阿维·鲁宾,《奥斯曼法治与现代政治审判:Yıldız案》。纽约州雪城:雪城大学出版社,2018,xvii+226页。

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES
Burak Onaran
{"title":"阿维·鲁宾,《奥斯曼法治与现代政治审判:Yıldız案》。纽约州雪城:雪城大学出版社,2018,xvii+226页。","authors":"Burak Onaran","doi":"10.1017/npt.2021.22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"which scholars and politicians Yavuz is referring to. Moreover, the fact that the term does not have an established Turkish translation equivalent calls for elaboration. I also find it difficult to believe that Ziya Gökalp was “one of Atatürk’s right-hand men” (p. 41). The Turkish War of Independence lasted until 1922 and Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk from 1934) was primarily a military leader up until then. Gökalp died in 1924, before the socially transformative reforms of the Turkish Republic were initiated. His writings may have been influential, but Gökalp was hardly Atatürk’s right-hand man. More egregious than the varying quality of factual claims is the overall framing of the work. The post-Kemalist take that was refreshing in the early 2000s appears stale when used in 2020. Perhaps it is because the party that its political version fostered has grown authoritarian, but more pertinently the scholarly version has run out of analytical purchase. If I were to be unkind, Nostalgia for Empire is a scholarly counterpart to those books and think pieces where American journalists go to “fly-over country” to interview Trump supporters in diners, essentializing “the real America” and buying/reproducing a particular narrative of where that America is (in Kansas) and what it wants (“make America great again”). The difficulty is that the resulting analysis is not only analytically problematic, but at the same time it is the legitimizing discourse of a particularly nasty political current. This review could have been the equivalent of a music fan claiming “I liked his early work better.” But the problem runs deeper. Like the “Trump voter in diner” genre, Nostalgia for Empire turns the sources’ political narrative into its own scholarly analysis. Despite extensive criticism of Erdoğan and Ahmet Davutoğlu, the book reads as an apologia for imperial nostalgia and for the post-Kemalist political project as much as an analysis of it.","PeriodicalId":45032,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives on Turkey","volume":"65 1","pages":"137 - 141"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Avi Rubin, Ottoman Rule of Law and the Modern Political Trial: The Yıldız Case. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2018, xviii + 226 pages.\",\"authors\":\"Burak Onaran\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/npt.2021.22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"which scholars and politicians Yavuz is referring to. Moreover, the fact that the term does not have an established Turkish translation equivalent calls for elaboration. I also find it difficult to believe that Ziya Gökalp was “one of Atatürk’s right-hand men” (p. 41). The Turkish War of Independence lasted until 1922 and Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk from 1934) was primarily a military leader up until then. Gökalp died in 1924, before the socially transformative reforms of the Turkish Republic were initiated. His writings may have been influential, but Gökalp was hardly Atatürk’s right-hand man. More egregious than the varying quality of factual claims is the overall framing of the work. The post-Kemalist take that was refreshing in the early 2000s appears stale when used in 2020. Perhaps it is because the party that its political version fostered has grown authoritarian, but more pertinently the scholarly version has run out of analytical purchase. If I were to be unkind, Nostalgia for Empire is a scholarly counterpart to those books and think pieces where American journalists go to “fly-over country” to interview Trump supporters in diners, essentializing “the real America” and buying/reproducing a particular narrative of where that America is (in Kansas) and what it wants (“make America great again”). The difficulty is that the resulting analysis is not only analytically problematic, but at the same time it is the legitimizing discourse of a particularly nasty political current. This review could have been the equivalent of a music fan claiming “I liked his early work better.” But the problem runs deeper. Like the “Trump voter in diner” genre, Nostalgia for Empire turns the sources’ political narrative into its own scholarly analysis. Despite extensive criticism of Erdoğan and Ahmet Davutoğlu, the book reads as an apologia for imperial nostalgia and for the post-Kemalist political project as much as an analysis of it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Perspectives on Turkey\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"137 - 141\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Perspectives on Turkey\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2021.22\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Perspectives on Turkey","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2021.22","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Yavuz所指的是学者和政治家。此外,该术语没有一个既定的土耳其语翻译,这一事实需要详细说明。我也很难相信Ziya Gökalp是“atat的得力助手之一”(第41页)。土耳其独立战争一直持续到1922年,在此之前,穆斯塔法·凯末尔主要是一名军事领袖。Gökalp死于1924年,当时土耳其共和国的社会变革尚未开始。他的作品可能有影响力,但Gökalp并不是atat rk的得力助手。比事实主张的质量参差不齐更令人震惊的是这项工作的整体框架。在21世纪初令人耳目一新的后凯末尔主义观点,在2020年使用起来就显得陈腐了。也许是因为它的政治版本培育的政党已经变得专制,但更确切地说,学术版本已经失去了分析的价值。如果要我说句刻薄的话,《怀旧帝国》是一本与这些书相对应的学术书籍,它认为美国记者去“飞越国家”采访特朗普的支持者,将“真正的美国”本质化,并购买/复制一种特定的叙事,即美国在哪里(在堪萨斯州),它想要什么(“让美国再次伟大”)。困难在于,由此产生的分析不仅在分析上存在问题,同时,它也是一种特别恶劣的政治潮流的合法化话语。这篇评论就相当于一个乐迷说:“我更喜欢他早期的作品。”但问题更深层次。就像“特朗普在餐厅里的选民”类型一样,《怀旧帝国》将消息来源的政治叙事变成了自己的学术分析。尽管对Erdoğan和艾哈迈德Davutoğlu进行了广泛的批评,但这本书读起来既是对帝国怀旧的辩解,也是对后凯末尔主义政治计划的分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Avi Rubin, Ottoman Rule of Law and the Modern Political Trial: The Yıldız Case. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2018, xviii + 226 pages.
which scholars and politicians Yavuz is referring to. Moreover, the fact that the term does not have an established Turkish translation equivalent calls for elaboration. I also find it difficult to believe that Ziya Gökalp was “one of Atatürk’s right-hand men” (p. 41). The Turkish War of Independence lasted until 1922 and Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk from 1934) was primarily a military leader up until then. Gökalp died in 1924, before the socially transformative reforms of the Turkish Republic were initiated. His writings may have been influential, but Gökalp was hardly Atatürk’s right-hand man. More egregious than the varying quality of factual claims is the overall framing of the work. The post-Kemalist take that was refreshing in the early 2000s appears stale when used in 2020. Perhaps it is because the party that its political version fostered has grown authoritarian, but more pertinently the scholarly version has run out of analytical purchase. If I were to be unkind, Nostalgia for Empire is a scholarly counterpart to those books and think pieces where American journalists go to “fly-over country” to interview Trump supporters in diners, essentializing “the real America” and buying/reproducing a particular narrative of where that America is (in Kansas) and what it wants (“make America great again”). The difficulty is that the resulting analysis is not only analytically problematic, but at the same time it is the legitimizing discourse of a particularly nasty political current. This review could have been the equivalent of a music fan claiming “I liked his early work better.” But the problem runs deeper. Like the “Trump voter in diner” genre, Nostalgia for Empire turns the sources’ political narrative into its own scholarly analysis. Despite extensive criticism of Erdoğan and Ahmet Davutoğlu, the book reads as an apologia for imperial nostalgia and for the post-Kemalist political project as much as an analysis of it.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
New Perspectives on Turkey
New Perspectives on Turkey SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信