Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:17:45.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elite Recruitment in Turkey: The Role of the Mülkiye

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Joseph S. Szyliowicz
Get access

Extract

The study of elites, or “who's who, when, and how,” as Professor Rustow has described this field, has long been a topic of concern to scholars in a wide variety of disciplines. Social and political philosophers dating back to Aristotle and including such diverse figures as Marx, Pareto, and Mosca have written about the relationships between elites and the social order, and a host of social scientists and historians have carried out detailed analyses of the social background of highlevel decision-makers in various societies

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , April 1971 , pp. 371 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a comprehensive bibliography of elite and related studies see Beck, Carl and McKechnie, J. Thomas, Political Elites (Boston 1968)Google Scholar.

2 See Quandt, William B., The Comparative Study of Political Elites (Santa Monica 1969)Google Scholar; Rustow, Dankwart A., “The Study of Elites: Who's Who, When, and How,” World Politics, XVIII (July 1966), 690–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edinger, Lewis J. and Searing, Donald D., “Social Background in Elite Analysis: A Methodological Inquiry,” American Political Science Review, LXI (June 1967), 428–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Searing, Donald D., “The Comparative Study of Elite Socialization,” Comparative Political Studies, 1 (January 1969), 471–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Rustow (fn. 2), 716.

4 Nor is this neglect limited to the Middle East; one scholar has pointed out that “One might have supposed that historians, largely occupied as they have been with the activities of ruling classes, would have been among the first to study systematically the problems of the recruitment and tenure of elites. This problem is an especially interesting one in a country such as the United States… . Yet most American historians have shied away from it.” Miller, William, “American Historians and the Business Elite,” in Miller, William, ed., Men in Business: Essays on the Historical Role of Entrepreneurship (New York 1962)Google Scholar, cited in Bottomore, T. B., Elites and Society (Baltimore 1966), 62–63Google Scholar.

5 Lewis, Bernard, “The Ottoman Empire in the Mid-Nineteenth Century: A Review,” Middle Eastern Studies, I (April 1965) 284–85Google Scholar.

6 Shaw, Stanford J., “Some Aspects of the Aims and Achievements of the Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Reformers,” in Polk, William R. and Chambers, Richard L., eds., Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East (Chicago 1968), 36–37Google Scholar.

7 Itzkowitz, Norman, “Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Realities,” Studia Islamica (1962), 73–94Google Scholar

8 Frey, Frederick W., The Turkish Political Elite (Boston 1965), 37–38Google Scholar

9 Heyd, Uriel, “The Ottoman ‘Ulema’ and Westernization in the Time of Selim III and Mahmud II,” Scripta Hierosolymitana (1961), 63–96Google Scholar.

10 Richard L. Chambers, “Notes on the Mekteb-i Osmani in Paris, 1857–1874,” in Polk and Chambers (fn. 6), 313–29.

11 Lewis, Bernard, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (Oxford 1961), 120Google Scholar.

12 Kazamias, Andreas, Education and the Quest for Modernity in Turkey (Chicago 1966), 103Google Scholar.

13 Armaoğlu, Fahir and Birkhead, Guthrie S., Graduates of the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Ankara, 1946–1955 (Ankara 1957), 6Google Scholar.

14 Roos, Noralou P. and Roos, Leslie L. Jr., “Changing Patterns of Turkish Public Administration,” Middle Eastern Studies, IV (April 1968), 288Google Scholar. The explanation for the discrepancy in these findings apparently lies in the fact that a process of selective recruitment and selective leaving is taking place, and that the Ministry of the Interior is not retaining graduates from Western Turkey who tend to be from relatively privileged backgrounds. [Personal communication from Leslie L. Roos, Jr.]

15 Kazamias (fn. 12), 83.

16 Frey (fn. 8), 40–41.

17 Armaoğlu and Birkhead (fn. 13), 5.

18 Roos and Roos (fn. 14), 287.

19 Kazamias (fn. 12), 89.

20 Dodd, C. H., “The Social and Educational Background of Turkish Officials,” Middle Eastern Studies, 1 (April 1965), 274CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 For a similar conclusion based on contemporary data see Roos and Roos (fn. 14), 291.

22 Dodd (fn. 20), 274.

23 Belediyelerimiz [Our Municipalities] (Ankara 1956), 258Google Scholar.

24 See Kemal H. Karpat, “The Land Regime, Social Structure, and Modernization in the Ottoman Empire,” in Polk and Chambers (fn. 6), and Halil Inalcik, “The Nature of Traditional Society” in Ward, Robert E. and Rustow, Dankwart A., Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey (Princeton 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Mardin, Şerif, “Historical Determinants of Social Stratification: Social Class and Class Consciousness in Turkey,” Siyasal Bilgiler Fakultesi Dergisi (1968), 139Google Scholar.

26 Rustow, Dankwart A., “The Army and the Founding of the Turkish Republic,” World Politics, XI (July 1959), 524Google Scholar.

27 Memurlar İstatistiği [Civil Servant Statistics] (İstanbul 1932)Google Scholar; Memurlar htatistigi (Ankara 1939)Google Scholar.

28 Lewis (fn. n), 368.

29 Kazamias (fn. 12), 90.

30 Kazamias (fn. 12), 106.

31 Ergin, Osman, Maarif Tarihi [History of Education] (İstanbul 1941), in, 1008Google Scholar.

32 Çankaya, , Yeni Mülkiye Tarihi Mülkiyeliler [New History of the Political Science Faculty and Its Graduates] (Ankara 1969), 1, 3235Google Scholar.

33 Lewis (fn. 11), 174–75.

34 Roos and Roos (fn. 14), 270.

35 Ibid., 273–74.

36 Mardin, Şerif, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought (Princeton 1962), particularly chap. IVGoogle Scholar.

37 Roos and Roos (fn. 14), 286.

38 Devlet Salnamesi [State Almanac] (Istanbul 1890)Google Scholar.