Civil Society and its Cultural Origins in a Turkish City: Konya

---

Aktay Y.

Middle East Critique, cilt.22, sa.3, ss.232-287, 2007 (SCI-Expanded, SSCI, ESCI, Scopus)

• Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
• Cilt numarası: 22 Sayı: 3
• Basım Tarihi: 2007
• Doi Numarası: 10.1080/10669920701616427
• Dergi Adı: Middle East Critique
• Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus, Academic Search Premier
• Sayfa Sayıları: ss.232-287
• Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Adresli: Hayır

Özet

Civil Society and its Cultural Origins in a Turkish City: Konya

 

YASİN AKTAY & ABDULLAH TOPÇUOĞLU 

 

In his famous Introduction to the historical sciences, Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) provided observations and analyses of issues in urban sociology during the late fourteenth century.[i] From his extensive observations of the North African dynasties and their roles and influence in history, he deduced generalized conclusions that have remained valid for six centuries. In fact, historians generally consider Ibn Khaldun to be the first sociologist because his conclusions about the Muslim dynasties are not limited to Islamic societies but may be extended to all societies. For example, his observation about the role of “dynasties” in the emergence of urban centers can be applied to both the feudal-local powers in Europe and the state in Muslim societies. He said: “Dynasties are prior to towns and cities. Towns and cities are secondary products of royal authority.” Then, he explains the reason why it is so: 

 

The explanation for this is that building and city planning are features of sedentary culture brought about by luxury and tranquility, as we have mentioned before. They come after Bedouin life and the features that go with it. Furthermore, towns and cities with their monuments, vast constructions, and large buildings, are set up for the masses and not for the few. Therefore, united effort and much co-operation are need for them. They are not among things that are necessary matters of general concern to human beings, in the sense that all human beings desire them or feel compelled to have them. As a matter of fact, they must be forced and driven to build cities. The stick of royal authority is what compels them, or they may be stimulated by promise of reward and compensation amounting to so large a sum that only royal authority and a dynasty can pay for it. Thus, dynasties and royal authority are absolutely necessary for the building of cities and the planning of towns.

Then, when the town has been built and is all finished, as the builder saw fit and as the climatic and geographical conditions required, the life of the dynasty is the life of the town. If the dynasty is of sort duration, life in the town will stop at the end of the dynasty. Its civilization will recede, and the town will fall into ruins. On the other hand, if the dynasty is of long duration and lasts a long time, new constructions will always go up in the town, the number of large mansions will increase, and the walls of the town will extend farther and farther. Eventually, the layout of the town will cover a wide area, and the town will extend so far and so wide as to be (almost) beyond measurement. This happened in Baghdad and similar (cities) 

The Khatip mentioned in his history that the time of [Caliph] al-Ma’mun the number of public baths in Baghdad reached 65,000. It included over forty of the adjacent neighboring towns and cities. It was not just a town surrounded by one wall. Its population was much too large for that. The same was the case with al Qayrawan, Cordoba, Cairo at this time, so we are told. 

The dynasty that has built a certain town may be destroyed. Now, the mountainous and flat areas surrounding the city are a desert that constantly provides for (an influx of population). This will reserve the existence of (the town), and it will continue to live after the dynasty is dead. (This situation) can be observed in Fez and Bougie in the West, and in the non-Arab ‘Iraq in the East, which get their population from the mountains. When the conditions of the inhabitants of the desert reach the utmost ease and become most profitable, they look for tranquility and quiet. Therefore, they settle in towns and cities. 

Or, it may happen that a town founded (by a dynasty now destroyed) has no opportunity to replenish its population by a constant influx of settlers from a desert near the town. In this case, the destruction of the dynasty will leave it unprotected. It cannot be maintained. Its civilization will gradually decay, until its population is dispersed and gone. This happened in Baghdad and in al-Qayrawân, as well as in other cities.

Frequently it happens that after the destruction of its original builders, a town is used by another realm and dynasty as its capital and residence. This then makes it unnecessary for (the new dynasty) to build a town for itself as a settlement. In this case, the (new) dynasty will protect the town. Its building and constructions will increase in proportion to the improved circumstance and the luxury of the new dynasty. The life (of the new dynasty) gives (the town) another life. This has happened in contemporary Fez and Cairo.[ii]

 

Undoubtedly if one reads these words as some observations exclusively mentioning the situation in the Eastern-Islamic region and also is ignorant about the formation of cities in early medieval Europe, one would be inclined to accept some Orientalist assumptions about Muslim urban sociology posited especially in Max Weber’s analysis about the Islamic cities, namely that the formation of the city in Islamic societies is initiated by the central state. The assumption derives from the basic question raised by Weber of why capitalism did not develop outside Europe. That question only could be answered by attaching some negative attributes to Muslim societies. That is why it is considered as the core of Orientalist element in Weber’s studies. His ideal typology of capitalism which is exclusively a Christian Protestant phenomenon necessitates the development of some social elements as the rational law, a free labor market, a money economy, a bourgeoisie class and “autonomous cities.” For Weber all these pre-requisites of the emergence of capitalism were precluded by the patrimonial state-centric authority in the Muslim world. The “autonomous cities” together with other supposed features of Western cities, were cited to contrast their absence in the Muslim societies.[iii]  Fortunately, scholarship on Muslim history and sociology has advanced beyond the limitations of Weber, and there are many studies of Islamic cities that are free of that thinker’s personal religious biases, such as the work of Ira Lapidus,[iv] Bryan S. Turner,[v] and Suraia Faroqhi,[vi] among others.