What's a State for? From Wrongful Innovation to Reform as Religious Duty in Ottoman State Transformation

• In Event: Reconceptualizing Political Community: Legitimacy, Boundaries, and the State Across Time

Abstract

How does a modernizing state carry out reform? Considering that modernizing states are states-in-transition from one system of rule to another, due to internal and external pressures; how do they consolidate such power as to transform state structures, to innovate and legitimate new state practices, with minimal or no resistance? This paper addresses this paradox by comparing two Ottoman state transformation attempts: the failed Selimian New Order (1789-1807) and the successful Mahmudian reforms culminating in the 1826 destruction of the Janissaries. Building upon scholarship on the accumulation of symbolic power, this paper argues that successful state transformation and the primitive accumulation of symbolic power requires the prior reconstruction of deep legitimacy structures. Through a cultural pragmatist analysis of Ottoman chronicles and decrees, it demonstrates how Mahmudian reformers succeeded by engaging in cultural resignification—using citation, scapegoating, performance, and metanarrative, even before the reforms were introduced. They effectively transformed the theological framing of reform from bid'at (wrongful innovation) to farz (religious duty). Ultimately, this paper contributes to comparative-historical sociology by demonstrating that for states-in-transition, establishing authority rooted in shared purpose and interpretations must precede the implementation of novel institutional practices.

Author

• Vasfiye Betul Toprak, University of Maryland