in latent form. These kinds cial and cultural habits, tastes, and education of glaring generalizations have the potential that united elites within the Foreign Ministry to lend credence to the reductionist depiction throughout the Hamidian and post-Hamid- of the oriental despot that works like Linda ian eras. Gürpınar’s study is commendable Darling’s 2012 A History of Social Justice and for its structuring of the time period under Political Power in the Middle East: The Circle consideration according to the historical cat- of Justice From Mesopotamia to Globaliza- egory of the generation. The author empha- tion have done much to complicate. It is also sizes the importance of the generation as a important, when subverting old paradigms social and political category for the study of based on false binaries like that of complete the modern period “in which time accelerates rupture between the late Ottoman Empire and the sharp discrepancies between fathers and the Early Turkish Republic, to ensure and sons become insurmountable” (p. 210). that one does not commit the equally egre- The Tanzimat period is divided into three gious error of ignoring the many disconti- generations spearheaded by men like the dip- nuities that mark this transformative period. lomat Mustafa Reşid Pasha and the scholar, Political intrigue and war followed by foreign statesman, and head of the Mecelle commis- occupation of a capital city might certainly sion for the first civil codification of Islamic have altered an otherwise organic transition law, , and culminating to modern forms of administration. with hyper-nationalists like the diplomat Reşid Safvet. The political, military, and edu- Gürpınar’s study is valuable for the reader in- cational reforms initiated by the Tanzimat terested in the relations between nationalism, and Hamidian generations help give birth to the modern state, and secularity outside of the a new generation of educated elites, whom western European context and not framed in Gürpınar refers to as the Unionist generation terms that equate modernization with west- that would be open to ideas of nationalism ernization. The links that Gürpınar is able to and secularity that were influencing younger identify between the aristocratic ethics of the generations throughout Europe at that time. early Ottoman diplomats of the 1860s to the This would be followed by a post-World War concept of modern professionalization that I Kemalist isolationism that was not merely would come to dominate late Ottoman/early a response to concessions resulting from the modern Turkish bureaucracy are particularly war, but was a product of a longer series of insightful and the author’s explanation of the humiliating concessions and setbacks start- effects of political factors upon the Turkish ing at the end of the Russo-Turkish War in elite in terms of generations, such as those of the 1870s. the Tanzimat and Young Turk generations,

12 Insight shines a light on how the latter generation and the misspelling of the word ‘foreign’ as ‘for- its world outlook could have originated from eigh’ on page 241, do not take away from the the former. A few typos here and there, like overall benefit to be gained from this analysis.

A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire

Edited by Ronald Grigor Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, and Norman M. Naimark Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 434 pages + xxii, $33.20, ISBN 9780195393743. Reviewed by Ahmet Gençtürk

The book under review is the from learning about the other side product of the research findings of the controversy. They could have and discussions of the Workshop greatly contributed to this work for Armenian and Turkish Scholar- through their profound knowledge ship (WATS) initiated by a group of and analyses. faculty, including Professors Fatma Müge Göçek, Gerard Libaridian. In his preface to the book under and Ronad Sunny. In addition, they review, Norman Naimark, makes a are also contributors to the book number of incorrect assertions that and graduate students at the University of are surprising coming from a history profes- Michigan, Ann Arbor. They participated in a sor teaching at the prestigious University of series of meetings of the Mellon Foundation Stamford. First, Naimark falsely accuses Tur- Sawyer Seminar on Mass Killing organized key of complicating archival access and in- by Norman Naimark, which was held for over timidating scholars from engaging research six years at Stanford University. on events of 1915 (p. xiii). As a matter of fact, Ottoman Archival Sources, particularly the The book brings fifteen articles together in Irade Collection, Mesail-I Muhimme (Impor- five parts: Histographies of Genocide, On the tant Issues), and the Bab-i Asafi records that Eve of the Catastrophe, Genocide in the Inter- includes Kilise Defterleri (Church Registers) national Context, Genocide in the Local Con- for the years 1869-1921 and Gayri Muslim Ce- text and Continuities. Among the authors are maatlere Ait Defterler (Registers on Non-Mus- four Turkish scholars, some of which refuse lim Communities) for the years 1830-1918 to label the events of 1915 as genocide and are accessible to any scholar, including the prefer the terms of extermination, mass kill- most pro-Armenian ones For instance, Taner ings, demographic engineering, or massacres. Akçam, one of the well-known pro-Armenian However, the absence of prominent schol- Turkish scholar, used sources from the Turk- ars, who are close the Turkish position, such ish State Archives for some of his works. as Hakan Yavuz, Justin McCarthy, Guenter Lewy, Mehmet Perinçek, Heath Lowry, Er- Second Naimark, mentions “Islamic religious man Şahin, and Jeremy Salt prevent readers prejudice against infidels” and Young Turk

2015 Summer 13