著者

新井 政美

出版者

みすず書房

雑誌

みすず

巻号頁・発行日

vol.43, no.4, pp.2-7, 2001-04

著者

新井 政美

出版者

公益財団法人 史学会

雑誌

史学雑誌 (ISSN:00182478)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.93, no.4, pp.467-509,583-58, 1984-04-20 (Released:2017-11-29)

---

Unlike most of West European nation-states, the nationalism of non-Western countries, as Hans Kohn put it with a clear insight, "grew in protest and in conflict with the existing state pattern". Such conflict between the political integration of an existing state and the national integration of a rising nationality also existed in Turkish nationalism. There were two groups of people who supported Turkish nationalism : the Ottoman Turks who were rulers of the Ottoman Empire, and Turkic peoples under Russian rule. The most urgent problem for the latter was to free themselves from the czarist rule. On the other hand, as long as the Ottoman Empire existed, preserving the political integration of the Empire should be the most important consideration for the rulers. Now, one of the distinctive characters of Turkish nationalism becomes clear ; it was a nationalism that purgued two different interests : interests of the state (political integration) and those of nation (national integration). These two interests were not in complete accord. Consequently, the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish nation must be regarded as the keys to analysis of Turkish nationalism. We have to examine the formation and development of nationalist movements both inside and outside the Ottoman Empire, making a comparison among them. In this paper, I will analyze the Genc Kalemler (Young Pens), a nationalist periodical published in Salonica, and the first center of the Ottoman Turkish nationalism after the 1908 revolution. Nationalists who issued this periodical stuck to the political integration of the Ottoman state. They regarded it as more urgent than the national integration of the Turkish nation. Then, how should we interpret such characteristics of the Ottoman Turkish nationalism? Political integration requires a center of power which becomes its nucleus. All the people in the territory, the object of the integration, are united under this power. It was the Ottoman Turks who were expected to become the nucleus for reconstructing the Ottoman state. If they discovered their national identity as Turks, which had been lost for a long time, the political integration of the state would be facilitated. Our next theme is how the characteristics of the Ottoman Turkish nationalism, the idea of the leaders of the Genc Kalemler, appeared in the Turk Dernegi (Turkish Association) and the Turk Yurdu (Turkish Homeland). These organizations were mainly supported by the Turks from Russia. We must analyze them in our next paper.

著者

新井 政美

出版者

公益財団法人史学会

雑誌

史学雑誌 (ISSN:00182478)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.93, no.4, pp.p467-509, 1984-04

---

Unlike most of West European nation-states, the nationalism of non-Western countries, as Hans Kohn put it with a clear insight, "grew in protest and in conflict with the existing state pattern". Such conflict between the political integration of an existing state and the national integration of a rising nationality also existed in Turkish nationalism. There were two groups of people who supported Turkish nationalism : the Ottoman Turks who were rulers of the Ottoman Empire, and Turkic peoples under Russian rule. The most urgent problem for the latter was to free themselves from the czarist rule. On the other hand, as long as the Ottoman Empire existed, preserving the political integration of the Empire should be the most important consideration for the rulers. Now, one of the distinctive characters of Turkish nationalism becomes clear ; it was a nationalism that purgued two different interests : interests of the state (political integration) and those of nation (national integration). These two interests were not in complete accord. Consequently, the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish nation must be regarded as the keys to analysis of Turkish nationalism. We have to examine the formation and development of nationalist movements both inside and outside the Ottoman Empire, making a comparison among them. In this paper, I will analyze the Genc Kalemler (Young Pens), a nationalist periodical published in Salonica, and the first center of the Ottoman Turkish nationalism after the 1908 revolution. Nationalists who issued this periodical stuck to the political integration of the Ottoman state. They regarded it as more urgent than the national integration of the Turkish nation. Then, how should we interpret such characteristics of the Ottoman Turkish nationalism? Political integration requires a center of power which becomes its nucleus. All the people in the territory, the object of the integration, are united under this power. It was the Ottoman Turks who were expected to become the nucleus for reconstructing the Ottoman state. If they discovered their national identity as Turks, which had been lost for a long time, the political integration of the state would be facilitated. Our next theme is how the characteristics of the Ottoman Turkish nationalism, the idea of the leaders of the Genc Kalemler, appeared in the Turk Dernegi (Turkish Association) and the Turk Yurdu (Turkish Homeland). These organizations were mainly supported by the Turks from Russia. We must analyze them in our next paper.

著者

新井政美編著

出版者

講談社

巻号頁・発行日

2013

著者

新井 政美

出版者

公益財団法人 史学会

雑誌

史学雑誌 (ISSN:00182478)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.91, no.2, pp.254-255, 1982-02-20 (Released:2017-11-29)

著者

新井 政美

出版者

公益財団法人 史学会

雑誌

史学雑誌 (ISSN:00182478)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.88, no.2, pp.191-211,269, 1979-02-20 (Released:2017-10-05)

---

Turkish nationalist thought had some peculiar conditions in its earliest stage. One of them was that in the Ottoman Empire where a great many Turks lived and which is now transformed into the Turkish Republic, they did not regard themselves as Turks when the glimmering of nationalism appeared among the Turks under Russian rule in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The main purpose of this essay is to examine the development of that nationalist thought in the Ottoman Empire after the Young Turks Revolution in 1908 through the thought of Ziya Gokalp (1876-1924), a father of Turkish nationalism. Since Professor Niyazi Berkes tried to distinguish Turkism (Turkcukuk) from Turanianism (Turancilik), Ziya Gokalp has come to be regarded as a Turkist (Turkcu), but not as a Turanianist (Turanci). But he certainly had a Pan-Turanian dream and even after the founding of the Republic he did not completely abandon it. Furthermore this dream still seems to survive in the minds of a considerable number of Turkish people even in the present day. And strangely, on the other hand, while he was active as a nationalist he was unable to abandon the idea of Ottomanism (Osmanlicilik) as long as the Empire remained. Next we investigate how he coped with the overwhelming power of the West that surged onto the Turks. He advocated the entire acceptance of Western civilization. According to him, a national culture (hars) was quite different from an international civilization (medeniyet), and because the Turks had the best culture in the world they need not hesitate in accepting Western civilization. He also tried to give a fresh breath of air to Islam, that had not been able to adapt itself to the times, by stressing the importance of extra-judical civil usage (orf). In a word, he emphasized living in the modern civilized world as a "Muslim-Turk".

著者

新井 政美

出版者

公益財団法人 史学会

雑誌

史学雑誌 (ISSN:00182478)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.89, no.11, pp.1712-1727,1771-, 1980-11-20 (Released:2017-10-05)

---

In the studies of Turkish nationalist thought we can point out some defects as follows. First, they did not minutely deal with the affairs of the period of the pre-Young Turks Revolution. Secondly, they did not compare the thought of Ottoman-Turks with that of Turks who live in the Russian Empire. In this paper, we investigate into articles of two famous nationalists, as an introduction of our study of Turkish nationalist thought. Yusuf Akcura (1876-1935), Kazan-born, published an article named "Three Policies" (Uc Tarz-i Siyaset) in March 1904. In this article he mentioned three political principles that the Ottoman Empire might follow, and examined them. The first principle is an Ottoman nation (Millet-i Osmaniyye) policy. The aim of this policy is to create a new nation like an American nation in the United States by means of assimilating all people under the Ottoman rule regardless of ethnic or religious differences. He opposes it definitely. Because this is against the will and desire of Ottoman-Turks, Islam, non-muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire, the Russian and the Balkans, and the Western public opinion. The second is a union of Islam (Tevhid-i Islam) policy. He does not oppose this policy definitely. But, he points out a fact that almost all Islamic lands are in the power of the Western states, and warns that the Western states will hinder the Ottoman Empire from performing this policy. The final principle is a union of Turks (Tevhid-i Etrak) policy. Akcura enumerates three advantages of this policy. First, Ottoman-Turks will be tied more firmly by this policy. Secondly, non-Turk subjects of the Ottoman Empire will be Turkified. Thirdly, all the Turkic nations who live in the vast continent from Asia to the east side of Europe will be unified. He admits that Russian will oppose this policy because many Turks are in the power of the Russian Empire. But he adds the other Western states will support it for the reason that this policy is against the Russian interests. And he also admits that if the policy will be performed, spirits of brotherhood between Ottoman-Turks and other non-Turk muslims will be weakened. However, he insists that in modern society a religion must not be social or public but be private. That is, he does not approve a union of Islam, and asserts a union of Turks. Meanwhile, in the Ottoman Empire, Turks regarded themselves as not Turks but Ottomans. Ziya Gokalp (1876-1924) denied nationalism expressly in the articles in a newspaper, "Oath" (Peyman) published in Diyarbakir, his birthplace, and supported an Ottoman nation policy in summer 1909. That is, it appears that the most important thing for nationalist in the Ottoman Empire was continuance and reinforcement of the Empire even after the Young Turks Revolution.

著者

新井政美著

出版者

講談社

巻号頁・発行日

2003

著者

新井政美 [著]

出版者

みすず書房

巻号頁・発行日

2001

著者

山内 昌之 ERGENC Ozer KHALIKOV A.K GRAHAM Willi ERCAN Yavuz DUMONT Paul QUELQUEJAY C ALTSTADT Aud PAKSOY Hasan 福田 安志 内藤 正典 新井 政美 小松 久男 栗生沢 猛夫 坂本 勉 WILLIAM Grah PAUL Dumont CHANTAL Quel AUDREY Altst HASAN Paksoy

出版者

東京大学

雑誌

国際学術研究

巻号頁・発行日

1989

---

この共同研究が目指したものは、中東とソ連における都市とエスニシティの在り方を比較検討しながら、近現代の急速な都市化にともなう環境、人間と社会との関係、個人と集団の社会意識の変容を総合的、多角的に解明しようとするところにあった。当該地域におけるエスニシティの多様性と連続性を考慮するとき、これは、集団間の反目、矛盾が先鋭で具体的な形をとって現われてくる都市という生活の場においてエスニシティの問題を検討することであり、またエスニシティ、民族、宗教問題を媒介変数としてトランスナショナルな視角から都市の在り方と変容を検討することでもあった。本共同研究の参加者は以上の問題意識を踏まえ、まず第1に、タシケント、モスクワ等のソ連の都市と、イスタンブ-ル、テヘラン、カイロ、エルサレム等の中東の都市において現地調査を行なった。これらの諸都市での調査においては現地人研究者の協力を得た上で、都市問題の現状とエスニシティを異にする住民相互間の衝突、反目の具体的事例をつぶさに観察した。また現地調査と平行して、現地人研究者との間で意見の交換を行ない、当該地域での研究状況の把握、現地人研究者との交流に努め、さらに必要な資料の収集にも当たった。第2に、ソ連、中東世界での都市化にともなうエスニシティ、民族、宗教問題を分析した。モスクワ国家による都市カザンへの支配の実態を検証し、また経済開発によるソ連中央アジアでの居住条件の変化と、エスニシティ・グル-プの変容についての相関関係を検討した。さらにイスラエルにおいては、ソ連からのユダヤ人移民にともなうユダヤ都市の拡大・拡散による、アラブ人とユダヤ人の文化接触の問題を取り上げた。次いで都市を基盤とした民族主義イデオロギ-の形成・展開の側面についても検討を加えた。トルコにおけるトルコ民族主義の展開過程とその周辺トルコ系地域への影響を、歴史的事実を踏まえつつ分析した。同時にソ連中央アジアにおける非ロシア系民族の間での民族意識の形成過程を検証し、イスラ-ムや、アルメニア正教、ギリシャ正教の復興が民族的アイデンティティに及ぼす影響を検討した。またアゼルバイジャンでの文学活動が民族意識の形成に与えた影響を分析した。これらの事例研究によって、中東とソ連における都市問題とエスニシティをめぐる問題の相関関係を明らかにし、また都市化にともなう社会意識の変容を解明することに努めた。第3に、経済と都市間ネットワ-クの側面から都市のエスニシティの問題を検討した。アレッポの都市経済におけるアルメニア人、クルド人の役割を検討した。またドイツへのトルコ人労働移民の問題を取り上げ、出稼ぎ者、帰還者双方が引き起こす都市問題が、二地域の関係の中で明らかにされた。さらにイラン諸都市とイスタンブ-ルの間の絨毯交易に従事していたアゼルバイジャン人に注目しながら、当該地域におけるエスニシティと都市経済、都市間の関係を把握した。アラビア半島諸都市における通商活動も取り上げ、アラブ世界の都市間通商ネットワ-クにおけるインド人、ペルシャ人の役割を分析した。次いでイランや中央アジアからのメッカ巡礼を分析することを通し、宗教的側面からも都市間ネットワ-クの検討を行なった。これらの研究により、当該地域における経済と宗教を軸とする都市間ネットワ-クとエスニシティの連続性を明らかにすることに努めた。第4に、総合的、多角的研究の必要性から都市とエスニシティ問題の持つ普遍的な性格に着目し、研究交流の空間的幅を広げ、中東、ソ連の現地研究者はもちろんのこと欧米諸国の研究者との間でも共同研究や比較研究を行なった。さらにストラスブ-ルにおいて日本とフランスの研究者を中心に、ソ連と中東の民族問題に関する国際シンポジウムを開催するなど、これまでの研究成果に基づいた研究者相互間の交流を推進した。この共同研究は、湾岸危機やソ連邦の解体など当該地域をめるぐる急激な変動の渦中に実施されたにもかかわらず、比較の手法を用い都市という場におけるエスニシティの問題を解明し、都市の在り方と変容を明らかにする上で大きな成果をあげることができたと確信している。

著者

立石 博高 相馬 保夫 佐々木 孝弘 金井 光太郎 鈴木 茂 鈴木 義一 新井 政美 藤田 進

出版者

東京外国語大学

雑誌

基盤研究(A)

巻号頁・発行日

2005

---

本研究の目的は、文明の「辺境」と「マイノリティ」の生成を、近代ヨーロッパにおける市民社会の形成のメカニズムと関連させながら歴史的に解明することにある。平成17年度は、文献資料・文書館資料の収集(アメリカ合衆国、中東地域)、国際ワークショップ(イタリアの研究者)、および国際シンポジウム(アテネ、ポーランド、エストニア、デンマークの研究者)を共に東京外国語大学において開催し海外の研究者との研究協力関係の構築に努めた。平成18年度は、前年の研究成果にたち各種の研究会、国際シンポジウム(チェコ、ウクライナ、ポーランドの研究者)を東京外国語大学で開催し、また、およびチェコ・プラハで国際ワークショップを開催し、現地の研究者とともに、本科研研究代表者・分担者が報告等を行う同時に同地での文献資料・調査研究を精力的に行った。平成19年度は、本科研最後の年にあたるため、それまでの研究成果をまとめ、さらにそれを発展させるために、東京外国語大学海外事情研究所において市民社会論に関する研究会を開催し、国内から二名研究者を招請、ヨーロッパ市民社会とその周縁に存在する諸社会との比較・再検討が今日的視点から行なわれた。またスペイン・バルセローナとポンペウにおいて国際ワークショップを開き、「近現代ヨーロッパとアメリカ・ロシアの『市民権』」「ヨーロッパの国民形成と『市民社会』」等のテーマに関して本科研のメンバー及び同地の研究者が報告、議論するとともに、資料収集と現地調査を行った。また11月から2月にかけ本科研の成果である『国民国家と市民』(山川出版社、2008年11月出版予定)の準備研究会を東京外国語大学海外事情研究所で行った。これらの研究報告会、ワークショップ、シンポジウムなどは、本課題を解明し、検討・発展させるための有意義な場となり、その成果は、各年度の海外事情研究所『クァドランテ』(No.8〜10)成果報告書ならびに上記の論集で示されるであろう。