Fleeing from the Nazi regime, along with many German refugees, Hans Reichenbach came to teach at Istanbul University in 1933, accepting the invitation of the Turkish government and stayed in Istanbul until 1938. While much is known about his work and life in Istanbul, the existing literature relies mostly on his letters and works. In this article I try to shed more light on Reichenbach's scholarly activities and personal life by also taking into account the Turkish sources and the academic (...) context in which Reichenbach taught and worked. (shrink)

Turkish modernization relied on the western social sciences and humanities not only as an abstract and distant model, but also in the form of close encounters and interactions with western refugee scholars. This article examines the activities of western intellectuals and experts who visited Turkey in the early republican era (1923—50), especially focusing on a group of émigré scholars who were employed in Turkey after the university reform of 1933. While European and North American social scientists were drawn to meticulous (...) comparisons of `East' and `West' in this period, elites in the former component of this comparative dichotomy were seeking creative ways to turn this taxonomy to their advantage. In the Turkish case, the project of adopting modernity contained universalistic aspects intended to function for particular local needs. A body of racial, historical and linguistic theories attempted to create and sustain a nationally homogeneous society while, at the same time, emphasizing the contributions of Turkishness to western and modern history. Republican scholars tried to establish the Turkish origins of western civilization with the help of western social sciences in general and of western émigré scholars in particular. In the process of facilitating the local efforts to import western modernity into the specificity of Turkishness, refugee scholars encountered contradictory demands and employed different strategies to respond to these demands. (shrink)

Anglophone scholars with a postcolonial perspective have forcefully challenged eurocentric definitions of comparative literature and the limits of national frameworks. But this debate ‘offers few methodological solutions to the pragmatic issue of how to make credible comparisons among radically different languages and literatures’. Moreover, some have even rejected the very notion of comparison, impugning its association with nationalistic and imperialistic perspectives or its unsuitability for the study of historical, dynamic and multidimensional processes. This article offers a synthetic overview of the (...) tools field theory provides for literature studies in a global perspective without sacrificing methodological rigour and empirical validation. It discusses the epistemological principles set out in The Craft of Sociology to address problems of comparison; the possibility of rational dialogue between different theoretical frameworks; the properties which make Bourdieu's model more complete than other approaches to literary phenomena; and finally, developments of field theory and issues raised by globalization. (shrink)