[MGSA-L] Fwd: H-TURK: Conference Report: “Revolutions in the Balkans: Revolts and Uprisings in the Era of Nationalism (1804-1908)” [R Oztan]

Paris Papamichos Chronakis pchronakis at gmail.com
Tue Nov 19 10:44:28 PST 2013


Dear all,

I forward the following conference report from another list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gunhan Borekci <gunhanborekci at sehir.edu.tr>
Date: Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Subject: H-TURK: Conference Report: “Revolutions in the Balkans: Revolts
and Uprisings in the Era of Nationalism (1804-1908)” [R Oztan]
To: H-TURK at h-net.msu.edu


From: Ramazan Hakki Oztan <ramazanhakki at hotmail.com>

Conference Report: “Revolutions in the Balkans: Revolts and Uprisings in
the Era of
Nationalism (1804-1908),” Panteion University,
Athens, Greece, 31 October-2 November 2013



This international conference brought together about sixty scholars from
Greece,
Europe, Turkey, and the United States to examine the Balkan revolutions
throughout the nineteenth century. The conference lasted from October 31 to
November 2 and it was organized by, and held on the grounds of, the Panteion
University of Social and Political Sciences in Athens. The conference
featured
eleven panels and a concluding session. Throughout the conference, different
aspects of revolts and revolutions in the Balkans were brought to the table
and
discussed in detail. Just as there were panels that focused on
macro-historical
approaches to the transition from empire to nation-states, there were also
micro-historical approaches, coupled with trans-national and trans-regional
readings as well as wide-ranging thematic focus on revolutionary actors,
multiplicity of identities, representation of revolutions through narratives
and images, violence, and other historiographical debates.

The whereabouts and timing of the conference are significant. First of all,
Panteion University which organized the conference is a left-wing
institution
and has been famous for embodying critical voices. Thus, it is no surprise
to
see that a conference focusing on the theme of revolutions was organized in
this spatial context. Second, it is important to note that the conference
was
organized in the midst of the most serious economic and political crisis in
the
recent history of Greece, where revolutionary rhetoric is itself making
headway. Lack of funds was visible throughout the university complex, just
as
economic hardships manifest themselves in different forms across the whole
city
of Athens. Tellingly, some panelists made clear remarks to the significance
of
organizing the conference at a time when the Greek academia lacked not only
mere funds but also moral support. Finally, one should note that the
conference
was supported through the generous funds provided by the Goethe Institut.
The
conference began with authoritative remarks by Ulf Brunnbauer. He argued
that
the study of revolutions and uprisings often lack comparative approaches and
they are frequently informed by presentist and teleological nationalist
readings. He urged the participants to engage in global history and consider
individual life stories in an attempt to explore the complexities of
imperial biographies
where the imperial identities co-existed with the local and regional, and
where
national heroes often came across national borders. These themes truly
dominated the conference. Distinct nationalist teleologies were often
avoided,
linear causalities were blurred, and multiplicity of identities highlighted
in
several presentations. Some papers such as the ones by Hannes Grandits, Anna
Karakatsouli, Lambros Baltsiotis, and Dimitris Christopoulos also developed
comparative and transnational readings which were clearly welcome
approaches.  Another
clear emphasis throughout the conference was that of transnational
revolutionary networks—that is, how romantic revolutionaries fought from one
revolution to another in different settings and how interaction in each
setting
among transnational actors introduced further exchanges and complexities in
unexpected settings. Such transnational revolutionary actors surely had
different motives for participation but examining the extent of this
revolutionary network effectively unraveled how earlier revolutionary
instances
created tactics and models to be copied and transferred elsewhere. While the
Balkan revolutionaries were itinerant in the true sense of the word, the
post-revolutionary years witnessed a variety of liminal forms of government
that existed in the transition from empire to nation-state—that is, liminal
forms that blur the otherwise linear paths of transition between the two
systems that the dominant scholarship has often assumed.   The
conference ended with significant remarks by Hannes Grandits who reminded
the
listeners of the importance of considering what the conference has not
addressed. Here are Grandits’ set of questions that are also quite relevant
to
other fields such as the late Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies: focusing
on
revolutions is essentially examining the elite level. What about those who
did
not want to change and what about the rural world where the voices of the
actors were often ignored in our accounts? The conference truly emphasized
the
multiplicity of identities and their fluidity but are these instances of
multiple belongings actually the exception or the rule? Finally how were the
narratives around revolutions built up and how do they shift over time?  One
could add one last point to this list of themes that the conference has not
elaborated upon fully: the paper presentations painted more often than not a
very rosy picture of revolutionary actors, often amounting to an
unquestioning
celebration of revolutions, but what about the illiberal aspects of the
Balkan
revolutions? In the end, revolutions led to the creation of modern state
structures in the region after a period of negotiation and bargaining among
various political actors and factions but this process required not only a
process of ethnic and demographic homogenization but also a course of
leveling
of the dissident voices that harbored different political and socio-economic
visions for their respective societies. These illiberal aspects were as much
part of history as the more positive revolutionary outcomes. Finally, as a
historian who has only
attended conferences that drew participation from the allied fields of late
Ottoman and Middle Eastern Studies, it was extremely interesting to attend
a meeting
that mostly featured scholars from the field of South East European
Studies. One
cannot overemphasize the prospects for collaboration across these area
studies,
and I would argue that such thematic focus on revolts, revolutions, all in
all
different modes and repertoires of contentious politics are the most
suitable
route to take in an attempt to develop a trans-regional history that is
beyond
the confines of the Balkans. In the end, the broader Ottoman world
stretching
from the Balkans, Asia Minor, Caucasus, and Middle East to North Africa
presents us such opportunities to construct a transnational history of
revolutionaries that would surely go beyond the otherwise nation- and
region-specific
revolutionary historiographies.
Ramazan Hakki Oztan
University of Utah

 --



-- 
Paris Papamichos Chronakis
Visiting Assistant Professor
Brown University
152 Elmgrove Avenue
02906 Providence, RI
USA
mob. +1 310 560 2732
skype name: pchronakis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://maillists.uci.edu/pipermail/mgsa-l/attachments/20131119/571e9784/attachment.html>


More information about the MGSA-L mailing list