260 | Ruler Visibility, Modernity, and Ethnonationalism
Ruler Visibility
Today, in the age of the internet and social networking, strong expectations and
pressures for openness, accessibility, and transparency affect all layers of the so-
ciopolitical structure contained within the nation-state. This has not always been
the case. In fact, for the vast majority of their existence, empires operated in a
completely different manner—as highly restricted central spheres with a number
of largely autonomous local units. In the Ottoman Empire of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, the general trend was for sultans to rarely partake of public
ceremonies. When they did, they engaged in restrained, carefully choreographed
behavior, usually sharing ceremonial space with few outside the capital’s elite.
The Janissaries, elite Ottoman military units, enforced the lack of ruler visibility.
This capacity afforded them immense power, which they frequently abused, lead-
ing to bouts of political instability. It also made the Janissaries strongly impervi-
ous to calls for reform lest they lose their power.
In 1826, in a dramatic turnaround of events, Sultan Mahmud II (r. 1808–
1839), who had come to power with the help of the Janissaries, abolished their
corps. The outcome opened the door to reforms, which had cost his predecessor,
Selim III (1789–1808), his life when he had attempted to introduce many of them.
Central among them was the dramatic overhaul of the ruler’s public image.
Until the 1830s, the sultan was a very distant and rather vague figure in the
minds of the vast majority of his subjects throughout the far-flung imperial do-
mains. Since he played no role whatsoever in their day-to-day lives, his image
was almost nonexistent. Since in the past two hundred years the ruler had rarely
left the palace complex and had almost never ventured beyond the capital, most
people were not only thoroughly unaccustomed to being in his presence but un-
aware of his appearance.
The nucleus of the power structure in each provincial center, represented
by a governor or a well-connected local magnate and his household and follow-
ers, radiated influence out to its regional periphery, in emulation of the imperial
household itself. This local arrangement was the empire’s face in the provinces,
the one and only empire locals knew. Therefore, this was the world they identified
with. People saw themselves in loose confessional (Muslim, Christian, Jewish)
and strict professional (artisan, peasant, merchant) terms. They were regionally
defined. In the case of sedentary populations, more often than not, belonging
was centered on a village and its surroundings up to but rarely farther than the
nearest town. After all, this was the zone of habitation and movement for most
people. In this, the natural terrain—a mountain, a valley, a river—often played
a key role. The terrain set the pace of everyday life in a number of ways, via cli-
mate, types of livelihood available, and hence, types of clothing, tools, customs,
regional dialects, and other specificities. What people decidedly did not identify