Science and spirituality: Ottoman inconsistencies, Europe’s paradoxes

Alper Yalçınkaya

doi:10.5565/rev/rubrica.141

Abstract

Ottoman and Turkish perceptions of Europe have commonly been analyzed with an emphasis on the contradictions they embody, and using the frame of a "love and hate relationship." In this paper I analyze the writings of the late Ottoman intellectual Ahmed Midhat Efendi who not only produced many works on Europe that exemplify these inconsistencies, but also acknowledged and analyzed his self-contradictory attitudes towards Europe. I argue that Midhat's inconsistent representations of Europe were not simply due to the turbulent political and cultural relations between the Ottoman Empire and the Great Powers; Midhat's observations were also about the contradictions of industrial capitalism as well as colonialism themselves. Finally, I show that Midhat saw in science and the professional identities of modern scientists the solution to the problem of Europe's inconsistencies.

Highlights

I focus on a late Ottoman author who demonstrated this attitude, but tackled it head-on
Tracing the writings of Ahmed Midhat Efendi (1844-1912), the most productive Ottoman writer of his time, I scrutinize the contradictory images of Europe that he constructed
References to pragmatism in studies on late Ottoman thought account for the fact that Ottoman intellectuals rarely produced bodies of work characterized by rigor and coherence

Summary

Alper YALÇINKAYA Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

Both in academic and popular discourse, it is common to represent late Ottoman and Turkish views on Europe in terms of a love-and-hate relationship. Regardless of the approach and explanation, the fundamental point made by this trope is inconsistency: rather than constructing coherent perspectives on Europe, the suggestion goes, late. Rather than attributing Midhat’s inconsistencies only to his idiosyncrasies or role within the Ottoman intellectual field, or seeing his arguments as but the reactive comments of an author from a culture under threat, I suggest exploring the Europe that he saw. This exploration indicates that the contradictions that characterize Midhat’s writings stem from the contradictions of colonialism and industrial capitalism, the mismatch between dominant representations and lived realities. For Midhat to be consistent, Europe had to be consistent, and for this, he argued, the key role fell to scientists

Ottoman pragmatism and Ahmed Midhat Efendi as an inconsistent father

Conclusion