Downloaded for Personal Non‐Commercial Research Or Study, Without Prior Permission Or Charge
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Akcasu, Ayse Ebru (2017) Non‐Ottomans of Hamidian Istanbul : exiles and expatriates. PhD thesis. SOAS University of London. http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/26671 Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non‐commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this thesis, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", name of the School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination. NON-OTTOMANS OF HAMIDIAN ISTANBUL Exiles and Expatriates AYŞE EBRU AKCASU Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD 2017 Languages and Cultures of the Near and Middle East SOAS, University of London 1 Declaration for SOAS PhD Thesis I have read and understood Regulation 21 of the General and Admissions Regulations for students of the SOAS, University of London concerning plagiarism. I undertake that all the material presented for examination is my own work and has not been written for me, in whole or in part, by any other person. I also undertake that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has been duly acknowledged in the work which I present for examination. Signed: ______________________________ Date: _______________________ 2 Abstract The Hamidian vision of an Ottoman nation revealed itself in the liminal stage of the territorial foreigner, existing between migration and legal assimilation. The national identity synthesis inherited by the State promoted naturalization. This thesis begins with historiographical problems associated with ‘foreigners’ in the Ottoman context (e.g. conflation of sentimental and legal foreigners, and domestic foreignizations). The study then traces the legal evolution of an Ottoman ‘individual,’ challenges ‘exclusivist’ interpretations of the Nationality Law, and evaluates the rationalizing framework’s utility for a national ideology that was expansionist by design. Istanbul is introduced as a lens through which one can observe the manners in which the polycentric State engaged with polynymity, wherein an analogy is discerned for the State’s interaction with citizens, i.e. all were granted social existence, but the State asserted ultimate ownership. The in/visibility of the Great Power foreigner in the city is argued to be relational to his/her home-state marginality. In this context, following an overview of visible foreigners whose versions of the city have become fundamental components of the intertext, this thesis contributes to recent scholarship focusing on nation-negating outcasts seeking alternative belongings through the example of a Great Power female convert who migrated to Istanbul. The final core topic engages with those who have become the decisive examples in debates surrounding the subordination of the Dar-ul- Islam to Ottoman exclusivism. It is argued in this section that the ‘foreigner’ attribute that was designated to non-Ottoman Muslims did not deny eventual belonging. Preventing the proliferation of foreigners was the State’s priority, but it equally sought naturalization over exclusion. This thesis concludes with the argument that the Hamidian regime created a nation but refused to seal it. The act of sealing the nation would have necessitated a transfer of sovereignty. On the other hand, so long as the nation remained unsealed, it could also grow. The Hamidian regime was expansionist and accepted members from Dar-ul-Harb and Dar-ul-Islam, both, for an Ottoman nation-under-formation. 3 Acknowledgements I express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Yorgos Dedes, twice. First, I would like to thank him for his encouragement, feedback, and sense of humor over the course of the last four years: thank you for giving me the opportunity to work with you. Second, I would like to thank him for the patience and dedication with which he teaches the Ottoman language: you have given me access to a wealth of sources, knowledge, and ideas, for which I will always be grateful. Besides my supervisor, I would also like to acknowledge my committee for their contributions to the earlier stages of this project: Konrad Hirschler, for reading and commenting on my draft chapters, and for advising me to present my work, and Wen-Chin Ouyang, for suggested readings on the question of identity. I would like to thank Maziar Behrooz, Jan Blommaert, Sotirios Dimitriadis, and Jitka Maleckova. They were not only so kind for agreeing to read a chapter each on such short notice, but were also generous with their insight and comments, which were very welcome and appreciated. I am also very grateful for Ayşe Kubilay and Stefano Taglia, who have read and provided thoughtful feedback and criticism on the whole thesis. Searching for traces and informants of the foreigners of Istanbul’s past has allowed me to meet individuals whose hospitality and conversation have become pleasant memories of the process. Among them, Çağlar Şavkay, Melih Şabanoğlu, and Turgay Tuna have been especially kind in sharing stories, histories, public and personal archival material, and photographs that have made the former Mekteb-i Sultani a very vivid place in my imagination. I was awakened to new considerations for interpreting the pieces I was gathering when I presented at workshops and conferences, some of which were made possible with funding from SOAS Doctoral School, Royal Historical Society, Anglo- American University, and Faculty of Arts at Charles University, Prague. Memories of the process are additionally tied to friends who shared the same journey, Yakoob Ahmed and Taylan Güngör: among other things, thank you for making me laugh. Finally I would like to thank those without whose love and support nothing could either be, or matter. Ersed Akcasu, thank you for the safety, comfort, support, and reassurance you provided me with for me to be able to follow my passion and dreams. Jacqueline Mahan Akcasu, thank you for motivating me and showering me with endless optimism for whatever I have ever wanted to do, without hesitation, and thank you for always valuing and sharing it with me. Stefano Taglia, thank you for the encouragement, advice, and comfort you have given me from the moment I submitted my application until the moment of handing in, meanwhile you have transformed from a mystery into a vital part of my life. Thank you, especially, for nurturing an affectionate and tranquil environment over the course of the last few months, and for taking the care to make sure I had nothing to do but write and teach. Lastly, I would like to thank Ayşe Kubilay, without whom this would not have been possible. Thank you for being my biggest fan and toughest critic in one, for making my dreams your priority, for inspiring me to be strong, and for always protecting me. Thank you for all that you are and everything you have done, for every selfless sacrifice you have made—there truly are no words. 4 Table of Contents Declaration for SOAS PhD Thesis 2 Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 4 Table of Contents 5 Nation and Migration, the Dialogical Zone 6 Ottomanism and its Nation 7 The Ottoman ‘Violation of the Nationalist Principle’ 16 The Sense of Foreignness versus the Condition of Being a Foreigner 19 The Ambiguity of Ottoman-ness 28 The Sealing of the Nation 38 The Structure of the Thesis 41 Migration in a Rational Framework 47 Contractual Relationships: the Transformation of ‘Subjects into Citizens’ 52 The 1869 Ottoman Nationality Law in a Comparative Perspective 56 The Bifurcation of Official Ottomanism, 1876—1909 75 The City, Incomplete 79 Istanbul, or Constantinople: What’s in a Name? 79 The Polycentric State’s Hegemony over Polycentricism 87 Premodernity: Morphological and Demographical Features 93 The City, Through Foreign Eyes 98 The Golden Horn, a Demarcation between the Faithful and Infidel 100 Cultural Imperialist ‘Colonies,’ the French Example 106 The City, Lived 113 Transcending Borders, Negotiating Identities: the Émigré Woman 117 Great Power Women, Suspended 118 Un-/Civilized Domains: Women of the Metanarrative, and their ‘Others’ 123 Beyond the Text, and in the Flesh: An Elevation through Relocation 137 Out of One Echo Chamber and into Another: Prostitutes and Converts 144 Long Live the King, Long Live My Sultan! The Liverpool – Istanbul Connection 147 From Foreignized Convert to Naturalized Ottoman: A Single Woman in Istanbul 156 Multiple belongings, Long-Distance Nationalism: Iranians 167 The Turco-Iranian Zone: Push, Pull, and Shove 169 Religious “Non-Conformists:” Qajar Heretics to Ottoman Residents 173 Other “Non-Conformists:” Cash-Crops, Famine, and Migration 176 The ‘Islambol’ Pull 183 Political Activism and Long-Distance Nationalism 190 The In/Visible Iranians of Hamidian Istanbul 198 Be Ottoman or Leave? Iranians and the Question of Nationality 201 The Hamidian Vision of a Nation 208 AppendiX 219 Works Cited 220 (Abbreviations for) Archival Sources 220 Newspapers and Periodicals 220 Published Sources 220 5 The Fundamental Law ... Article 8. All individuals who are under the allegiance of the Ottoman state are designated as Ottomans, without exception, irrespective of whichever religion or