AmericanJournalofSociologyganizingFraudsUnpackingResearchonNetworksan - PDF document

1 AmericanJournalofSociologyganizingFrauds
AmericanJournalofSociologyganizingFrauds:UnpackingResearchonNetworksandOrganization,”CriminologyandCriminalJustice8[2008]:389–420),others,suchasNi-gerianandotherfraudnetworks,e-criminalsorsmallMadoff-typePonzischemers,arepredatory,spanbroadgeographies,andmaynotneedorbesusceptibletothesortofextendedcommunitycontrolthatVarese’sMaasrequire.Sohisanalysis,fascinatingasitis,leavesplentyofroomforaccountsofcriminalnetworkingofaMaalesskind(seeCarloMor-InsideCriminalNetworks[Springer,2009]).However,itwasnothisaimtocoverthatbroaderspectrumofwhatIwouldterm“organized-enoughcrime.”ThemainfocusofMaÞasontheMoveissociological,butitofferspublic-policy-orientedreadersinsightsintotheimportanceofill-designedpropertyrightslegislationandpoorlegalimplementationandsomefamiliarwarningsabouttherisksofrepressivemoralprohibitionism.ThisexcellentbookwellmeritsthehighpraisefromJohnleCarre´,Tim-othyFrye,andSusanRose-Ackermannthatappearsonitscover.TurkishNationalismandWesternCivilization.ByZiyaGo¨kalp.London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin,1959.BarbaraCelarentUniversityofAtlantisUniversalknowledgeclaimstoapplyinanyplaceortime.Yetitistheuniversalpropertyofhumanstobeparticular:toinhabitaplace,amo-ment,asociety,aculture.Whilethisparticularitydoesnotforbidtheprojectofuniversalknowledge,itcomplicatesthatprojectalmostbeyondpossibility.Howcantherebeauniversalknowledgeoftheparticular?Andgiventhatallknowledgelivesinparticularhumansandtheirinsti-tutions,howcouldsuchauniversalknowledgeactuallybeknownandOnefamilyofsolutionsforthisconundrumdescendsfromthegreatrationalists.Ituniversalizesbyformalizing,bytradingsubstantivecontentforstructuralform.Fromitcomemathematicsandcontractarianism,econometricsandpublicopinionpolling:alltheapparatusesofabstractexplanation.Withinit,thesyntaxofrealityisstrippedofcontentandinspectedintheabstract.Anotherfamilyofanswersdescendsfromthegreatcosmopolitans.Ituniversalizesbycollectingdiversecontentandthenjuxtaposingit,de-rivingnewmeaningfromcombinationandtranslation.Itdoesnotpre-sumetoreduceallthingstoonebutofferstoeachparticularknowledgesomeregularmodesofconnectiontoothers.Fromthisapproachcomeanthropologyandfeminism,ethnographyandoralhistory.Notsyntaxbutsemanticsisitsgame.Itsw

2 ayistranslation.Ourdisciplineofrereading
ayistranslation.Ourdisciplineofrereadingpastworksfromdiverseculturesfollowsthissecondway,andtranslationisindeeddoublycentralinthebook BookReviewsbeforeus.Itiscentralrstbecausewearereadingnotanauthor’soriginalwork,butashortcollectionoftranslationsintoonelanguageofhisveryconsiderablewritingsinanother.Itiscentralsecondbecauseitsauthor’sprojectwastotranslatetheconceptsofyetathirdcultureintohisown.Bothofthesecentralitiescallforcomment.Asfortherstmatter,thatofreadingtranslatedexcerpts:Thatitlieswithinthepowerofyourreviewertoreinventherselfsoastoreadandgraspanyworkinitsoriginallanguageisbesidethepoint.Theuniversalhumanproblemoftranslationwouldtherebydisappearintheseemingmagicofreinvention.Soyourreviewerconstrainsherselftothemoreusualhumanconditionofknowingtwolivinglanguages,learningathirdtoundertakefurtherreviews,andwonderingwhyshebotheredwiththetwodeadlanguagesthathauntthebackroomsofhermind.Asforthesecondmatter,ofthetranslationandborrowingofconcepts:ThebookbeforeusisatranslationintoEnglishofsomeofthehundredsofshortessayswritteninTurkishbythefounderofTurkishsociology,ZiyaGo¨k-alp.Go¨kalpwasinturnoverwhelminglyinuencedbyFrenchthoughtingeneralandbyEmileDurkheiminparticular.SoweseeheretheEnglishtracesofaTurk’sreadingofFrenchsources.MehmetZiyawasbornaround1875inDiyarbakirineasternAnatolia.ThenameZiyaGo¨kalp—acombinationofblue(go¨k)andhero(alp)—isoneofhismanypseudonymsandtheonebywhichhecametobeknown.¨kalp’soriginsandethnicityarecontested,notleastofallbyhimself.Inacelebratedpieceofautobiography(includedinthevolumeunderreview),heclaimstobeTurkishbecausehespokeTurkishandthoughtofhimselfasaTurk,twoofthecriteriathathehimselfthoughtcentraltonationalidentity.ButanotherlonglineofscholarshiphascalledhimKurdish,although,ofcourse,notnecessarilymakingclearwhatis(orcouldbe)thecriterionbywhichonecoulddistinguishKurdsandTurksineasternAnatoliainthelate19thcentury.Locallyeducatedbyhisfather(whodiedearly)andhisuncle,Go¨kalplearnedArabic,Persian,andFrenchinadditiontohisnativeTurkish.Afteranadolescentdepressionledhimtoasuicideattemptat17,hisconcernedbrotherbroughthimtoIstanbul,wherehejoinedthecollegeofveterinarymedicine(becauseitwasinexpensive)andpursuedradicalpolitics,thenin

3 afermentinthelastyearsoftherepressiveSul
afermentinthelastyearsoftherepressiveSultanalHamid.Imprisonedforayeararound1900,heimbibedmoreradicalismincaptivity,butheeventuallyreturnedtoDiyarbakirandtheroundoffamilylife,marriagehavingbroughthimnancialindependence.HewasactiveagainstalocalKurdishmilitarygroup,whosemixofquasi-gov-ernmentalstatusandbandittibehaviorwascharacteristicofthesechaoticWhentheYoungTurkstookpowerin1908,Go¨kalpleftDiyarbakirforSalonika,wherehewastoserveastherepresentativetotheircoreorganization,theCommitteeonUnionandProgress.SalonikawasthenthewesternmostmetropolisoftheOttomanworld—bothliterallyand AmericanJournalofSociologyguratively—andthereGo¨kalpbegantherstofmanyperiodicalshewouldpublish.HealsoreadextensivelyinFrenchsociologyandphilos-ophy:AlfredFouille´e,GabrielTarde,andGustaveLeBon,butaboveall,Durkheim.Hebegananormalschoolinsocialscienceandenerget-icallypreachedhisnewDurkheimiangospel.WhentheEuropeanlandsoftheOttomanempirewerelostintheBalkanWars,Go¨kalpjoinedtherestofthecommitteeinitsretreattoIstanbul.Herehecontinuedteaching,startedmorereviews,andlaidtheintellectualfoundationsofTurkishnationalidentity.TheFirstWorldWardestroyedtheYoungTurkgovernment.Butbythenitslast-ditchdecisiontocontrolwhatitthoughttobefthcolumnactivityontheeasternfrontierhadevolved—whetheronpurposeorbyaccidenthasneverbeenagreed—intothedeathofhundredsofthousandsofArmenians.AlthoughmostYoungTurksedTurkeybeforetheAlliestookover,Go¨kalpremainedandwasfoundguiltyofwarcrimesbyamilitarytribunal.Afterthreeyears’exiletoMalta,hereturnedtoDi-yarbakir.Foundingyetanothersetofperiodicals,heeventuallymovedtoAnkaraandachievedsomeminorpositionsintheKemalistgovernment.Buthishealthfailed,andhediedin1924.¨kalpisinstructivelycomparedwithAliShariati,ourprecedingau-thor.BothwereMuslims.BothhadstudiedWesterncultureingeneralandFrenchcultureinparticular.Bothaimedtocreateaneffectiveidentityforthosewhomtheyenvisionedtobetheircountrymen.Yettherewerecrucialdifferences,too.Go¨kalpwasanalmostsecularSunni,ShariatiamuchmorereligiousShii.Go¨kalp’sFrancewasDurkheimandBergson.ati’sFrancewasSartreandFanon.Go¨kalp’shomelandwastheTurkeyheinventedoutofthewreckageofOttomanism;hisideologicalinventionwouldunderpinAtatu¨rk’slongdictatorshi

4 p.Shariati’shome-landwastheIranthatresul
p.Shariati’shome-landwastheIranthatresultedfromjustsuchadictatorship,foundedby¨rk’sIraniancontemporaryandequivalent,RezaShahPahlavi;ati’sideologicalinventionwouldhelpundermineandoverthrowthatdictatorship.Finally,whilebothGo¨kalpandShariatiassertedasingleultimatesolidarity,forGo¨kalpitwastheTurkishnationandforatithenonnational.Go¨kalpwastheideologistofthemostruthlesslysecularizinggovernmentinMuslimhistory.ShariatiwastheharbingerofthereturnoftheIranianButthesedifferencesobscurethesimilaritiesbetweenthetwowriters.Bothsetthemselvestheprojectofconstructingandlegitimatingadif-ference.Ineachcase,thatdifferencewasasubstantiveoneratherthanamereformality.ThisisobviousinthecaseofShariati,whoseturntowardreligionseemedobviouslytocontravenethe(supposed)secular-izingtrendofthe20thcentury.ButGo¨kalpwasnolessaprophetofsubstantivedifference.Forthe“oldview”thatherejectedwasthecos-mopolitanismoftheYoungOttomans,themid-19th-centuryattempttomakeanidealoftheloosetolerance—orwasitsimplythelackofactiverepression?—ofthemultiethnicandmultireligiousOttomanempire.Go¨k- BookReviewsalp’sattitudetowardthenon-Muslimminoritiesoftheempireisdeeplymixed;headmirestheirconcentrationinthemercantileandeducatedoccupationsbutcannotdecidewhethertoattributeittotheTurkishdis-inclinationforsuchwork,toaculturalconnectionwiththeWest,ortotheindependentachievementsoftheminoritiesinvolved.Andheseemsunwillingtoadmiretheirsuccessinthemidstofanaliensociety.Moreover,heultimatelyrejectssuchcosmopolitanismbecauseinhisviewithasnocontent.Itismeretoleration.LikeShariati,then,Go¨kalpisnotatrueliberal.AlthoughheacceptsDurkheim’snotionthatthecollectiveconscienceisonlyasmallpartoftheindividualinmodernsociety,heworrieslestthatpartbetoosmallandtooindeterminate.Hisoeuvretakesitsmaintasktobethellingofthecollectiveconsciencewithcontent:Turkishfolktales,Turkishheroes,Turkishhomelands,Turkishculture.Aboveall,hefavorstheTurkishlanguage,whichheviewsastheheartofTurkishidentity.Go¨kalpwasoneoftheoriginatorsoftheprojecttopurifyTurkishofitsArabandPersianborrowings,aprojectwhoseequiv-alentFrenchincarnationinthe«miefrancüaisehemusthaveknownwell.Indeed,Go¨kalpattimessoundslikeapoliticianwhohasreadBen-jaminLeeWhorf,tellingusth

5 atifPomaks(BulgarianMuslims)learnTurkish
atifPomaks(BulgarianMuslims)learnTurkish,theywillbecomeTurks,andsoon.(Forhim,tobesure,thisargumentrestsonthebroaderTardeannotionthatlanguagebringsideasandcultureinitstrain.)ButGo¨kalpforgetsthatthenaturalstateofmuchofhumankindwasmultilingualuntiltheemergenceandtriumphofthenation-state,whichwas,tosomeextent,simplytheideathatastateoughttobeunilingual.BeforeGo¨kalpmany—orperhapsevenmost—Ottomanshadbeenmultilingualandquitehappyinthatcapacity.WheredidGo¨kalp’spassionatenationalismcomefrom?AnobviousinterpretationwouldattributeittogrowingupTurkishontheeasternmarchlandsofadecayingempire,surroundedbywarringKurds,andoverawedbytheArabicandPersianculturestothesouthandtheeast.Butperhapsanindividualexplanationisunnecessary.Nationalismwasintheveryairofthelate19thcentury:Durkheim’sversionwasonlyoneofmany.BytheendoftheFirstWorldWar,nationalismmayquiteliterallyhavebecometheonlywayforagovernmenttobevisibletoaninter-nationalcommunityobsessedwithandorganizedaroundnationhood.Buttherewasaresidualexplanation,too.ThelossofRumeliaandthedeathofmuchoftheArmenianpopulationlefttheremainsoftheOttomanempirelargelyTurkishspeakinginanycase.ItisthuslittlesurprisingthatTurkishnesswasreconstructedtohaveapositivemeaning.Atthesametime,theword“reconstructed”isincorrect.ItismorepropertosaythatTurkishnesswassimplycreatedfromwholecloth:theword“Turk”meantnothingmorethan“peasant”or“countryman”attheturnofthe20thcentury.Therewas,ofcourse,analternativebasisforstatebuildingwithintheremainsoftheOttomanempire—Islam.ButGo¨kalp’srefusaltoturntoIslamreectedthefactthat,unlikeIran,whereTwelver AmericanJournalofSociologyismwasamoreorlessuniquelocaltradition,TurkeywaspartofamuchlargerSunnithatincludedmanyformerimperialterritories,noneofwhichdesiredanyformofconnectionwitharenewed(Ottoman?Turkish?)statecenteredinAnatolia.ThisproblemofndingandmaintaininganidentitywithinalargerwholewascentraltoGo¨kalp.Thatthemajorsolidaritiesareconcentricisoneofhisxedideas.Family,clan,community,nation,andcivilizationaresomanyChineseboxes,onewithintheother.Religion,forGo¨kalp,comesunderthelastoftheseheadings.Itisa“civilizationalunit”:largeandamorphousandhencenotasrmabasisforsocietyasisthelinguisticandculturalunit—whatGo¨k

6 alpdenesasthenation.AsinDurkheim,tradec
alpdenesasthenation.AsinDurkheim,tradecorporationsappearfromtimetotimeassolidarities,buttheyarelessimportantforGo¨kalpthantheyareforhisFrenchmaster.Go¨kalpfocusesratherontheprocessesofconvergencebywhichthe“smaller”solidarities(family,clan,community)agglomerateintolargeronesandontheprocessesofdivergencebywhichculturesandlanguageunitsseparatethemselvesfromeachotherwithinthelarger“civilizationalunits.”ThenationisthusforGo¨kalptheproperbox;bigenoughtoembracethelessersolidarities,deniteenoughtoovercometheweaknatureof“civilization.”Indeed,itcannothaveescapedGo¨kalp,inhisrstyearsinSalonika,thatEuropean“civilization”wasitselfdriftingtowardArmageddonpreciselybecauseofsuchdivergences.Totakeone’splaceinthatworldnecessitateddrawingsharplines.ButthereareinconsistenciesinGo¨kalp’sarguments.IslamdidturnouttobecentraltoTurkism,althoughassomehavepointedout,Go¨kalp’sisaverydeisticIslamindeed—“withoutpopes,synods,orreligiouscoun-cils”asheputsit.(Andwithoutthe,whichGo¨kalpregardsasperpetuallychangingwiththeevolutionofsociety.)Hisoccasionalin-vocationofthegreatTurkishhomelandofTuran(theareaeastoftheancientOxusRiver)seemsmereancestralwindowdressing.Perhapsmoreimportant,Go¨kalppaysnoattentiontothemanycrosscuttingsolidaritiesthatmakeofmodernsociallifenotaseriesofChineseboxesbutawebofconictinginterconnections.OccupationplayslittleroleinGo¨kalpotherthaninthediscussionofnon-Muslimpredominanceinthecommercialsector.Nordoesclassmakeanyappearance,althoughOttomansocietywasasclassriddenasany.Andoftheimportantfuturesolidarities—gender,forexample—thereisnohint,althoughasaresolutesecularist¨kalpvoicedopinionsonwomen’sfreedomthatmadehimpopularwithlatergenerationsseekingpoliticallycorrectancestors.Buttruepluralism—oranyotheralternativeapproachtotheclassicalproblemsoffactiousliberalism—isinvisibleinGo¨kalp’swriting.AswithDurkheim,thereissomequestionwhetherGo¨kalp’sworksconducetofascism,aquestionmademorepressinginhiscasebytheArmeniandisasterandtheAtatu¨rkdictatorship.CertainlythereisalineofreferenceswithinGo¨kalptotextsandwritersoftenidentiedwithfascism.HespeaksofNietzscheandunderscorestheimportanceofheroes BookReviewsandgreatevents.ButalongsidesuchremarksheinvokesFouille´e’s«es-,H

7 enriBergson’s«lanvital,andWilliamJames’s
enriBergson’s«lanvital,andWilliamJames’spragmatistpsy-chology.Thesearequitedifferentthings,andonlyateleologicalanach-ronismbornoflaterhistorycouldmakeofthemasimplegenealogyinevitablyleadingto“thetriumphofthewill.”Butwearenonethelessremindedhowshortastepitisfromtheprincipledargumentthatlib-eralismisemptyandvacuoustopolicieslikeethniccleansing,forcedmigration,andculturalreeducation.HeretooGo¨kalpremindsoneofati,butwithanationalistratherthanareligioussubstance.InthisregarditisstrikingthatGo¨kalpemphasizesthesociologist’sroleaseducatorandmoralist,anargumentheborrowsdirectlyfromDurkheim.ThusGo¨kalptellsusthesociologistmayinuencetheevolutionofsocietyonlybyknowingitslawsandobeyingthem.Hisfunctionisnottoimposeandinstitute,buttodiscoverelementsofthenationalconscienceintheunconsciouslevelandtobeingthemuptoconsciouslevel.(P.165)YetafewpageslaterhetellsusSocialdisciplinesarealwaysnational,becausetheirsubject-matteristheinstitutionsofanation.Theyare,however,objectivedisciplinesatthesametimebecausetheyareinterestedinobservinganddiscoveringtheinstitutionsexistinginanation.Theywillshownot“whatitshouldbe”but“howitis.”Theyare,however,normativedisciplinesalso,becauseoncetherulesofnationalinstitutionsarediscoveredandbecomeknown,theyassumeanoblig-atorycharacterforthemembersofthenation.Wedonotlearnthegram-maticalrulesofourlanguagewithonlyatheoreticalinterest,butwemaketheruleswehavelearnednormsinourspeechandwriting.(P.169)ThesociologistmustthusdoresearchonTurkishness,althoughofcourseinsayingthat,Go¨kalptakesforgrantedtheideathatthereisaTurkey.Butwhilethesociologistthinksheisrationallydiscoveringitbythelawsofscience,heisactuallytoaconsiderableextentsimplymakingitup.OnewondersifGo¨kalpreallythoughtthatthenationalconscious-nesscouldbediscoveredbyagreatpublicopinionpoll,whoseresultswouldthenbecomeobligatory.Buthiscomparisonwithlanguageismuchmoresubtle:itdoesarisefromactualspeech,andmustbediscoveredbyresearchonspeech,butitmustnonethelessbetaughtasasystemofknownandxedrules.TheGo¨kalpiansociologististhusnotonlythediscovererbutalsothecreatorofthenation.Thenormalnextstepwouldbetoask“inwhoseinterest?”ButthatquestionmakesnosenseinGo¨kalp’sview,forhedoesnotdiscerngroupswithinTurk

8 ishsociety.Go¨kalp’smasterDurkheim,howev
ishsociety.Go¨kalp’smasterDurkheim,however,didtrytoaddressthisquestion,insometorturedpagesofhisCivicMoralslectures,anditisnoaccidentthatitwasGo¨kalp’sheirsattheFacultyofLawoftheUniversityofIstanbulwhosawtotherstpublicationoftheseDurkheimianlectures,whichwereeventuallytrans-latedintoEnglishandpublishedin1957asProfessionalEthicsandCivic AmericanJournalofSociology(RoutledgeKeganPaul).IntheselecturesDurkheimforoncedis-cussesnotonlytheindividualandsociety,butalsothevarious“secondarygroups”inwhichindividualsareparticipants.Heclaimsthatthestateistherefereethatkeepsanysuchsecondarygroupsfrombecomingtooindependent(“asmallsocietywiththegreater”;,p.61)fortheywouldtherebyreturnustothestateofanti-individualisticmechanicalsolidarity.Thusthestatehasthe“dutyofrepresentingtheoverallcollec-tivity,itsrightsanditsinterests,visa`vistheseindividualcollectivities”,p.62).ButthenDurkheim,frightenedbythepowerhehascreated,arguesthatthesecondarygroupsequallyserveasacheckonthestate,andsoindividualismisabletogrow.Interestingly,heassumesforthemostpartthatthesecondarygroupsdon’toverlap,thusmissingtheargumentsthatwouldlatersustainpluralism.ButtheconscientiousDurkheimthenmoveshisargumentupanotherlevel,toreectonindividualnationsasthe“secondarygroups”toaworldsociety.Herehesimplyassumestheproblemaway:Thereisameansofreconcilingthetwoideas[ofnationalismandinternationalsociety].Thatisforthenationaltomergewiththehumanideal,fortheindividualstatestobecome,eachintheirownway,theagenciesbywhichthisgeneralideaiscarriedintoeffect.Ifeachstatehadasitschiefaim,nottoexpand,ortolengthenitsborders,buttosetitsownhouseinorderandtomakethewidestappealtoitsmembersforamorallifeonaneverhigherlevel,thenalldiscrepancybetweennationalandhumanmoralswouldbeexcluded.(PECM,p.74)LikehisstudentGo¨kalp,Durkheimseemstoassumethatinterstaterivalrywillabateifeachstatebecomesahumanelybestversionofitself:opti-misticwordsindeedinthedecadeofthegreatnavalarmsrace.Weareconfrontedhereagainwiththequestionofuniversalismwithwhichwebegan.OnecanresolvetheproblemofuniversalpoliticalsocietybycreatinganabstractioncalleduniversalcitizenshipandendowingthatabstractionwiththeGo¨kalpian/Durkheimianqualityofcollectivecon-science.ButGo¨kalps

9 awclearlytheweakness—asDurkheimwouldhave
awclearlytheweakness—asDurkheimwouldhavesaid,the“progressiveindeterminacy”—ofsuchacollectiveconscience.Thatwashisargumentagainstcosmopolitanism.Butifonebuildsandstrengthensthelessersolidarityofnationhood,whetherTurkishoroth-erwise,onemustexpectinevitableconict.Durkheimsimplyassumesthisawaybyhopingeachnationwilldevoteitselfindepedendentlytopursuingitsownversionoftheprojectofhumanityinawaythatdoesn’tharmothers.Howeverneavisionthatmightbe,thehistoryofEuropeafter1910showsthatitwasn’tapracticablerealityinDurkheim’sday.AsforGo¨kalp,perhapssimplyenvisioningthenationwasenoughtoattempt.ThetaskofcreatingTurkeyfromtheruinsoftheOttomanempirewassurelyamoredesperateonethanDurkheim’staskofundertakinganotherGallicanjoustwiththeVaticanandavengingtheslightsof1870.ButwearenonethelessleftwiththehorroroftheArmenianevents.ItwouldbepresumptuoustoclaimthatGo¨kalpforesawand BookReviewsapprovedthesometimesbalefulconsequencesofhiscreationofTurkishnationalism.Buthetellsusonlyhowtobeproudandfullledinourownidentities,nothowtoavoiddoingsoattheexpenseofothers.Translationrequiresboth. 7XUNLVK1DWLRQDOLVPDQG:HVWHUQ&LYLOL]DWLRQE\=L\D*¸NDOS 7XUNLVK1DWLRQDOLVPDQG:HVWHUQ&LYLOL]DWLRQE\=L\D*¸NDOS 5HYLHZE\ $PHULFDQ-RXUQDORI6RFLRORJ\9RO1R0DUFK\fSS 3XEOLVKHGE\ 6WDEOH85/ $FFHVVHG Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Journal of Sociology. http://www.jstor.or