Ella Fratantuono’s Governing Migration in the Late Ottoman Empire is among the most recent and notable contributions to the expanding field of Ottoman migration and mobility studies. Rather than exploring the causes and consequences of migration – topics extensively covered in the existing literature, Fratantuono centers her analysis on how migration was governed, categorized, and conceptualized by the Ottoman state from the 1850s through the early twentieth century. At the heart of the study composed of six chapters lies a simple yet powerful question: “Who is muhacir?”
To answer this question, the author employs three interrelated concepts: governmentality, social engineering, and failure. Governmentality, borrowed from Foucault, is used to reconceptualize the Ottoman population not as a collection of individuals, but as a measurable and governable entity – one to be monitored, managed, and acted upon for specific political and social ends. Social engineering, in this context, refers to the mechanisms and criteria through which such interventions are implemented. However, unlike its frequent association in the literature with homogenization through genocide or ethnic cleansing, Fratantuono adopts a broader understanding: a technique that enables the state to categorize individuals as useful, reformable, or expendable. In this light, the question “Who is muhacir?” runs parallel to a deeper, normative inquiry: “Who is the ideal Ottoman subject?” Finally, Fratantuono treats the failure of these governing techniques not as evidence of state weakness, but as a structural and inevitable outcome of such interventions. The gap between intention and result does not signal the abandonment of these methods; rather, it reveals a persistent will to improve – a continuous search for new strategies to manage and shape the population. Because her focus is on how the state managed migration, Fratantuono primarily draws upon sources produced by Ottoman state officials, including reports and documents concerning migrants and migration, complaints submitted to the authorities, and parliamentary records related to these issues. She also incorporates reports and correspondence from foreign ambassadors stationed in the Ottoman Empire during the periods under study.
The first chapter focuses on the Migration Regulation of 1857 and the efforts of the Tanzimat authorities to attract European and other settlers to Ottoman lands. In the era of global mass migration, Tanzimat reformers also aimed to create an economic opportunity for new settlers who would open uncultivated lands to production. However, this project defining the muhacir as a colonist was, in a way, frustrated by the arrival of Muslim refugees from Russia after the Crimean War. However, as a striking result of the flexibility of the definition of the term, the state redefined these refugees as the new human resources of its original project. Chapter 2 addresses the challenges faced by this project amidst the ongoing wave of migration from Russia. As the number of muhacirs increased, they began to pose bureaucratic and logistical problems. Plans to settle them as colonists in designated regions met with local resistance, limited resources, and administrative shortcomings. In this context, Ottoman administrators sought to resolve the issue by developing new bureaucratic mechanisms, such as mapping and data collection, resulting in strengthening of the state’s infrastructure and administrative capacity.
Chapter 3 fast-forwards through the calendar pages to the aftermath of the 1877–1878 Russo-Ottoman War. During and after the war, muhacirs were portrayed by the central government as victims to attract international sympathy, aid, and attention. Public health measures, regulations, and institutions, along with charity campaigns, contributed to framing the muhacirs as suffering, sick, and in need of assistance. At the same time, they served as a tool of political legitimacy for the Ottoman state, as it presented itself – both to its own subjects and to the international public – as a modern and compassionate government.
Chapter 4 offers the most original contribution of the study. Challenging the notion that failure is merely a sign of state weakness, it instead treats failure as a condition that enables the production of new policies. The gap between what was intended and what occurred triggers the emergence of new methods. The state’s inability to fully predict or control the outcomes of migration leads to processes of bureaucratic learning and adaptation. By examining Ottoman practice in the last two decades of the nineteenth century alongside theory, Fratantuono shows that failed plans did not result in abandonment, but rather in institutional innovation. For instance, the early difficulties in settling migrants gave way, in later periods, to more detailed population censuses and the development of alternative land allocation methods. These bureaucratic innovations reflect what she terms a “will to improve.” While the chapter does not explicitly reference theories of alternative modernities, its emphasis on the Ottoman state’s efforts to engineer society through administrative rationality and spatial reorganization implicitly challenges Eurocentric narratives of a singular path to modernity.
As a result of the loss of Balkan territories and a significant portion of the non-Muslim population, the Islamization of state discourse during the reign of Abdülhamid II also influenced how the muhacir was defined. In Chapter 5, Fratantuono illustrates that muhacirs were increasingly characterized by their Muslim identity. “Muslim” had become a trait actively sought by the state; thus, new settlement policies were implemented to ensure the demographic and political unity of the state. Administrators created new institutions such as the High Commission for Migrants (Muhacirin Komisyon-ı Alisi) and the Commission for Muslim Migrants (Muhacirin-i İslamiye Komisyonu) and introduced new regulations such as updated migrant settlement codes and religiously framed justifications like hijra to encourage Muslim immigration. Meanwhile, Armenians – former Ottoman subjects wishing to return from North America – were prevented from doing so through visa and passport requirements enforcing border control. However, this did not mean that all Muslims were accepted unconditionally. Ottoman authorities selectively welcomed those who were perceived as loyal, economically productive, particularly in agriculture – and capable of integration into the social and administrative fabric of the Empire. In contrast, Muslims who were impoverished, politically ambiguous, or considered ethnically difficult to govern were often subject to additional scrutiny, administrative delay, or outright exclusion.
The sixth and final chapter focuses on the aftermath of the 1908 Revolution and analyzes the new regime’s hopes for future migration. During this period, immigrants were seen not only as communities in need of protection but also as actors capable of building the future of the Empire. Moreover, immigrants themselves expressed this aspiration in the newspaper they published, Muhacir. In other words, both the state and the immigrants were optimistic about increasing economic production and ensuring security. However, these expectations were often unmet. Settlement projects either failed or did not produce the anticipated outcomes. Nevertheless, the state’s idealized figure of the muhacir persisted. This chapter highlights that migration policies were frequently shaped by imagined futures rather than present realities. As Fratantuono narrates, the muhacir was not merely a burden to be managed but also a project for the future – and, as such, occupied a significant place in the Ottoman administration’s vision of the ideal Ottoman.
Governing Migration in the Late Ottoman Empire stands out for both its strong theoretical foundation and meticulous archival research. Fratantuono’s treatment of migration not merely as a reaction to crises, but as a process actively governed by specific political, economic, and social motives represents an important contribution in Ottoman studies. The author analyzes migrants not only as mobile individuals but also as objects of governance. This approach not only challenges the conventional “refugee–settler” dichotomy but also allows for comparisons between the Empire and global migration regimes. Throughout the book, each chapter examines a different aspect of the muhacir, while references to earlier periods highlight a sense of continuity. This structure effectively supports the book’s central argument: the muhacir was a fluid category shaped by the changing perceptions and needs of the state. Moreover, the conceptualization of failure as a productive force that gives rise to new bureaucratic instruments offers a fresh perspective – not only for Ottoman studies but also for broader fields such as migration and governance studies.
However, in addition to these strengths, the book also has certain shortcomings. First, due to the state-centered perspective it adopts, the voice of the migrants themselves is less audible. By treating the migrant as an object to be managed, their subjectivity is overlooked. Although local conflicts are occasionally analyzed in the book, except for the final chapter, the agendas and reactions of the ordinary people, both migrants and locals, are not sufficiently conveyed. This limitation probably stems from the sources selected. However, if the author believes this issue lies in the availability – or lack – of sources, rather than a choice among them, she should have discussed this in some detail. Another issue is the limited scope of global comparisons. A broader discussion on this matter could have clarified more explicitly where the Ottoman case fits within global migration regimes. Finally, despite its strong theoretical grounding, the broad application of the concept of social engineering at times undermines its explanatory power. In such a context, any state intervention risks being categorized as social engineering, which can dilute the concept’s analytical usefulness. Also, while the book makes effective use of both social engineering and governmentality as conceptual frameworks to analyze Ottoman migration policy, it does not fully unpack the analytical distinctions between the two. This is a missed opportunity, as a more sustained engagement with their theoretical differences – particularly regarding questions of intentionality, scale, and modes of power – could have enriched the analysis. For instance, whereas governmentality emphasizes dispersed, often technocratic forms of governance aimed at optimizing populations, social engineering tends to imply more top-down, coercive interventions driven by ideological visions. Clarifying how these logics coexisted, overlapped, or conflicted in the Ottoman context would have strengthened the book’s theoretical contribution.
However, these limitations do not overshadow the significance of this work inviting readers to reflect on migration, state capacity, and imperial governance. With its strong theoretical foundation, rich bibliography, and interdisciplinary approach, it serves as a valuable reference not only for those interested in Ottoman history but also for anyone examining the relationship between migration and the state. The book clearly demonstrates that migration is not merely a matter of population movement, but a domain through which modern states shape themselves and their bureaucratic instruments. By analyzing the Empire within this framework, the author makes an important contribution to the study of late Ottoman history.
