Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup


Concepts and Repertoires of Living Together (RePLITO)

Published onSep 01, 2021

Mahalle (engl. neighborhood, quarter) denotes the smallest unit of societal organization in the city in much of the geography once subjected to the Ottoman Empire, in parts of Central and South Asia and beyond. Orientalist scholarship1 singled out the mahalle as an important reason why communities in this part of the world did supposedly not integrate into society and thus failed to create cohesive units. I will argue for the exact opposite: Mahalle constitutes not only a very important repertoire of living together in these diverse societies, it also organized welfare and redistribution.

No urban community with the Mahalle?

In his quest to delineate ideal types, the German sociologist Max Weber distinguished between the city of the Occident and the Orient. According to Weber, urban community (“Stadtgemeinschaft”) did only exist in the “West” (Weber, 2000: 11), because “Asian Cities” were devoid both of their own, city-wide legal procedures and autonomous courts as well as financial institutions (Weber, 2000: 12). Urban community (“Stadtverbrüderung”) did therefore only emerge in the “West” and was - from his point of view - rendered impossible by the caste system in India and clan organization in Asia. The non-Western city in plain terms was according to him only a collection of relatively isolated communities that did not aggregate into (urban) society.

Outright copying, the lack of any empirical or source-based research and other academic malpractice for many years left Weber’s stipulations about the city unchallenged until quite recently2; his reasoning informed generations of researchers who wrote bookshelves on the definition of the city of the Orient, of Islam and of Asia.

The mahalle as a repertoire of living together

The study of mahalle as a transregional repertoire that informs living together in many parts of the world is intriguing and difficult at the same time as over-generalization of this very fluid term has been at the core of Orientalism.3 To allow for the necessary precision, this article focusses on the genealogy of the term in the context of the Ottoman Empire and especially Istanbul as this is the region and city I am most familiar with - not without a repeated warning that the concept is in flux, continues to change in time and locality and allows only for approximation. So, what is a mahalle?

The mahalle is an administrative unit in urban and rural settlements led - in case of Muslim majority neighborhoods - by the imam who functioned as a prayer leader and tax collector in the neighborhood. The imam and the kadı constituted the judiciary on the local level to solve inner- and intra-mahalle conflicts. The mahalle was held collectively responsible for crime committed by one of its members and had to pay as restitution (diyet) to the collective of the harmed side. Mahalle were thus both financial and legal units (Alada, 2008: 125, see also 136) that regulated the (religious) rules of living together. Often members of a mahalle founded their own endowments (vakıf or waqf) that created collective urban infrastructure like fresh water provision, schools or served as some sort of collective emergency savings fund (avariz akçası vakfı) (Tamdoğan-Abel, 2000). A high density of endowments in a mahalle if not “a sure indicator of a relatively high degree of social cohesion" (Behar, 2003: 12), is at least a sign that the mahalle had wealthy enough members to create endowments who also wished to share their wealth with their neighbors.

Even administratively the borders between mahalles were only defined in the twentieth century, making the perception and use by their inhabitants the prime definer of demarcation (Behar, 2003: 9). Mahalle were organized around oftentimes religious, but also occupational communities or by networks of fellow-citizens that shared common decent from a specific rural area (Behar, 1997: 19). The postulated religious homogeneity of the mahalle at least for the Ottoman Empire is a rule with many exceptions (Kreiser, 1974: 207). Socio-economic segregation, especially class- or income-based differentiation, in the mahalle was very unusual until well into the twentieth century (Tuman, 2010: 74, Bryant, 2016: 17, Behar, 2003: 5).

Even though the mahalle cannot be well demarcated by attributes like class, religion or ethnicity, they were “cohesive units [that] fostered a durable sense of local identity” (Behar, 2003: 4) whose protection, “its honor, and its reputation” (Bryant, 2016) was very important. Maybe the only “general truth” (Tamdoğan-Abel, 2000) is that mahalle created collective identity.

A strong sense of local identity in combination with collective legal responsibility often combines into the policing of neighbors both back in the Ottoman Empire and known as mahalle pressure (mahalle baskısı) in contemporary Turkey (Boyar & Fleet, 2010: 122). This mutual observation of neighbors’ behavior and the careful watching who enters the mahalle from the outside may both create a collective excluding every “other” and communities that accommodate or even protect otherness (Tamdoğan-Abel, 2000).

The constant eyes on the streets of the mahalle produce a space that is both controlled and appropriated and as such often only semi-public in the sense that outsiders of the mahalle would be treated as guests. As an extension of this public-private space, the mahalle is in many cases also a designated female space (Mills, 2007). Men during day-time follow commercial activity often outside the mahalle (Kuban, 1996: 209), while care work is performed in the house and the street.

Forms of sociability and everyday life

Everyday life in the mahalle is connected to forms of sociability that organize this living together. They include customs like sharing food with neighbors despite religious (or other) difference and sometimes even as an act to establish good relations (Duru, 2016). Especially during the month of Ramadan the poor of all ethnic and religious backgrounds could expect to be fed by their richer neighbors (Georgeon, 1997). Female neighbors come together to “do a day” (gün yapmak) where they both cook and eat together, but also circularly exchange money gifts that allow women in this collective to pay for bigger-than-normal expenses and that constitute a circulating savings group.

These forms of everyday diplomacy (Bryant, 2016: 9) were until the turn to the twentieth-century underpinned by a system of landownership that divided the right of usufruct from the ownership of land. Land and real estate in dense urban areas were in their majority parts of endowments that both served the community and were at least in theory inalienable and not for sale. Seldomly anybody owned anything or at least not on one’s own. This “distributive-accommodative state environment” (Islamoğlu-İnan, 2004: 292) of landownership made living together an economic necessity. While such a system was not devoid of conflict, it was not an inter-ethnic conflict and rarely took a violent form beyond legal disputes.

In the vibrant and increasingly segregated Istanbul of today, the old days of the mahalle are often longed for with nostalgia for peaceful cohabitation and intact community. Especially the religious-conservative have taken up the idea of the mahalle where life as an observing Muslim would be supposedly again possible (Çavdar, 2013). Mahalle at the same time functions as a unit of collectivity and solidarity for their inhabitants in their struggle against unwanted urban regeneration and displacement. The mahalle is thus a repertoire of many different and often conflicting imaginations of living together and a place where these imaginations are negotiated.

Jemima Bickel:

I’m getting quite angry when I read about Max Weber's influential definition, shaped through his academic male Western lense, how Oriental, Islamic and Asian cities are supposedly lacking the integration of their communities into urban society. Me, without ever having been at these places, just by talking to people with diverse cultural backgrounds in my surroundings, I intuitively know that urban neighbourhoods, let's say in turkey, are really defined and shaped by those communities. I often hear people complaining about the disintegrated public in Berlin, which is something I also feel: people don't know the names of their neighbours anymore, and they don't look each other in the eyes when passing on the street.

The descriptions of muslim mahalle are truly inspiring, serving to me as an orientation of what still is to achieve in my neighbourhood on a very local level. I'm asking myself - how can we achieve the recognition of a local judiciary independent of political and religious orientation? How can we secure the living conditions of all people present in a place thus threatened by gentrification - so that the relational dimension can be evolving to an extent that people empathize with one another until they wish to share or redistribute their wealth?

Reading through the end of the text, which pictures the heteronormative structure of the mahalle, I start to believe that the concept needs a proper feminist and secular reform in order to be a nice contemporary and sociocratic model. 

Maitrayee Chaudhuri:

Very interesting. While we use the term ‘mohalla’ regularly, was ignorant of its lineage.

In Delhi we have initiatives such as

Aam Aadmi Mohalla Clinics (AAMC), also known as Mohalla Clinics, are primary health centres in the union territory of New Delhi in India. They offer a basic package of essential health services including medicines, diagnostics, and consultation free of cost. Mohalla in Hindi means neighborhood or community.

Maitrayee Chaudhuri:

You may find this of interest

+ 1 more...