17-18세기 이스탄불의 도시반란과 커뮤니케이션 (1651-1730)

Urban Rebellions and Communication in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Istanbul (1651-1730)

&nbsp;&nbsp;Istanbul in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries underwent numerous rebellions, some of which were remarkable for the participation of civilians such as tradesmen. There were four such major rebellions: those of 1651 and 1688 in which the tradesmen organized into guilds constituted most of the rebels, and those of 1703 and 1730 that involved the military, tradesmen, and some segments of the elite. The occasional transpiration of large-scale rebellions involving tens of thousands of people provides us with a special opportunity to examine the mostly unlettered mechanisms of communication that facilitated the crystallization and expression of people&quot;s political opinions. In fact, the prevalent means of communication in the Ottoman society was oral, symbolic, and/or ritual in times of rebellion as well as in normal times. For the rebellions, however, we have more records on how those means communication were actually used.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;This paper explores the various forms of communication that appeared both between the government and people and among people of various strata in the course of rebellion, as these two levels of communication shared common means and themes. For example, there were petitions filed by the people, which the state only rarely and hesitantly rejected. Mass petitions were at the same time a very effective way to show the solidarity of protesters. In addition, symbols such as the banner of the prophet made an important focus of collective allegiance, which could be either used by the government or demanded by the people. Last but not least, the role of oral communication such as rumors circulated through the coffeehouses, mosques, sufi orders, or the network of everyday workplace could easily determine the course of event. With each new rebellion a new dimension of communication was added upon the experience from the previous revolts. Although the process of building and maintaining coalition involved occasional coercion and manipulation, the whole communicative process seems to have genuinely reflected the majority opinion of the Istanbulites. Finally, the existence of communication across the boundaries of social strata should be considered in the context of a decentralized society where no one group could monopolize the political processes.