In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

53 Identities in Transition Contested Space and Identities in Jerusalem This chapter will explore the process by which Ottoman identity and affiliation to the Ottoman collective were negotiated and thought of in Jerusalem during World War I, by examining changes in both the public and private spheres. Focusing first on the public domain, I will investigate the ways the urban public space was utilized, changed, and negotiated during the war years. Moving to the private sphere, I will then closely examine the ways by which the war affected people’s identities and senses of affiliation to the empire. The public and private domains are related, as will be demonstrated in the following. Changes in public space and its uses also affected the ways people thought of the city, its authorities, their own position in it, and their own affiliation to various collectives . Space and place are considered here to be intimately bound with the constitution of social identities, and are deeply embedded in historical conflicts and processes, such as the war. Urban space is viewed not as a passive, fixed, or abstract arena where things simply “happen,” but rather as a site of political action that involves conflicts over the meanings and interpretations of public space. History of people, then, is integrated here with history of place.1 Treating Jerusalem as a mixed urban locale, the first section of this chapter focuses on the uses of public spaces in the city, and on how the war affected these spaces and their usage. Places receive new meanings in wartime than they do in times of peace, writes Jay Winter; he gives as an example the way railway stations become a site in which identities are exchanged during wartime, when civilians wear uniform and turn into soldiers as they are sent to war.2 In the case investigated here, some of the questions that will be addressed have to do with the use of public space in Jerusalem. Who used different circles, gardens, and public 54 | From Empire to Empire buildings in Jerusalem before the war and for what purpose? How did the function and use of these places change following the outbreak of war? How did the presence of soldiers in the city change the urban environment? These questions will be explored by focusing on three such spaces: Jaffa Road, Jaffa Gate, and the public municipal garden. The second section of this chapter will discuss the ways the war affected people’s views of themselves in the context of the Ottoman collective. By a close reading and comparison of two diaries, those of Ihsan Tourjman and Khalil alSakakini , I will analyze in a micro level how the war, as well as local and regional developments, influenced these two individuals. Mainly I will focus on the ways Tourjman and Sakakini articulated and struggled over their location within the city and the empire. The diaries reveal the negotiation over multiple levels of identification, such as Arabism, Ottomanism, and local identities, and the ways they played out at this time of crisis. They also emphasize the connection between the very private feelings and contemplations and the external developments taking place at the time in Jerusalem and Palestine. Contested Space: Public Space and Its Uses As with other cities around the world, the city of Jerusalem had certain areas within it that can be described as political public spaces. What is public space and how can it be defined? The origins of the concept of public space can be first located in relation to Greek democracy and to the notion of the place where citizenship was practiced and debated, a meeting place that enabled citizens to interact and exchange ideas. In recent years, a growing theoretical debate has focused on the fundamental related questions of what are the meanings of “public,” what makes a space “public,” and what formulates “the public.” Two of the questions that are being asked in this context are what a public realm is and what the relations between the public and government are.3 Henry Lefebvre’s works on everyday practices of life and the social production of space are essential for any discussion on urban public space, the spaces in cities in which day-to-day activities are performed. Although the discussion on public space takes different directions and forms, Lefebvre emphasizes the dialectical relationship between identity and urban space, and provides a conceptual framework for understanding spatial practices of everyday life as being [3.135.246.193] Project...

Share