2/2008 Gardening the Imperial Subject: Intimate and Collective in the Imperial Space

Некоторые аспекты Османской Governmentalité на местном уровне: судебно-административная сфера области Видин в 1860-х – 1870-х гг.

Сафа Саракоглу

2/2008

Материал публикуется на английском (на английской части сайта)

SUMMARY:

В статье рассматриваются структура и функционирование регионального самоуправления в Османской империи во второй половине XIX века на примере области Видин. Автор анализирует документы, деятельность и состав основных административных органов области. Он показывает, как складывалась уникальная институциональная композиция местной “юридически-административной сферы”, функционировавшей как домен переговоров в рамках “Османской гаверментальности” (автор работает с соответствующей моделью М. Фуко). В статье отвергаются бинарные подходы в духе “метрополия – периферия” или “государство – общество” и реконструируется логика “говерментальности” на локальном уровне в империи. Статья посвящена подробному рассмотрению того, как локальные агенты реализовывали свои стратегии и интересы в рамках “единого правительства государственных чиновников и местных элит”.

Доступ

Оформите подписку, чтобы получить полный доступ к текстам

Оформить подписку

Read in English

Сноски

1.Michel Foucault. The Birth of Biopolitics. // Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth / Paul Rainbow (Ed). New York, 1997. P. 79.↩

2.On the early roots of Ottoman modern state see Rifa‛at Ali Abou-El-Haj. Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. 2nd ed. Syracuse, 2005. Also see n.7 below.↩

3.On the “liberal-capitalist social formation,” see Jürgen Habermas. Legitimation Crisis. Boston, 1975. Pp. 20-21.↩

4.For “politics of administrtation” see Huricihan İslamoğlu. Politics of Administering Property: Law and Statistics in the Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire. // Huricihan İslamoğlu (Ed). Constituting Modernity: Private Property in the East and West. New York, 2004. P. 277, where she points out that “separation of administration from the local or the political detracts from the understanding of the political processes which characterize the legal and administrative constitutions of social reality.”↩

Примечания

[1]Michel Foucault. The Birth of Biopolitics. // Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth / Paul Rainbow (Ed). New York, 1997. P. 79.

[2]On the early roots of Ottoman modern state see Rifa‛at Ali Abou-El-Haj. Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. 2nd ed. Syracuse, 2005. Also see n.7 below.

[3]On the “liberal-capitalist social formation,” see Jürgen Habermas. Legitimation Crisis. Boston, 1975. Pp. 20-21.

[4]For “politics of administrtation” see Huricihan İslamoğlu. Politics of Administering Property: Law and Statistics in the Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire. // Huricihan İslamoğlu (Ed). Constituting Modernity: Private Property in the East and West. New York, 2004. P. 277, where she points out that “separation of administration from the local or the political detracts from the understanding of the political processes which characterize the legal and administrative constitutions of social reality.”

[5]The other two definitions are consistent but not necessarily related to the context of this particular study. See Michel Foucault. Governmentality // G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller (Eds). The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, 1991. Pp. 102-103.

[6]This involves analyzing a wide range of parallel transformations including the gradual replacement of the “millet system” with a somewhat more egalitarian understanding of “Ottomanness” as implied in the Imperial Edicts of 1839 and 1856; the gradual establishment of a per-capita tax system, which necessitated a series of income, population and property surveys in the second half of the nineteenth century; formation of a ministry of health and accompanying preventative health measures; the 1869 educational reforms that aimed to establish a centralized and rationalized school system and the like. Some general studies on these issues are: Kemal Karpat. Millets and Nationality: The Roots of the Incongruity of Nation and State in the Post-Ottoman Era // Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays. Leiden, 2002. Pp. 611-688. Abdüllatif Şener. Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Vergi Sistemi. İstanbul, 1990; Yıldırım, Nuran. Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Koruyucu Sağlık Uygulamaları. // Murat Belge (Ed). Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 5. Pp. 1320-1338. Istanbul, 1985; Benjamin Fortna. Imperial Classroom: Islam, the State, and Education in the Late Ottoman Empire. London, 2002. Milen Petrov’s recent dissertation is arguably one of the best discussions of the impact of such nineteenth century transformations at the local level: Milen V. Petrov. Tanzimat for the Countryside: Midhat Paşa and the Vilayet of Danube, 1864-1868 / Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, 2006.

Ab Imperio

Ab Imperio

Некоторые аспекты Османской Governmentalité на местном уровне: судебно-административная сфера области Видин в 1860-х – 1870-х гг.

Примечания