The main idea of Selim Deringil's article is to determine how Ottoman Empire, like the Habsburgs and Romanovs, tried to transform itself from a dynastic empire to a modern citizen-based state during the nineteenth century. He mentions the rising prestige of the national idea among these monarchies and how this idea leaded them to create an "empire nationalism". According to Deringil, that was the point when the public image of the state became a necessity to constitute an "Ottoman citizenry". Therefore, as an official nationalism, Ottomanism was promoted. To bring up that concept, Ottoman elites used traditions as an invention for the new necessities of the state.
After French Revolution, monarchies no longer asserted divine rights, instead …show more content…
Deringil mentions, although the Edict of Tanzimat in 1839, provided equality to all Ottomans without regarding their religion or ethnicity, the Ottomanism of Abdulhamid II transformed much more Islamic character but according to Deringil, Abdulhamid's Islamism policies were formed by the concept of national monarchy. He also adds that even expressed in Islamic arguments, Ottoman nationality was established in a rational and secular program. I find Deringil’s argument inadequate at this point because as a person who do not find secular attempts of Ottoman Empire sufficient, this argument isn’t supported with satisfactory and enough examples to persuade me. Because Deringil generally does not prefer to share his own ideas throughout the article, I expected to see really strong argument when he speaks about them, but he rather keep himself in background by passive interventions. On the other hand, he gives several examples on heraldry, state almanac, mosque architecture, official iconography, traditional oriental headgear, official music, commemorative medallions and friday prayer while he argues that the period of modernization is was more like an invention. I prefer such detailed explanations to have enough idea about article if author do not share …show more content…
I also liked his attitude that while using all these complicated materials, he generally doesn't let the reader to miss the general picture. Conceptualization of the Ottoman Empire is another thing I like about Deringil’s article. He always argues Ottoman Empire was not an exotic bird of the nineteenth century. Instead, it should be a part of that world. I think his article is an attempt to put Ottoman Empire in its proper place with the other European dynasties. He thinks Ottomans could be as oppressive as Western powers even towards their subjects. He argues this was a matter of modernization, not being an anti-Western or anti-imperialist. However, it is hard to say he modified ideas to understand the nature of neo-traditions in Ottoman case. As far as has been known, neo-traditions were needed by two kinds of states; national states and colonising administrations. He would have discussed the unique situation of Ottoman state and make a statement in accordance with that. Finally, since tradition is an invention of modernity, it would be better for him to discuss the Ottoman modernization process in
After French Revolution, monarchies no longer asserted divine rights, instead …show more content…
Deringil mentions, although the Edict of Tanzimat in 1839, provided equality to all Ottomans without regarding their religion or ethnicity, the Ottomanism of Abdulhamid II transformed much more Islamic character but according to Deringil, Abdulhamid's Islamism policies were formed by the concept of national monarchy. He also adds that even expressed in Islamic arguments, Ottoman nationality was established in a rational and secular program. I find Deringil’s argument inadequate at this point because as a person who do not find secular attempts of Ottoman Empire sufficient, this argument isn’t supported with satisfactory and enough examples to persuade me. Because Deringil generally does not prefer to share his own ideas throughout the article, I expected to see really strong argument when he speaks about them, but he rather keep himself in background by passive interventions. On the other hand, he gives several examples on heraldry, state almanac, mosque architecture, official iconography, traditional oriental headgear, official music, commemorative medallions and friday prayer while he argues that the period of modernization is was more like an invention. I prefer such detailed explanations to have enough idea about article if author do not share …show more content…
I also liked his attitude that while using all these complicated materials, he generally doesn't let the reader to miss the general picture. Conceptualization of the Ottoman Empire is another thing I like about Deringil’s article. He always argues Ottoman Empire was not an exotic bird of the nineteenth century. Instead, it should be a part of that world. I think his article is an attempt to put Ottoman Empire in its proper place with the other European dynasties. He thinks Ottomans could be as oppressive as Western powers even towards their subjects. He argues this was a matter of modernization, not being an anti-Western or anti-imperialist. However, it is hard to say he modified ideas to understand the nature of neo-traditions in Ottoman case. As far as has been known, neo-traditions were needed by two kinds of states; national states and colonising administrations. He would have discussed the unique situation of Ottoman state and make a statement in accordance with that. Finally, since tradition is an invention of modernity, it would be better for him to discuss the Ottoman modernization process in