ottoman political cartoons, 1908-1911

Bryan Rusch

The Ottoman Empire was familiar with the dangers of nationalism at the onset of the First World War. At the heart of the Empire, the Turks of Anatolia had established their own brand of nationalism following the 1908 Revolution which left the Young Turks in power, reestablishing the constitution and party politics alongside the Sultanate. Internal ethnic divisions had also given rise to nationalistic struggles throughout the Empire which first manifested themselves with the Balkan Wars in 1912, in which Bulgaria, Montenegro, Serbia, and Greece took Macedonia, Albanian and Thrace from the Ottomans.  This region would continue to be a hotbed of nationalistic sentiment, ultimately sparking World War I with the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Serbia. The Balkan Wars had unintended cultural consequences for the Ottomans, signaling their Imperial disintegration and reformation into the Republic of Turkey. The new Turkey’s emergence as a powerful modern republic was foreseen by the entities vying to define the future of their country.

This re-identification is tangible in the visible culture of Ottoman satirical political cartoons.  In this artistic space – only present between 1908 to 1911 due to tight censorship – a process of multi-critique was used to provide readership with opinions that were not just one-sided.  The benefits and dangers of Western powers and their cultural influence, dilemmas of the Empire’s range of languages and writing techniques, and the concern and promise of both the new and old regimes were explored in the same periodicals, and sometimes even in the same frame.  To accomplish this complex task, artists took to using an array of recognizable techniques which manipulated local Turkish culture and recent events to make their subjects simplified and recognizable, immediately providing visual context to the issues to be discussed.  The reoccurring characterization of chorus-figures provided local consciousness and symbology, while photorealistic depictions focused on depicting national politics and Westernization that created a distinct visual cultural schizophrenia. This cultural schizophrenia persisted in the attitudes of political cartoons following the Kemalist 1930s.

Artistic Precedence

The early 1700s saw the advent of political cartoons under William Hogarth, who created the first series of visual satire. The form did not find its political intentions until James Gillray in the second half of the century.  While Gillray’s use of caricatures came to define the medium, it was the techniques of allegory pioneered by Daumier and the French ideas of “liberte, fraternite, egalite – hurriyet, uhuvvet, musavaat” produced during the French Revolution that most influenced Ottoman political cartoons. 

Artistic movements in the Ottoman Empire depended on the whims of each new ruler due to their control over the creation and distribution of artwork.  The artwork of the empire’s twilight was themed around aestheticism and utilitarianism in architecture and craftsmanship to contrast with the representative and depictive art of the West.  However, growing European influence instigated a shift in the Ottoman artistic style by 1908.

 By 1908, over a century of French involvement within Ottoman land since Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt had made French the second language of the elite and had idealized French culture.  Many Ottoman thinkers of the mid-19th century were educated in France and brought with them concepts of constitutional politics.  Symbols of both Revolutionary and Modern France were melded together to communicate the complex relationship of the growing Ottoman-Turkish divide.  

The allegory of Daumier saw the representation of political and societal subjects and ideas as objects and people, in a process of anthropomorphism, presenting their interaction as the primary commentary.  This is one of the primary tools of Ottoman-Turkish cartoons.  Daumier also pioneered the symbol of the feminine state as a force of good, a major theme that will be explored later in this paper. One of the most powerful symbols in both French and Ottoman Cartoons was the female ideal of Liberty, who in France is known as ‘Marianne.’ Despite this strong reliance on foreign precedent, the genius of Ottoman-Turkish Cartoons comes from their synthesis with local customs.  As will be examined later in this paper, one major feature which few prior cartoons had explored is the use of constant characters to provide a lens for the audience to view the situation presented and the creation of an active national consciousness which drew the audience into the situation, no matter how foreign.

Turkish Political History

The historical context of the Ottoman Empire elucidates the peculiarity and importance of the years between 1908 and 1911 for the development of Ottoman and Turkish visual culture, one must understand the historical and political context which surrounded these three years looking from the 1830s to the 1930s.  By the 1800s, the Ottoman Empire was under pressure by external powers which were slowly whittling away at its territories. It had become a distinctly medieval empire that was more than 500 years old and maintained an inadequate military and economy. With limited infrastructure and diminishing economic impetus, it could not keep up with the ascendency of rapidly industrializing European powers. As a response, Sultan Abdulmejid I wrote a series of reforms in 1839 known as the Tanzimat, which set out to redefine Ottoman attitudes and institutions.  Styles of dress, financial and tax systems, military functions, and individual rights were all updated over a 37 year period that was governed by two different sultans.  The outbreak of war, rebellion, and famine wrecked the Empire by the end of this period, inspiring a call for a Constitutional Period, which only lasted from 1876 to 1878, when the new parliament elected its own disbanding due to political unrest.

The next thirty years under Sultan Abdul Hamid II only led to heightened European involvement in the region and a greater loss of territory.  A political party of liberal young military officers and bureaucrats, the Young Turks took advantage of the discontent and their military affiliation to throw a peaceful coup, spreading word and growing in popularity in the provinces, until the Sultan had to comply to their demand of the reinstatement of the Constitution, gaining the parliamentary majority in the first election.  Counter revolutions and war defined the Young Turks rule until they were thrust into the First World War, and the Empire was divided amongst the winners.  The four-year Turkish War of Independence to oust the last Ottoman holdouts and European powers started in 1919. The Turkish hero of Gallipoli, Mustafa Kemal, lead the Turkish Nationalist movement to victory, consolidating power for the next decade.

Ottoman-Turkish Cartoon

The first cartoons appeared in the Ottoman Empire in 1867 as a humor magazine.  Due to the government’s control of printing houses and content since the establishment of print censorship in 1857, these humor magazines provided the only opportunity for mass-produced and mass-viewed visual content.  With the Young Turk Revolution and establishment of the Second Constitution, many freedoms never before seen in the empire were implemented, and for the first time freedom of the press was guaranteed. In this period, 65 unique satirical political cartoon gazettes were created in Istanbul, each of which published weekly with at least three distinct cartoons. These periodicals did not take on distinct party-politics, as the concept was still unfamiliar, and elections were controlled and rigged by the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), who was in turn controlled by the Young Turks. They were available for 10 para (1/400 of a Lira) each, and individual publishers produced 5,000 to 50,000 copies per cycle. The Istanbul elite were known as avid readers of the periodicals, which were distributed  throughout the city and surrounding provinces with the development of the train system. Within Istanbul, the periodicals were hung on bulletin boards and walls, passed around in social circles, provided in cafes and lounges, and scavenged out of the trash.  Although the target demographic was the male Istanbullu elite, women and non-citizens were known to have been fond of the periodicals as well. Similarly, the illiterate population was engaged by the political clarity of the imagery. As the Ottomans feared the empire’s growing dependence on foreign business, they established laws making Turkish the official language of all business. The total numbers of readers is unknown, but their novelty created a cult following across the society.  By 1911, the Young Turks were being drawn into international conflicts and were coming under the same criticism of their predecessors.  The free press, seen as a threat, was squelched once more. Freedom of the press was reestablished in 1930 when the Kemalists felt they had a solid grip on the new Republic of Turkey; this saw a similar level of enthusiasm as its first iteration.

Visual Typology

To understand the contextual typology developed in the following cartoons, one must establish some of the themes and visual typologies contemporary to Istanbul pre-World War One.  Of the most important and interesting is the depiction of identity within the periodicals. Two overarching groups must first be understood: The Ottoman and the foreigner – which should not be viewed as the common simplification of ‘the good and the bad.’  

The Ottomans can then be divided into three distinct categories: Identifiable Elite and Political Figures, their Constituents, and the Symbolic Figures of National Conscious.  The constituents include the diverse representation of ethnicities present within the Empire at the time, but also include those who recently left the fold to preserve a sense of continuity. The Symbolic figures can be divided once again: The Chorus and The Three Women of State, the Sister-Citizen, Liberty, and the Old Nag.  The Chorus is a modern adaption of the 400-year old Turkish tradition of Hacivat and Karagoz, shadow play characters whose foils are used to expound upon contemporarily appropriate situations in conjunction  with one another (Urkmez 2017, 85). They are mascots of the cartoons, presented either alone or in a pair, who appear in the title card and then show up in a majority of the cartoons included .  The Three Women are used to contrast the Foreigner, as the Sister Citizen is the common Turkish woman who carries on traditional culture but is vulnerable , Liberty is the power of the Turkish Politic who steps in to defend the local tradition, and the Old Nag is an old woman who has become almost genderless, serving as a cynical advisor and critic through her years of wisdom.  

The Foreigner must be divided as well, into: the political and the cultural.  The political represents the European powers depicted either as individually named countries or as a conglomerate, whose individual aspects are identifiable through stereotypical outfits and hats.  The cultural can be seen primarily through the guise of modern ‘technical’ environments and westernized Turks. The epitome of this is the sexualized woman.  

Through the use of the multi-critique, each of these identities never holds a consistent connotation, and no simple generalization can ever be made.  Most common and most stable are the Ottoman Symbolic figures, which can more rightly be identified as uniquely Turkish entities.  Their use as a cultural lens from which the common citizen can relate through their own experiences and tradition to the unfamiliar subject matter of current affairs and modernism is what made them so digestible and successful at creating a lasting cultural visual cannon supporting the revolutionary idea of a Turkish Nationalism.

Anthropomorphism

One of the most distinct forms of identification and characterization that had been used since the days of the French explosion, was the use of anthropomorphism.  Key figures and countries are represented through animals and objects which have distinct connotations for the subject at hand. In the Ottoman case, animals are often used to represent various countries in conflict, using national symbols as their basis with some of the most identifiable being Russia often appearing as a bear, Austria-Hungary as two eagles, and in a turn of pride, the Ottomans portraying themselves as a lion.  When looking at internal subjects, two of the most common animals are the dog and the cat. The dog is used to represent the peasant class while the black cat is of a cynical servant class. These cartoons serve to critique the commoners of the Empire.  

However, one of the most powerful examples of anthropomorphism is the repeated use of the Donkey as an example of the Ottoman people.Shown here by one of the most prolific and famous publishers, Malum, ‘Information’ the donkey  is all, elite and commoner. The anthropomorphism reveals  its sting when the contrast is in full use: an Ottoman Elite is represented by the upright Donkey, who serves as the Chorus of Malum.  Throughout the periodical and in the particular cartoon  shown, the common Ottoman working class citizen is represented by a normal donkey, merely a beast of burden who is harnessed and ready to work, following the orders of others.  In this cartoon, the commoner is even blinded, walking in a circle, powering a contraption, possibly a water wheel or mill, under the command of the Elite. The message of the trope is clear: the Ottoman people are blindly led without progress by an elite that can only be differentiated in its outward appearance.  However negative the current situation is, the depiction also implies that roles can be reversed, and that no position in society determines one’s path.

The use of anthropomorphism was a classic method of identification in political cartoons, that through its distinctions provided the basis for a uniquely Turkish people that was split between Imperial and Turkish identities and motives.

Chorus

Though the trope was explained above, viewing the use of the Chorus in a few individual pieces is important in understanding how it promoted a Turkish identity beyond its historic context.  Two other prominent periodicals that published twice weekly were Yeni Geveze and Cadaloz, translating to ‘New Talk’ and ‘Old Bitch’ respectively.  In Yeni Geveze, two characters, foils like Karagoz and Hacivat, represent conservative Turkish Traditionalist values and modern Turkish Liberal values through  a slim old man with a long beard wearing traditional robes that could be associated with Islamic garb, and a fat middle aged man with a distinguished moustache and suit that does not necessarily imply westernization.  They both share the fez hat, showing their common Turkish identity. The use of clothing trends to distinguish between ethnicities and define their differences stereotypically,  not antagonistically, is typical of all periodicals.  These two characters are found almost constantly together in situations  ranging from the unbelievable (animals drawing battle lines, marriages with Cholera), to the realistic (discussions with key Ottoman figures), and everything in between depicting common Turkish life .  Certain cartoons have these two as merely observers in a bubble in the top corner, while others have them taking primary action, such as sawing a pasha in half together.  One of the key aspects of their relationship is presented in the previously mentioned cartoon:even though they come from vastly different sets of beliefs, they work together to alter the current situation.  They are active players in maintaining the revolutionary ideals and constant questioning inspired in 1908, as seen in a cartoon where they both water and trim a flower pot whose flowers represent several key figures of the government, several heads having already been cut from their stalks.

In Cadaloz, the Chorus also serves as the character of the Old Nag, who through her age no longer takes sides, but criticizes and advises all.  Unlike the characters of Yeni Geveze, Cadaloz (also the character’s name) takes an active role in every cartoon, not fearing to take politicians by the ear or scold the entire parliament.  She is seen heading bands of revolutionaries through the street and consoling the women following the mighty Ottoman men whose feats of grandeur are supposed to impress .  Her role is an active citizen who is not afraid to step in on any affair.  She is informed by her Ottoman upbringing, but also steps in for nationalistic causes. For example, he cartoon where she prepares the duel between the Ottoman Imperialist who uses the European Pen and foreign languages and the Turk who is using his qalam to write in the distinctly Turkish-Arabic script, reveals  the contemporary conflict of the nationalistic language laws put into place by the Young Turks. 

These choruses provide a distinctly Turkish understanding to both local affairs in Istanbul, as well as the broader actions of the Empire. They are conscious of the diverse set of ideologies present within modernizing Turkey.  However, instead of positioning them against one another, the cartoons use their perspectives as a method of presenting a diversity of opinions in the cartoons -- a diversity that can be unified in their objectives. 

International Concern

Many cartoons were dedicated to international concerns, taking on drastically different styles and techniques that created complex hard to read images that targeted elite and even Western audiences.  These cartoons ranged from tropes of European monsters encroaching on the vulnerable Turkish people, to extremely specific incidents where the locale, people depicted, and animal symbology all played an intricate role in telling the story.  They appeared in Yeni Geveze, with a layer of realism unseen in any other cartoons of this periodical, or of other periodicals.  The cartoons portrayed depth and complex action as well as clear emotions on the faces of the characters involved.  Each cartoon uses the foreground to portray the primary subject, while the background holds important reactionary details, giving context and stakes to the primary action.  No singular narrative or goal can be discerned from these cartoons. Some show the Turks and Europeans complicit in the searching for, impaling, and capturing of individuals while others depict Europeans as outlandish exaggerations of excess and monarchical rule as well as militaristic powers seeking out the vulnerable Turkey. Due to their complex nature and reliance on written cues, most of their meaning is indiscernible. However, reoccurring symbols and hints provided in the visual style and production methods can help bring context to these powerful images.

To begin with previously identified symbols, Liberty and Sister-Citizen take prominence in these cartoons as the embodiment of the Turkish State when compared to European Powers.  Sister-Citizen is used to represent both the cultural heritage of Turkey, as well as her vulnerability. She is often portrayed tied up or imprisoned, and once is even seen with her breast exposed.  While in other cartoons the Sister-Citizen overcomes her chains by herself, Yeni Geveze always contrasts her inability to fight with Liberty’s strong and impassioned defense.  Liberty is portrayed classically, in a long, white flowing robe, with one arm outstretched, holding an Ottoman flag or staff aloft, and the Ottoman star and crescent emblazoned on her chest or behind her head.  She is shown single handedly defending Sister-Citizen from a seven-headed monster of the European powers. Another cartoon depicts her, in one powerful call to action, riding a chariot with each horse labeled, as a single soldier charges ahead in front of her.   While Liberty is a strongly Ottoman symbol, Sister-Citizen is distinctly Turkish, wearing stereotypically Turkish garb and carrying Turkish mannerisms. Additionally, she is labeled ‘Anatolia’ in some cartoons, and does not appear in other cartoons set outside of the peninsula.  

While the dichotomy of distinct Ottoman and Turkish identities are clearly present, subtleties are not present in the depiction of Europeans. European powers are stereotyped by their dress and demeanors and are presented as a group, whether literally as a hydra, or by taking part in group activities or observation.   Their actions are presumptive and aggressive towards the Ottoman Empire, represented by the Star and Crescent -- both presented as a disembodied symbol, and as a part of Liberty’s costume, markedly distinct from the Turkish Sister-Citizen.

Through these depictions, the dialogue of ‘Imperial Ottomans’ and ‘nationalistic citizens’ are not outwardly antagonistic.  They present a codependency. However, once the external European Powers enter the scene, this balance of Ottoman and Turkish is broken.  When Both Liberty and Sister-Citizen are found together against European powers, Sister-Citizen is caught in the crossfire, a victim to larger imperial desires.  However, when Sister-Citizen faces the Europeans on her own, she finds it in herself to break their chains and stand on her own. Cultural identity and imperial struggle are made distinct, but ultimately a strong national identity is the only thing which can overcome encroaching Europe.

Comparison to the Turkish Cartoons of 1930

After censorship was reapplied in 1911, Freedom of Press did not reappear until Ataturk had consolidated power following the War for Independence (1919-1923) in 1930. Ayhan Akman describes this development as “‘a turning point’ for cartoons and politics in Turkey; the cartoons, which were found in newspapers, presented the world through the lens of ‘The West,’ the standard to which all customs, norms, and institutions were judged.’ The cartoons were divided such that the ‘local and daily’ were portrayed as hyper-detailed caricatures which viewers could identify with. The ‘idealized western world’ is portrayed utilising a naturalistic style that exaggerates the world so that the viewers could process and attempt to emulate this new lifestyle, bifurcating the ideal of Turkish identity. The liberal and the conservative perspectives present these two value systems, while the artistic depictions of caricature and the hyper-realistic is divided between local and cultural commentary and Western involvement and political commentary. 

Some cartoons are strikingly similar in their presentation of hyper-realized pairs of sexualized women, the epitome of Westernization in the Empire, and Turkey.  Due to the immense popularity of the cartoons of 1908-1911, the conceptualization and delivery of the cartoons post-1930 created an effective and decisive stylistic division that are characteristic of Turkish cartoons between 1908-1911.  1930’s developments were not revolutionary but merely an evolution of a distinct cultural schizophrenia which had developed out of its 1908-1911 predecessors. Due to the power placed in these cartoons for presenting a critical visual culture against authoritarian governments, their role in defining new communities and identities and the methods for systemizing the symbols and styles for communicating these are both necessary.

Conclusions

The freedom of press from 1908 to 1911 in the Ottoman Empire provided the Turkish people with one of the first chances of creating the ‘Imagined Community,’ theorised by Benedict Anderson.  However, when compared to the development of the Imagined Communities described by Benedict Anderson, the Turkish Community held two major distinctions: the identity came from the people, not from the monarchy or government; and the identity was communicated through visual culture, not written.  

The Turkish Community within the Ottoman Empire was shaped into a revolutionary community against its own failing Imperialism.  This was done through the recreation of the acts of the past in order to shape the mindset of the future and through the lens of familiar cultural symbols placed into foreign context, aware of its own deficiencies in the modern world, while hesitant to adopt new practices for loss of their own identity.  The artists of these cartoons, whose identities we will never know due to their wariness in the face of an authoritarian government, could not support or defame particular politics under the Ottoman government. Instead, they sought to define what was Turkish and what was Ottoman, a much more dangerous act.  Though just brief shadows in Turkish history, their actions were the start of something much greater. The complex sentiments planted bolstered the rise of the Kemalists and are still felt today in the strong visual culture of politics in modern Turkey.

bibliography

Akman, Ayhan. 1998. “From Cultural Schizophrenia to Modernist Binarism: Cartoons and Identities in Turkey (1930-1975).” In Political Cartoons in the Middle East, by Fatma Muge Gocek, 83-132. Princeton, New Jersey: Markus Wiener Publisher.

Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities. New York City, New York: Verso.

Brummet, Palmira. 1998. “New Womn and Old Nag: Images of Women in the Ottoman Cartoon Space.” In Political Cartoons in the Middle East, by Fatma Muge Gocek, 13-58. Princeton, New Jersey: Markus Wiener Publishers.

Brummett, Palmira. 2000. Image & Imperialism in the Ottoman Revolutionary Press 1908-1911. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

Christensen, Peter H. 2017. Germany and the Ottoman Railway: Art, Empire, and Infrastructure. New Haven, Conneticuit: Yale University Press.

cooke, miriam. 1996. Women and the War Story. Los Angelos, California: University of California Press.

Erzen, Jale Nejdet. 1991. “Aesthetics and Aisthesis in Ottoman Art and Architecture.” Journal of Islamic Studies 1-24.

Gencer, Yasemin. 2013. “Pushing Out Islam: Cartoons of the Reform Period in Turkey (1923-1928.” In Visual Culture in the Modern Middle East: Rhetoric of the Image, by Chritiane Gruber and Sune Huagbolle, 189-213. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Gocek, Fatma Muge. 1998. “Political Cartoons as a Site of Representation and Resistance in the Middle East.” In Political Cartoons in the Middle East, by Fatma Muge Gocek, 1-12. Princeton, New Jersey: Markus Wiener Publishers.

Godfrey, Richard. 2001. James Gillray: The Art of Caricature. London, United Kingdom: Tate Gallery.

Koroglu, Erol. 2007. Ottoman Propaganda and Turkish Identity. New York, New York: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.

Levey, Michael. 1975. The World of Ottoman Art. New York City, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Pamuk, Sevket. 2004. “Prices in The Ottoman Empire, 1469-1914.” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 451-468.

Urkmez, Basak. 2017. “Turkish Animation: A Contemporary Reflection of the Karagoz Shadow Play.” In Animation in the Middle East, by Stefanie Van De Peer, 84-106. New York, New York: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1979. “The Ottoman Empire and The Capitalist World-Economy.” Review 389-398.

Wechsler, Judith. 2013. “Allegory in the Work of Daumier.” In Daumier, 32-39. London, United Kingdom: Royal Academy of Arts.

Yeni Geveze Compendium. 1908-1911. “Yeni geveze; Cadaloz; Züğürt; Kâhya kadın; Eşek; 87

Kibar; Ma’lûm; Çekirge; Babahimmet; Cingöz; Lak lak; Hayal-i cedit; Musavver geveze; K.ylü.”

Zurcher, Erik J. 2017. Turkey: A Modern History. New York, New York: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.