Research:
My research is located within the fields of
comparative, historical and political sociology, with special attention to the
structure of state-“society” relations. My research areas span from the rise of
the Ottoman and Habsburg empires to the end of these empires in the late 19th
and 20th centuries, and nation building in their aftermath.
At the intersection of these themes and areas, I
specifically concentrate on the following substantive issues:
a-
comparative study of imperial state-formation and imperial decline,
Comparative Study of Imperial State Formation and Imperial Decline
My first book,
Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization
(Cornell University Press, 1994) examines the manner in which the Ottoman state
centralized, bargaining with different elements in society to consolidate
control over its territory. The original puzzle for this method of
centralization came out of a comparison with the European (especially the
French) model of state centralization, which emphasized the wide gap between
state and society, and the numerous peasant movements that ensued from
centralization. The Ottoman Empire did not fit that pattern.
It never centralized by creating a large break between
state and society, and also did not experience peasant rebellions. The major
social upheaval, banditry, was the result of the state's own policy of
demilitarization after wars, and did not threaten the state as such.
Banditry created by the state was also quickly
incorporated into the state through bargains. The case then presented an
alternative method of centralization, through bargaining and incorporation, a
method that the Russians used with their Cossack bands at the edges of their
territory. I placed the Ottoman mode into such comparative work, presenting not
only its implications, but also extending the theory of state formation in
sociology.
“Rebellious Alliances: The State and Peasant Unrest in Early 17th Century France
and
the Ottoman Empire,”
American Sociological Review, 56
(December 1991), pp. 699-715.
“
“Changing Modalities of Empire: A Comparative Study of the Ottoman and Habsburg
Decline,” in
Empire to Nation eds, Joseph W. Esherick and Hasan Kayali
(London, Rowan and Littlefield, 2006).
“Hegemonic Rise and Decline in Comparative Perspective: Lessons from the Early
20th
Century,” in
Hegemonic Declines: Past and Present eds., Jonathan
Friedman and Christopher Chase-Dunn Paradigm Press, Boulder Colorado. (September
2004).
Social
Organization of Empire in Comparative Perspective
In my new book, Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective, (Cambridge University Press, 2008) I provide a comparative study of imperial organization and longevity that assesses Ottoman successes as well as failures against those of other empires with similar characteristics. I examine the Ottoman Empire’s social organization and mechanisms of rule at key moments of its history, emergence, imperial institutionalization, remodeling and transition to nation-state, revealing how the empire managed these moments, adapted, averted crises and what changes made it transform dramatically. The flexible techniques by which the Ottomans maintained their legitimacy, the cooperation of their diverse elites both at the center and in the provinces, as well as their control over economic and human resources were responsible for the longevity of this particular “negotiated empire.” This analysis illuminates topics that include imperial governance, imperial institutions, imperial diversity and multiculturalism, the manner in which dissent is handled and/or internalized, and the nature of state society negotiations.
The following are the two ego networks that I have used in Empire of Difference, to demonstrate the networks of the first two sultans of the Ottoman empire, Osman and Orhan.
Relevant articles:
“In Different Times: Scheduling and Social Control in the Ottoman Empire,
1550-1650,”
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 38: 3 (1996).
2008 “Comparisons Across Empires: The Critical
Social Structures of the Ottomans, Russians and Habsburgs,” (with Rudi Batzell)
in Empires in Contention: Sociology, History and
Cultural Difference, eds. P.F. Bang and C.A. Bayly. In
press.
Diversity: Religion,
Ethnicity and Nationalism
In each of the projects, the issue of diversity, religious,
ethnic and national difference has emerged to be resolved in the context of
empire as well as nation-states. While empire has been characterized by the
acceptance and accomodation of difference, the nation-state has striven for a
more homogenous national ideal. In many articles, I have explored the question
of diversity in empire, its acceptance, toleration and incorporation into the
imperial polity. I have also explored the manner in which diversity becomes a
threat en route from empire to nation-state, sometimes forcing the path to
ethnic and religious violence. One project, “Empire and Toleration” tries to
understand the circumstances under which imperial states choose to tolerate or
persecute their diverse populations, and the movement from one type of policy to
another.
Relevant articles:
“Empire and Toleration: A Comparative Study of Habsburg and
Ottoman Imperial Religious Policies ” is under preparation.
Thinking about religion
and tolerance, I have also become very interested in the role of Islam in the
Ottoman empire, and the continuities between Ottoman Islam and the modern
Turkish Republican revival of Islamic politics. This project, “Religion and
Politics in the Lands of the Ottomans” explores the manner in which religion and
politics were fashioned in the imperial setting and the manner in which the
relation between the two was transformed with the changing circumstances of the
empire. I make an organizational argument showing the manner in which Islam was
embedded into the structure of Ottoman society, the manner in which it was
constrained by state institutions that forced a certain negotiation between
religion and politics consequential to imperial relations. Parts of this
argument are also explored in a book project I am engaged in, entitled:
Alternative Routes to State Transformation: A Relational
Approach to Politics, Culture and Society in Japan, China and Turkey.
This book is co-authored with Eiko Ikegami (New
School for Social Research) and R. Bin Wong (UCLA).