A REVIEW of WEBERIAN STUDIES ON THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

Year 2014, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 7 - 18, 08.04.2015

İbrahim Mazman

Abstract

This study examines the secondary literature on Max Weber’s writings on Islam and the Ottoman Empire. It demarcates approaches prevalent in the secondary literature. Three basic themes are apparent: - Section a) concentrates on authors who applied Weber’s concepts of patrimonialism and bureaucracy to non-Ottoman countries, such as Maslovski (on the Soviet bureaucracy) and Eisenberg (on China). - Section b) focuses on authors who studied the Ottoman Empire utilizing non-Weberianabove all Durkheimian and Marxian theories and methods. The studies by Immanuel Wallerstein (world systems theory) and his Turkish colleagues on the Ottoman Empire, as well as the neo-Marxian writings of Perry Anderson and Barrington Moore, will be evaluated. Studies on the Ottoman Empire and its socio-political transformation indebted to Durkheim (S. N. Eisendtadt, Ziya Gökalp, and Niyazi Berkes) will be discussed. - Section c) concentrates on authors who studied the Ottoman Empire using Weber’s terminology and concepts, such as Haim Gerber, Halil Inalcik, and Şerif Mardin

Keywords

Max Weber, Ottoman Empire, Ottoman Studies, patrimonialism, bureaucracy

OSMANLI İMPARATORLUĞU ÜZERİNE YAPILAN WEBERYAN ÇALIŞMALARIN GENEL BİR DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Abstract

Bu makale Max Weber’in (1864-1920) İslam ve Osmanlı İmparatorluğu üzerine yaptığı çalışmalar hakkındaki ikincil yazını konu almaktadır. İkincil yazın içerisinde yaygın olan yaklaşımları analiz etmektedir. Bu temel yaklaşımlar şunlardır: Bölüm a) Max Weber’in patrimoniyalizm ve bürokrasi gibi kavramlarını Osmanlı dışındaki ülkelere uygulayan yazarlara odaklanmaktadır, örneğin Sovyet bürokrasisi üzerine yazan Maslovski ve Çin üzerine yazan Eisenberg gibi. Bölüm b) Weberci olmayan-özellikle Durkheim ve Marx eğilimli kuram ve yöntemleri
kullanarak Osmanlı İmparatorluğunu çalışan yazarlara odaklanmaktadır. Immanuel Wallerstein’ın (dünya sistemleri kuramı) ve onun Türkiye’den çalışma arkadaşlarının Osmanlı İmparatorluğu üzerine çalışmaları ve Perry Anderson ve Barrington Moore’un neo-Marxian yazıları değerlendirilecektir. Emile Durkheim’dan esinlenerek Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun sosyo-politik dönüşümü üzerine yapılan (S. N. Eisendtadt, Ziya Gökalp ve Niyazi Berkes) çalışmalar tartışılacaktır. Bölüm c) Weber’in terminoloji ve kavramlarını kullanarak Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nu çalışan, örneğin Haim Gerber, Halil İnalcık ve Şerif Mardin gibi yazarlara odaklanmaktadır. 

Keywords

Max Weber, patrimoniyalizm, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, Osmanlı çalışmaları, bürokrasi

References

• ANDERSON, Perry. Lineages of the Absolutist State. London: Verso, 1979.
• ANDERSON, Perry, Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism. London: Verso, 1996.
• BERKES, Niyazi. The Development of Secularism in Turkey. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1964.
• EATON, Richard M. “Islamization in Late Medieval Bengal: The Relevance of Max Weber.” In Max Weber and Islam. Ed. Toby Huff and Wolfgang Schluchter. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1999: 163-82.
• EISENBERG, Andrew. “Weberian Patrimonialism and Imperial Chinese History.” Theory and Society 27 (1998): 83-102
• EISENSTADT, S.Noah. The Political Systems of Empires. London: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963.
• EISENSTADT, S.Noah, “Weber’s Analysis of Islam and the Specific Pattern of Islamic Civilization.” In Max Weber and Islam. Ed. Toby Huff and Wolfgang Schluchter. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1999: 273 - 94.
• GERBER, Haim. State, Society, and Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1994.
• GÖKALP, Ziya. The Principles of Turkism. Tr. (from Turkish) Robert Devereux. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968.
• HAMILTON, Gary, G. “Patriarchalism in Imperial China and Western Europe-A Revision of Weber’s Sociology of Domination.” Theory and Society 13 (1984): 393-425.
• HARDY, Peter. “Max Weber and the Patrimonial Empire in Islam: The Mughal Case.” In Max Weber and Islam. Ed. Toby Huff and Wolfgang Schluchter. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1999: 183-204.
• İNALCIK, Halil, “Comments on ‘Sultanism’: Max Weber’s Typification of the
• Ottoman Polity.” Princeton Papers in Near Eastern Studies 1 (1992): 49-72.
• ISLAMOGLU-INAN, Huri, ed. The Ottoman Empire and the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
• MANN, Michael. The Sources of Social Power: A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D.1760 (vol. 1). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
• MANN, Michael, The Sources of Social Power: The Rise of Classes and Nation- States, 1760-1914, (vol. 2). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
• MARDIN, Şerif. The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought: A Study in the Modernization of Turkish Political Ideas. Princeton, N. J: Princeton University Press, 1962.
• MARDIN, Şerif, Religion and Social Change in Modern Turkey: The Case of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. Albany: State University of New York, 1989.
• MASLOVSKI, Michail. “Max Weber’s Concept of Patrimonialism and the Soviet System.” The Sociological Review 44 (1996): 294-308.
• MOORE, Barrington Jr. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966.
• SKOCPOL, Theda, ed. Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire], New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
• TURNER, Bryan S. Weber and Islam: A Critical Study. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974.
• WALLERSTEIN, Immanuel & Decdeli, Hale & Kasaba, Reşat. “The Incorporation of the Ottoman Empire in the World Economy.” In the Ottoman Empire and the World Economy. Ed. Huri Islamoglu-Inan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987: 88-97.
• WEBER, Max, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, Ed. G. Roth and C. Wittich. Tr. Ephraim Fischoff [and others]. New York: Bedminster Press, 1968.
• WEBER, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Tr. Stephen Kalberg. Los Angeles, California: Roxbury Pub. Co., 2002.