Ana içeriğe atla

Stratification Systems of the Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Turkey

   The Ottoman Empire was founded in 14th century and it stood until early 1990s.  All economic activities of Ottoman Empire resisted on farming, regional government tax and spoils of war as all empire states in the world before industrial revolution emerged. If we point industrial revolution as breaking point, we should emphasize the stratification system of Ottoman before industrial revolution to understand changes in European new society and late Ottoman period and new Turkish Republic  society.

    Ottoman Empire that used to lie on East Europe has always been in an interaction with Europe. However when it comes to government, there have been ocular differences between Ottoman and Europe. Ottoman government was based on central government. All decisions were sentenced from center-palace as well as 'sultan'. Every autonomus province were dependent on the center. Otherwise, the central government was partly shared with bourgeoisie and monarch in Europe. This bourgeoisie class located in the upper layer of the social class and accounted feodal government. The reason of the lack of such social stratification and social classes in the Ottoman Empire is Islamic society and sense of ownership. State was against capitalisation as well as against stratification which based on domination. To hold land ownership in the hand of the state, prevented the collection of capital in certain hands. This was the most important motive to prevent western type of stratification in Ottoman. Thus, it is stunted to possible forces that could affect the political power of big capital owners, nobles and formation of such forces. An important distinction of social stratification in the Ottoman Empire was ruled-managed separation. Military were the ruler and villagers were the managed.  This distinction lied on financial concerns and religious discrimination was in the form of Muslim and non-Muslim. Legal distinction was free-slave seperation. As Weber said, social stratification was originated from economic stratification as in Ottoman society, bureaucrats were wealthier than villagers and even non-Muslim merchants. State lands are cultivated by villagers and center got reports and collected taxes from villagers via timar holders. While this system consisting in Ottoman Empire society, european kingdoms' state structures especially Britain state structures resisted on 'participation', in other words 'slight influence' of feodalism into the government. This infleunce took a big place in industrial revolution.

    In the period until 1769, economic activities were collected on two main stream in Europe: agriculture and commerce. Until that date, the main factors of economic life were; members of the guild, the peasants and the merchants. There was not any worker. Industrial capital was not on the economic stage. Wealth was not something that emerged thanks to producing something but trade, transportation, or borrowing money. To understand reasons for the start of the industrial revolution, it is needed to examine differences between Britiain and other European countries.The first of these reasons is that, Britain was more rich than others. A century with discoveries, slave trading, piracy, trade, and wars has become Britain world's richest state. UK wealth was not only in the hands of nobles. Second, the United Kingdom's feudal society had a great effort for a successful transition to commercial society. England rulers chose the path of moral demands rather than oppose market economy even there has been conflict of interests between the old force which based on soil and the new force which based on money. Third is that, the UK is a land which in the field of science and engineering studies  finds the greatest support and encouragement. However, source of all these factors into action was that there is a group of new people in the field of economics. On the other hand, one of the most important dynamics of the industrial revolution is invention of steam-machine. In 1763, James Watt found steam machine in Scotland. This event is accepted as the start point of industrial revolution in literature.

    In 20th century while these developments shaping the new industrial age, Ottoman has reached its' last period and began to lose its' own strategical and political power. A new military elitist group has influenced the Anatolia with a new republican modernist thought stream after I.World War. Mustafa Kemal and his collagues from the army proclaimed the republic in 1923 and started to work to establish a modern republician society. To transform a new centralized state structure, the council was formed after the announcement of republic. Centralization of Turkish Republic was more difficult because there was feodal forces in Anatolia. Sheikh Said rebellion was a great example of this feudal forces.This elitist governence tried to create a new constructed society under the name of modernization by taking West as sample and regarding to this, bourgeoise class was generated in early Rebuplic period. Republician government didn't want any other forces that may influence the process of social transformation project while they were generating a new economic system and bourgeoise class and they did not let the state losing importance in national economy by regulating capital tax to non-muslim merchants. In this context, the first ''Five Year Industry Plan'' has been declared by the government in 1934 and decided to establishment of twenty various branches of the new factories by government. This new industrialization brought new social classes and natioanal economic order that undercontrolled by state. To create a state-sponsored bourgeois class have prevented the emerging of small or medium-sized enterprises. Under these circumstances, bureaucrats were still in the top layer of social classes. With establishments of state-sponsored factories, workers class had begun to emerge in the late half of 20th century. Conflicts between social classes began after gradually evident of social classes. Bureaucrat who was living in the city, a small number of  industrialists, peasants and worker classes began to form in mid 1940's. However, emergence of social movements and political groups delayed because of the identification of the individual with society and idenfication of the society with nation. Turkish Republic's modernist society architects wanted to restructure community to a single nation. Therefore, the unregular formation of social classes was ill-concieved for 27 years of the republic's first and single-party, as well as ''republician people's party'' (CHP)' s interests. Because the formation of social classes meant the formation of different ethnicities, social mobility and the emergence of different political groups that can be a set of modernization.

    Wheras, one-party regime was abonded and Democrat Party(DP) participated in the elections. DP was the first populist party by typify worker and villager class but not bureaucrats in contrast to CHP. Although state control on economy became lighter after Democrat Party was coming to power alone in 1950, there wasn't any major changes in economy but in social structure. After transition to the multi-party regime, Turkey to open up the world and began to feel more the effects of new movements of thought in social life. Rural depopulation has increased and classes became visible. If we compare the new stratification system after the proloclamation of the republic and after the multi-party regime, we would say that there was  more prominent social classes after mid-20th century. 

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Kentlerde Merkezler ve Alt Merkezler; Bir Alt Merkez Olarak Fatih Çarşamba

       Kentli olmak, kentin içinde varolabilmek yaşadığı yeri tanımlamaya, kimliklendirmeye ve dönüştürülmesine katkıda bulunmaktır. Kişi yaşadığı yerden dolayımlanarak kendini tarif eder, tanır[1] Bir kent okuması yaparken o kentin içindeki farklı alanları farklı metinlerle okuyabiliriz. Her bir mekan kendi gramerini oluşturur ve bir şekilde kentin herhangi bir alanında tecihen veya mecburen yaşayan birey ve/veya gruplar orayı içselleştirmek ve oranın algısal haritasını kendine göre yorumlamak ister.[Funda Şenol L, 1998] Kentte yaşayan insanların yaşam alanlarının mahiyeti yine kendileri tarafından atfedilmektedir. Bu durum, kentin devamlılık içinde olan çatışma(conflict) simgesini ve insanların tarih boyu ürettiği ne varsa hepsinin içinde yığılmış halde bulunan bir ''kent'' in ne olduğunu simgeler.[Augé, 1995:139] Sosyologlar ''kent fotoğraflarını'' yorumlamak için bireylerin/grupların gözünden mahallȋ çıkarımlar yaparak okumaları kentin içindeki ...

Devletin Propaganda Araçları; Ders Kitapları

     Türkiye 'de ders kitaplarının demokrasi, insan hakları ve ayrımcılık gibi kavramlar üzerinden incelenmesi ve kitapların bu kavramlar dahilinde düzenlenmeye başlaması Türkiye' ye ait değerlerin, kalıpyargıların ve mitlerin de yeniden tartışılmasına yol açmıştır. Evrensel hukuk kuralları dahilinde ele alınan demokrasi, insan hakları ve ayrımcılıkla ilgili tartışmalar birbirleriyle kesişen kümeler gibilerdir ve birbirlerinden bağımsız olarak tek başına tartışılamazlar. Türkiye' nin bu 3 temel kavram konusunda geri kalmışlığı yadsınamaz ve ayrıca bir tartışma konusu olarak ele alınabilir. Ancak cumhuriyet' ten sonraki süreçte devletin ideoljik aygıtları olarak kullanılan ders kitapları Türkiye'de yetişen yeni nesilleri ideolojik olarak şekillendirme üzerine tasarlanmıştır.        Bugüne kadar devlet aygıtları tarafından uygulanan politikların meşrulaştırılması ve sorgulanamaz hale gelmesinde eğtimin payı oldukça fazladır. Cumhuriyet' le birlikte ...

Halkın Dini - Devletin Dini

Popüler kavramının dinsel yaşam içinde ne şekilde yer tuttuğuna bakacak olursak karşımıza popüler kültüre nüfuz eden dinselliği ve onu karşısında duran resmi olgularla şekillenmiş kurumları görüyoruz. Bu resmi kurumların, altında çatıyı kaldırdığımız zaman kurumsallaşmış yapıların yanında halk katmanlarının yorumu vardır. Bu yorumlar geniş kitlelere hitap ettiği için de ''popüler'' tanımını almıştır. Resmi olan karşısında popüler dini içsel dinamizmden yoksun, dinselliği yanlış kavranmış, eksiltilmiş, saflığını bozmuş olarak algılamak onu bir dinsel formasyon olarak kavramayı zorlaştırmıştır. Sözlü, resmi olmayan kitabı olmayan dinsellikle yani popüler dinle resmi, kitabi, seçkin din arasında bir karşıtlık, diyalektik bir ilişki vardır. Bunun sonucunda resmi olan ''büyük'' kültürle popüler olan ''küçük'' arasında her zaman yukarıdan aşağıya doğru bir ilişki olmamıştır. ''Küçük'' kültürün ''büyük'' kültü...