at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323

Contents lists available

Political Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/polgeo

State, peasant, mosquito: The biopolitics of public health education and malaria inearly republican Turkey

Kyle T. Evered a,*, Emine Ö. Evered b,1

aDepartment of Geography, Geography Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1117, USAbDepartment of History, Morrill Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1036, USA

Keywords:BiopoliticsEducationGovernmentalityMalariaPublic healthTurkey

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 517 432 4746 (O),517 432 1671.

E-mail addresses: ktevered@msu.edu (K.T.(E.Ö. Evered).

1 Tel.: þ1 517 432 8222x153 (O), þ1 517 337 2445

0962-6298/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2012.05.002

a b s t r a c t

State officials in early republican Turkey framed malaria as both a medical and a political issue. In doingso, they engaged in public health education campaigns not only to resolve medical concerns but also tobetter govern the country’s population and promote a broader modernist agenda. This article employsprimary sources from Turkish archives and other collections in order to examine the governmental andthe biopolitical implications of this experience. We thus scrutinize the civilizational discourse employedby politicians and physicians as they dealt with this “village disease,” the peoples who theyencountereddand taught, and the obstacles that they perceived to exist within the traditional curativebeliefs and practices found throughout rural Anatolia. Emphasizing modernist ideals in their medicine asmuch as in their politics, we conclude that health officials’ lessons for waging an effective “war” onmalaria targeted not just the disease but also its perceived societal sources of origin anddhencedthevery populace it presumably sought to protect.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Governance, biopolitics, and public health education

Over the past decades, scholars in political geography haveemployed often Foucault’s concept of governmentality (cited from1991, 2003, and 2007, among other versions). Most address theways in which states either create spheres of services in orderostensibly to improve conditions for their citizens (i.e., spheres ofgoverning) or how they implement associated schemes to betterknow and monitor their subject populations (e.g., at the nation-state scale, Hannah, 2000; or at an international scale, Ingram,2011; on governmentality, see also Elden, 2007a, 2007b; Ettlinger,2011). In so far as such institutionalizations of governance andstatistics acquisition enable states to more readily know andintervene in the lives of their citizens, such projects also constitutethe essence of states’ biopolitical engagements with their pop-ulations (Legg, 2005, p. 139; also note Miller & Rose, 2008, pp.199e218).

This politicization of life and states’ attempts to govern it (i.e.,biopolitics) is characterized to be a prime objective for the modern

þ1 517 337 2445 (R); fax: þ1

Evered), evered@msu.edu

(R); fax: þ1 517 353 5599.

All rights reserved.

(or “liberal”) state and entails all that may be associated witha population, its wellbeing and livelihood, and the many factorsthat impact upon it (Foucault, 2008; Rose, 2007; also note Dean,2010, pp. 118e121). Viewed as transpiring during the eighteenthand nineteenth centuries, Foucault asserts that states then initiateda shift in their focus from territories to populationsdespecially foreconomic motives (2007 and 2008). While territory is arguably stillquite importantdand its conceptualization may even be thor-oughly integral with conceptualizations of the biological, manyinitiatives to govern began to target more directly the demographicdomains of states; their citizenries (both on the constructed natureof territory and population and on various bio-territorial notions ofpower, note Alatout, 2006).

Though clinics may be opened, schools built, roads and bridgesconstructed, laws passed, information collected and analyzed, theachievement of liberal governance through these initiatives ismediated by a population’s receptiveness to these developments asfulfilling its collective interest. In this respect, education may beregarded as a critical sphere of governingdmuch like state inter-ventions in public health, resource management, infrastructuralagglomeration, the economy, or security. Educationdframed alter-natively as propaganda or public relations, however, is also anessentialmechanism in the practice of biopolitics and governance. Asa practice integral to states’ “conduct of conduct” (Foucault, 1991, p.48), schooling/training/propagandizing is a technique exercised in

K.T. Evered, E.Ö. Evered / Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323312

concertwith states’deployments of their resources throughout theirterritories to fulfill their populations’ perceived needsdand toreassure their populations that these needs have been addressed.Seen otherwisedfrom a Gramscian perspective, education enablesthe rendering of popular consent that is requisite for a polity to attainhegemony (1971). Alternatively, schooling enables the “high-modernist” state tomake “legible” (i.e., centralize, universalize, andnormalize) its preferences for its population (Scott, 1998, p. 219).Connecting these concepts of governance, citizenship, and bio-politics, Rose establishes the notion of “biological citizenship,”noting that “biological presuppositions, explicitly or implicitly, haveunderlain many citizenship projects, shaped conceptions of what itmeans to be a citizen, and underpinned distinctions between actual,potential, troublesome, and impossible citizens” (2007, p. 132).Receptiveness to instruction (i.e., consent) regarding biopoliticalnormsdbroadly conceiveddnot only facilitates governance, it alsounderlies states’ concepts of inclusion and exclusion.

Situating themselves as teachers vis-à-vis their populations,modern states thus employ education both to attain economic anddevelopmental goals within their lands and to reaffirm presumedcommitments to and successes on behalf of their peoples. In thesphere of public health, therefore, the politics of framing particulardiseases and of engaging (i.e., teaching) the public about theseailments (and the state’s efforts on their behalf) can entail far moreenergy on the part of state officials than that which they expend inactually rendering curative therapies (on framing disease, noteRosenberg, 1992; Rosenberg & Golden, 1992; also, focusing onmalaria, see Packard, 2007). Though historical geographies ofpublic health and disease have yet to focus solely on the politics ofeducationdas this article seeks to initiate with respect to earlyTurkey’s lessons on malaria, they have established how statessought to dominate the discursive framing of particular maladies(on malaria in Argentina, note Carter, 2007 and 2008; also, onframing syphilis and associated practices of regulation in Turkey,note Evered & Evered, 2011a, 2012, in press).

The existing literature on geographies of public health thatengage with educational politics is likewise not especially abun-dant, but we note two exceptions. First, Carter provided a succinctdiscussion of the geographies of public health education withrespect to schooling, propaganda, and public relations amid awiderexamination of the state’s efforts to attain control over (i.e., frame)the “malaria question” in Argentina (2008, pp. 288e289; also,providing greater detail on this issue as a historian of Argentina,note Alvarez, 2008). Perhaps of greater conceptual relevance to ourstudydin terms of the roles of state officials in communities andthe forging of state-society connections, however, Caprottiemployed a Gramscian approach to deal with fascist Italy’s “organicintellectuals” and their deployment of demographic and statisticaldata to aid statist initiatives to impose hegemony (2008, pp.944e945). As we address in a subsequent section, public healthofficials were among the leading “organic intellectuals” of thenationdboth collecting and disseminating information for theTurkish state. Beyond geography, however, historians of (and otherscholars dealing with) public health and medicine have engagedincreasingly with education and the wider associations betweenmedia and medicine (Friedman, 2004; Hansen, 2009; Reagan,Tomes, & Treichler, 2007; also, dealing with media, medicine, andboth state and industry, Berridge and Loughlin, 2005).

Finally, from a geographic perspective, the development andapplication of educational agendas for public health reveal abun-dant spatial dimensions in form and content at various scales. Apartfrom the geopolitical ramifications of modern states employinglessons in health to better govern their territories and populations(Caprotti, 2008; Carter, 2008), the diffusion of such propaganda isconstitutive of, and reinforces, political and socioeconomic

hierarchies. Transmissions of public health lessons, like other formsof media, from center to periphery (re)impose profound top-downmessages (or lessons) regarding idealized (and excoriated) normsfor social, state-society, and societyenature relations. Moreover,though provision of actual medical services and supplies maydiminish in developing states’ peripheries due to logisticalconstraints, the informational reach of their public health lessonsmay extend more broadly throughout their territories. Within suchmessages, the imagery conveyed is spatialized geographically aswelldand may be profoundly simplified and/or embedded withparticular biases. As addressed in subsequent sections, Turkishauthorities often relied upon stark contrasts in the conduct of theselessons, as between urban and rural, modern and peasant (ornomadic) communities, and so forth. While understanding a pop-ulation’s reception of such narratives is crucial in analyzing theexercise of biopolitical power, during the single-party era of theearly republic, spaces for coordinated resistancedor alternativenarrativesdwere minimal. In this setting, we contend, relianceupon traditional healers and practices constituted (at times) a sig-nificantdalbeit “hidden” dmeans of resisting the state’s will (asper Scott, 1985).

Within this study we thus engage with public health educationas a distinctive practice of governing throughout Turkey from the1920s and into the 1940s, and we explore these political geogra-phies of public health and its instruction by examining the relatedsocio-cultural and governmental landscapes of the early republic.In addition to analyzing the institutionalization of public health andits propaganda, we present how the state established itself as aneducator on topics of wellness and disease. In doing so, republicanofficials sought to convey to the wider populace that malaria hadparticular biologicaldand thus preventabledorigins, but they alsoendeavored to reiterate their framing of the disease as a principally“rural” ailment. Part and parcel of its broader efforts to attain bio-political control over its populace, the early secular republic’spolitical framings of public health and disease sermonized aboutmodern medicine and condemned societal traditions that weredeemed ineffective, unscientific, or simply superstitious. Followingour examination of the political geographies of public healtheducation and statist concerns over malaria, we address how stateofficials promoted their educational agendas within their profes-sion and among the wider populace. Though the state focused itslessons in public health both on promoting proper therapies forthose infected and on preventative measures for the broadersociety, its program to educate the nation about malaria wasprofoundly consistent with contemporary public health concernsobservable in the West over hygiene, sanitation, and civilization.Not only targeting traditional curative practices and practitionersfor displacement by state services and officials, the modernistrepublic’s lessons often marginalizeddand graphically miniatur-ized (note Scott, 1998, pp. 4, 257e261)dthe largely rural pop-ulation that it ostensibly sought to rescue from state-definedbiopolitical threats.

In our research, we utilize official (i.e., state-authored andpublished) and unofficial (i.e., unpublished state documents andother printed materials) primary sources written in both Ottomanand modern Turkish in order to survey and analyze major themesassociated with state-led campaigns against what early republicanleaders depicted as one of the nation’s greatest biopolitical threats:malaria. Our analysis is thus based upon documents that weacquired from: the Basbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arsivi (the PrimeMinister’s Archive of the Republic; cited as BCA), the Türkiye BüyükMillet Meclisi Kütüphanesi (the parliament’s library for rare booksand associated records; cited as TBMM), and the Refik SaydamLibrary (for public health-related items), all located in Ankara,Turkey. We also accessed primary materials through the Wellcome

Fig. 1. Leading by example, Atatürk submits to a blood examination for malaria, “likeall inhabitants of Ankara during the first application of Malaria campaign low [sic] No:839” (Süyev, 1952, p. 80; for more on Law No. 839, the Anti-Malaria Campaign Law, seeEvered & Evered, 2011b).

K.T. Evered, E.Ö. Evered / Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323 313

Library in London, England (state posters and other propaganda)and the Center for Research Libraries in the United States (publi-cations printed by the Turkish state). Finally, we have beeninformed significantly by our ongoing assessment of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century materials pertaining topublic health, malaria, and other maladies from the collections ofthe Basbakanlık Arsivi (the archive for Ottoman-era materials) inIstanbul, Turkey.

Institutionalizing public health and the struggle againstmalaria

Despite an abundant literature on the rise of the Turkish nation-state and its policies of modernization, a dimension to this historyoften neglected by scholars is the profound role played by institu-tions of public health and associated officials (among the first ofexceptions to this pattern of disregard, we would identify Tekeli &_Ilkin, 1999). On 20 May 1920, while the 1919e1923 War of Inde-pendence was being fought (on health during this period, seeDerviso�glu, 2009), nationalist leaders based in Ankara establishedthe Sıhhat ve _Içtimai Muavenet Vekaleti (or Ministry of Health andSocial Assistance)dpreceding by more than three years the 29October 1923 demise of the Ottoman Empire and the officialestablishment of the republic. Initially led by Dr. Adnan (Adıvar)(1882e1955), spouse of nationalist and feminist Halide Edıb(Adıvar) (1884e1964), and then by Dr. Refik (Saydam)(1881e1942)dlater prime minister of Turkey (1939e1942)dthisministry identified a number of key medical concerns facing thenascent republic: malaria, syphilis, trachoma, and tuberculosis,among others.

Endeavoring to overcome these and other diseases, the ministrydirected provincial health officials to begin a comprehensive surveyof the nation’s lands and peoplesdserving as “organic intellec-tuals” (recall Caprotti, 2008), and it eventually published theserecords as Türkiye’nin Sıhhî-i _Içtimaî Co�grafyası (“TheMedical-SocialGeography of Turkey,” with subtitles designating specific prov-inces). The first of these socio-medical surveys came out in 1922(Besim Zühtü, 1922; Hıfzı Nuri, 1922; Kemal, 1922; Mehmet Hayri,1994; Nazmi, 1922) and the last was published in 1932 (HasanTahsin, 1932). With the exception of the final survey from 1932,all were published in Ottoman Turkish, and thus far, only two havebeen transcribed in modern Turkish (Mehmet Ali, 1991; MehmetHayri, 1994). As official primary sources, they aredat theirbestdprofoundly rich in detail beyond matters of disease andpublic health, and their more narrative sections offer uniqueinsights into the perspectives and prejudices of their authorsdtheearly republic’s chief officials for public health (for greater discus-sion and analysis of these surveys with respect to syphilis, noteEvered & Evered, 2011a, 2012). In addition to the ministry and itsofficials, a good number of representatives in the first severalparliaments of the republic were also physicians (Tınal, 2009).

Amid a highly nationalistic “demographic discourse” thatpervaded many policy discussions and forecast a possible pop-ulation collapse for Anatolia (on the politics of these anxieties inTurkey, note Evered & Evered, 2011b; on their basis of population inthe literature on biopolitics, see Foucault, 2008; also, on populationand governmentality, see Legg, 2005) and with numerous allies inparliament, the mandate to the ministry and its officials meant thattheir influence was thus considerable. As an example, we note therepublic’s first comprehensive law for public health, the 1930Umumî Hıfzısıhha Kanunu (or Public Health Law), as published (andthus enacted) in the state’s circular Resmî Gazete (1930) on 24 April1930. This landmark legislationwas authored almost entirely by theMinistry of Health and Social Assistance and passed by parliamentwith negligible levels of debate. Perceiving and presenting public

health as essential to the republic’s survival and prosperity,ministry officials not only responded to medical concerns thatarose, they defined for the nation their own indispensable contri-bution and discursively controlled depictions of theiradversariesdbiological and societal. As Turkish health authoritiesthus came to classify and command their own “malaria question,”we see that the experience was not entirely distinct from similarepisodes involving malaria (e.g., Carter, 2008) or even other mal-adies, as Brandt observed with respect to America’s Progressive-eraconstructs of venereal disease and the ways in which theyempowered agendas both political and societal (1987, p. 9). As thestate framed and prescribed a course of action to take for malaria, itthus framed and confronted perceived social ills, as well.

State lessons on malariadand civilization

Throughout Turkey’s histories of governance, the image of thestate as educator has been both iconic and ubiquitous; this was truefor the late Ottoman Empire (discussed as the “educator state” inDeringil, 1999; see also Evered, 2012; Fortna, 2002) and continuesto be so during the republican era (e.g., Kaplan, 2006). Embodyingthe Kemalist state itself throughout his presidencydand since,Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) (1881e1938) was photographed impart-ing lessons to the nation on, for example, the new alphabet, theideals of the republic, and other topics. These images of instructionare among the most commonly reproduced photographs of theleader and feature routinely in murals and posters found upon theinterior and exterior walls of Turkish schools and other buildings.Extending the state’s lessons to include public health, Atatürk,a chronic sufferer frommalaria, even submitted to one of the state’smandatory screenings for the disease in 1926. In doing so, herendered a “teachable moment” for the nation that would bedistributed and commemorated in publications (see Fig. 1) thatlater declared a war upon and then claimed victory for both therepublic and its population over the disease (e.g., Süyev, 1952).

On the surface, public health education in Turkey entailedrepresentational themes that ranged from the mundane andinnocuous (e.g., posters promoting washing, resting, eating prop-erly, and using screens) to the fantastic and cataclysmic (e.g.,illustrations of giant mosquitoes descending upon peasant farmersand laying waste to villages)dnot unlike the monstrosities seen inearly B-movies. At first glance, such illustrations quickly bring to

K.T. Evered, E.Ö. Evered / Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323314

mind the images and analysis presented by Edmund Russell in hisenvironmental history War and Nature (2001). In his study ofinsects as Cold War metaphors, Russell addressed the parallelsbetween entomologists and politicians as they proposed to combattheir enemiesdhuman and insectdwith chemicals. As addressedin our conclusion to this article, however, the graphic content ofTurkey’s antimalarial campaigns is reflective of rather differentanxieties; statist presumptions regarding its largely rural populaceand associated views that promoted teaching through fear.

As such, these images were significant discursive themes asso-ciated with the state’s research about, political framing of, andplanned and declared agendas for confronting malariadthusrevealing various statist and particular officials’ motives andintentions. Furthermore, these records also convey their thoughtsand prejudices regarding Turkey’s largely rural populace (asa related example, note Fedunkiw, 2003, on the ways in whichanalysis of public health films enhances our understanding of thesocio-cultural biases endemic to many health initiatives). Thoughmany sources on the early republic perpetuate the “great man”narrative associated with Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) or depict it insimplistic, unitary terms, we strived to not do so in this and in ourother studies. Rather, our views on the early Turkish state areinformed by perspectives that conceive of the state as collections ofpractices (and, as noted, education may be one of them) thatconveydsometimes in misleading fashionddistinct/discreteframeworks and that exhibit externally a sort of structure(Mitchell, 1991, p. 94; see also Painter, 2006). Indeed, a principalchallenge in studying authoritarian or single-party politiesdandthe early republic could be regarded as bothdis to discern howpolicies are formulated and implemented. In our researchdbothfor this article and in others, concentration on the perceptions ofand the policies advocated by individuals within the Ministry ofHealth and Social Assistance has allowed us to progress in thisdirection. Through our examination of such singular voices, wehave been able to discern not only how actors arrived at consensusbut also how contestation transpireddas in the debates oversyphilis and the regulation/prohibition of prostitution (Evered &Evered, 2012).

Beginning with the earliest of republican documents that weexamineddand reflecting continuities in ideas and attitudes thatwere entrenched throughout the late Ottoman period,2 physiciansand health officials commonly referred to malaria as a köylühastalı�gı (or “village disease”). As such, it was an ailment of thepeasants and the pastoralists of Anatolia (on comparable associa-tions of malaria as a “tropical” disease in the West or a “Southern”disease in the United States, note Packard, 2007, pp. 67e83). In thesociopolitical framing of the disease, this perceived and imposedantagonism between modern/enlightened/urban and traditional/primitive/rural (i.e., rural and diseased) was reinforcedcontinuouslydsuch that the state’s mission entailed clearly inter-ventions to cure malaria the disease but also to enlighten (or curecivilizationally) the peasantry as a class.

Underscoring these connections between good health andprogress, Prime Minister _Ismet (_Inönü) Pasa declared at Turkey’smedical congress of 1931, “Medenî hayat her seyden evvel sıhhîhayattır” (or “A civilized life is first and foremost a healthy life”;quoted in T.C. Sa�glık ve Sosyal Yardım Bakanlı�gı, 1947: 3). Despitethe tremendous slogans of Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) on behalf ofthe nation’s peasantry, especially the often-quoted Köylü yurdunefendisidir!d“The true master [of Turkey] is the peasant/farmer!”,the health ministry and other branches of the republican statecontinuously sought to cure the existential malady of the peasantthrough education. As ameans to effecting such changes among thegeneral populace, the ministry strived to school young citizens inhygiene and health, with an emphasis on elementary education

(Sa�glık Dergisi, 1948, pp. 64e65). In the subsequent sections of thisarticle, we continue to address how the republic institutionalizedpublic health, health education, and the malaria struggle, but indoing so we also reveal how the health ministry trained its ownpersonnel, prioritized lessons against traditional (i.e., peasant)medicine and healers, cared fordbut also counseleddthoseinfected with malaria, and prescribed images of proper citizen-ship and lifestyle to the wider nation.

Mobilizing to teach against malaria

In support of the republic’s biopolitical operations to educatethe public, the health ministry had a separate section known as thegeneral directorate. Divided into two branchesdone for each of itsmain concerns, the directorate established (1) a public healthpropaganda branch and (2) a medical statistics branch. Broadcategories of statistical records assembled included data ondiseases, deaths, births, marriages, population trends and move-ments, and types of medicines consumed in Turkey and their ratesof consumption (Sa�glık Dergisi, 1948, p. 65). Broadly conceived, thepropaganda branch was tasked with “enlightening” the nation. Toachieve their biopolitical goals, it relied upon all means of moderncommunication, including free brochures and posters, books,medical programs and information for the republic’s radio stations,and even silent and non-silent movies. Compiling figures for thenumbers of free brochures and posters distributed between 1923and 1948, the statistics branch of the ministry’s general directoratecited a nationwide distribution of approximately 5,864,000brochures and 725,000 posters, both black-and-white and colored(BCA 490-01-1211-22-1-38, p. 51).

On an annual basis, with agricultural calendars often in mind inorder to avoid conflicts with planting and harvesting, the ministrydispatched in rotation cinema operators with projectorsthroughout the country to show films in the nation’s many citiesand towns.Winters were generally the best seasons for distributingpropaganda in most rural communities of Anatolia. Among archivaldocuments examined, it is interesting to note the presence ofcomplaints from local communities over matters of scheduling. Forexample, the provincial council of Adana wrote in April 1935 thatthe twelve or thirteen films scheduled to be shipped in the priortwo or three months to Izmir, Aydin, Denizli, Afyon, Konya, andthen Adana had not yet been delivered. Local officials were con-cerned that, if the films did not arrive by the end of May, peoplewould be too busy tending to the cotton fields in the evenings dueto the increasing daytime temperatures of summer (BCA 490-01-1211-22-1-38, pp. 33 and 34). Although we might assume thatthese officials were concerned about delivering effectively theministry’s educational messages, we also suspect that these filmswere a novel and popular form of entertainment for the people of1920s through 1940s rural Anatolia (on the entertainment aspectsof early public health educational films, note especially Stein’sanalysis of their place in 1930s Java, 2006).

Of the health-related films shown, American films werereportedly the most popular. Shown free-of-charge, public healthand hygiene movies were viewed by an estimated 461,441 peoplebetween 1923 and 1948, according to the statistics branch of thedirectorate. The titles of these health and social films included (intranslation)Malaria; NewMethods in Anti-malaria Campaigns; ChildCare; The Importance of Influenza; Healthy Water; Once upon a TimeThere Were Three Friends; Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Tuber-culosis; Dangers of a Fly; Solutions to Living a Long and Healthy Life;The Value of Mother’s Milk; Punishment for Neglect; Why Did WillieWant to Be Washed?; and Getting Used to Protecting Health andAchieving It (BCA 490-01-1211-22-1-38, p. 51). Based upon relatedongoing research into historical geographies of syphilis eradication

K.T. Evered, E.Ö. Evered / Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323 315

in the republic (e.g., Evered & Evered, 2011a, 2012, in press), welearned that Once upon a Time ThereWere Three Friendswas actuallythe 1927 French film Il était une fois trios amis (more commonlyrendered in English as The Three Friends). This film dealt with theresponsibilities of good citizens to be tested (and treated) forsyphilis. In the last of the socio-medical geographies to be pub-lished, its author, Dr. Hasan Tahsin, also referred to screenings of thefollowing films in Sivas: Malaria; New Methods in Anti-malariaCampaigns; Child Care; Once upon a Time There Were ThreeFriends; Dangers of a Fly; and The Value of Mother’s Milk, amongothers. He also indicated that the desired audiences for these filmsincluded expectant mothers, schoolchildren, and soldiers (1932, p.308).

Promoting the professionalization of Turkey’s medical andhealth cadre, the propaganda branch of the general directorate alsopublished the state’s key health journal Sıhhiye Mecmuası, laterrenamed Sa�glık Dergisi (Sa�glık Dergisi, 1948, p. 64). According toÖzpekcan, Sıhhiye Mecmuası was actually initiated under theOttomans in 1913 and later selected by the republican healthministry to be its official journal (2002, p. 241). Between 1923 and1948, 200,000 copies of this journal were published and distributed(BCA 490-01-1211-22-1-38).

Viewing itself as short on time and funds in dealing with itspriority health concerns, theministry further tasked the directoratewith keeping abreast of medical developments in Europe and theUnited States. It thus facilitated the publication of Turkish booksand translations of foreign texts (between 1923 and 1948, theministry distributed roughly 150,000 copies of such translations;BCA 490-01-1211-22-1-38). One of the more popular foreign titlesthat the ministry prioritized for translation was Luckett and Gray’sThe Elements of Public Health Administration (1923), which wastranslated promptly into Turkish for the ministry’s officials (1926).Articulating his commitment to learning from the West, Dr. Refik(Saydam) wrote in the preface to this translated volume of Turkey’sdesire “to benefit from the experiences of all other nations”(Luckett & Gray, 1926, p. 2). This commitment to public healtheducation, internalized to include the ministry and its officials andstaff, is still reflected in a plaque in the minister’s office, preservedat the Refik Saydam Library in Ankara: “When establishing newinstitutions, instead of conducting new experiments, we strodealong paths that were already tested by implementing practicesthat would protect the health of the Turkish nation.”3

Beyond the nation’s largest cities, the ministry relied uponanother state institutiondespecially for film screenings, the Hal-kevleri (or “People’s Houses”), evidenced in official documents andarchival letters. Within such correspondence, the Halkevleri wereemphasized as unique gathering places for the young people ofcommunities, and they were promoted as sites to show more filmson a regular basis in order to improve “people’s health and socialknowledge” (e.g., BCA 490-01-1211-22-1-38, pp. 25 and 31).Established in provincial cities and towns, these gathering placesfor the socialization of old and young were venues for the state todisseminate information and ideology (Karaömerlio�glu, 1998;Karpat, 1963, 1974). In villages, there was a smaller equivalentknown as the Halkodası (or “People’s Room”). Featuring their ownpublications and events with readings, presentations, perfor-mances, and films, the Halkevleri were envisioned by republicanleaders as places where people would form social bonds withintheir communities and political bonds with the state. According tothe Ministry of Interior, by 1938 there were 209 Halkevlerithroughout Turkey (BCA 490-01-1211-22-1-22). As satellites for thediffusion of state information, the Halkevleri were the crucial siteswhere the health ministry screened films, distributed information,and taught the importance of public health and physiciansdand, atrudimentary levels, the scientific truths of modern epidemiology

and medicine. In locations where Halkevleri were not available,other state institutions were utilized. Indeed, with particular regardto malaria, apart from the usual sites andmedia of instruction, evenimams were encouraged to convey public health lessons about thedisease through the sermons they delivered in the secular repub-lic’s state-run mosques (Temel, 2008, pp. 74e75).

Another form of media delivery involved public healthmuseums in Ankara, Istanbul, and Izmir, with travelingmuseums tovisit other locations. The Turkish republic was not alone in facili-tating public health education through museums. Indeed, theOttoman Empire opened a health museum in Istanbul, though theconditions of World War I prevented its continued operation(Özpekcan, 2002, p. 240). Additionally, according to a contempo-rary League of Nations report from its 1924 survey of EasternEurope, Russia had “excellent hygiene museums” and also facili-tated the delivery of propaganda via mobile museums on railwaycars (1925, p. 41). The Istanbul health museum began operationsunder republican authority in 1924, and some of its materials wereloaned to an Ankara museum that opened in 1926dthoughmost ofthese items and the museum were damaged severely in 1931 bya fire. A similar public exhibit was displayed in Gençlik Parkı (or“the People’s Park”) in Ankara in the 1940s. Furthermore, in severaltowns, the ministry encouraged local businesses to support theopening of such museums (Özpekcan, 2002, pp. 240e241).

For locations too remote for health exhibits, the ministry alsopublished in 1926 the Sıhhî Müze Atlası (or “Medical MuseumAtlas”). Although no location or publication house information isprovided in the atlas, Özpekcan noted that 1000 copies weredistributed throughout the country (2002, p. 241); we were able toutilize the copy of this volume held at TBMM. Intended asa portable, concise version of the health exhibits found in the bigcities of Turkey, the Sıhhî Müze Atlası featured colored images anddescriptive textdthough no actual maps. In his preface to thevolume,Minister of Health Refik (Saydam) explained the purpose ofthe atlas: “to educate the public to avoid such [contagious andsocial] diseases and to display the damage and terrible outcomesthat they cause” (T.C. Sıhhiye ve Muavenet-i _Içtimaîye Vekaleti,1926, n.p.). While the atlas presented graphic and shocking imagesof victims of syphilis who suffered from facial deformities, it alsooffered educational approaches to malaria. Just as Refik (Saydam)indicated, there was a heavy emphasis on cause and consequence.Stressing that the scientifically proven source of malaria was Plas-modium (i.e., the malaria parasite), which was depicted in figures ofa microscope’s slides, and that victims acquired it from a particulartype of mosquito (a concept that recurs in various ways as aninstructional imperative in this historical geography of publichealth education and malaria)dand not another variety of theinsect, the atlas presented two associated images (see Fig. 2).

Portraying the consequences of malaria, the atlas followed theimages of the mosquito and bacterium with two portraits of thephysical victims of the disease; a man with his spleen detailed inboth healthy and enlarged proportions, and a childwith a distendedabdomendue toanenlarged spleen (see Fig. 3). In thepublications ofthe Turkish health ministry, such representations of those sufferingfrom malaria with distended stomachsdespecially childrendwerealmost as omnipresent as those of the mosquito. These figureswere followed by two additional pages that pictured villages (oneimage from the exhibit in Ankara and the other from the exhibit inIstanbul) that were idyllicdexcept for a relative lack of inhabitants.Conveying succinctly the Foucauldian connection between pop-ulation and economy (analyzed with regards to governmentality inEvered & Evered, 2011b), the sub-caption above each of the land-scapes read, “Protection from malaria increases the power andwealth of the country” (see Fig. 4). Below these images anothercaption stated, “A malarial village and its surroundings attracted

Fig. 2. This page titled “Sıtmadmalarya” provided viewers with an image of malaria as seen in a scientist’s slides and a depiction of the types of mosquitoes that did and did nottransmit the disease (T.C. Sıhhiye ve Muavenet-i _Içtimaîye Vekaleti, 1926, p. 2; TBMM).

K.T. Evered, E.Ö. Evered / Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323316

many villagers with its lush vegetation and a beautiful panoramathat enticed them to settle, but [this malarial village] graduallydevastated the inhabitants and condemned them to decay” (T.C.Sıhhiye ve Muavenet-i _Içtimaîye Vekaleti, 1926, pp. 4e5).

The atlas’ biopolitical associations between disease anddeclinedbiological and civilizationaldfor both individual andsociety/state endured in republican discourse for many years.Twenty years after publication of the atlas, the journalist Kemal

Fig. 3. A page titled “Sıtmadmalarya” depicted bodily aspects of the disease, displaying a menlarged due to malaria and, on the left, a child with his abdomen distended severely due to

Zeki Gencosman visited one of the republic’s public health exhibits,which promoted a new ten-year health plan. In his narrative,diseasesdand especially malariadendured as shameful markers ofcivilizations’ underdevelopment and their relative lack of progress:

Victory means defeating the enemy. So long as it lives asa mosquito in the air, as a bacillus in the liver, as trachoma in theeye or under various names such as syphilis, plague, and typhus

an on the right with both his actual spleen and the extent to which it might becomehis enlarged spleen (T.C. Sıhhiye ve Muavenet-i _Içtimaîye Vekaleti, 1926, p. 3; TBMM).

Fig. 4. “A malarial village and its surroundings attracted many villagers with its lushvegetation and a beautiful panorama that enticed them to settle, but [this malarialvillage] gradually devastated the inhabitants and condemned them to decay” (T.C.Sıhhiye ve Muavenet-i _Içtimaîye Vekaleti, 1926, p. 5; TBMM).

K.T. Evered, E.Ö. Evered / Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323 317

among people, we cannot talk about victory. In an age whentalking about malaria is not considered a shame only in themiddle of Africa, we are dealing with treating 2.5 million peoplefor malaria in a yeardthat is, based on who we could contactand turn into statistics. .The mosquito was and will be themajor enemy of any civilization in Anatolia (“On Yıl Sürecek BirMücadelenin Tablosu: Sa�glık Sergisinde Bir Saat,” Ulus, 6 May1947, reprinted in T.C. Sa�glık ve Sosyal Yardım Bakanlı�gı, 1947,pp. ixex and xii).

Deploying an educateddand embeddeddcadre

As we have indicated, the health ministry made priorities oflearning from other countries, of self-education, and of profes-sionalizing Turkey’s medical community. To enable these advances,the government established international connections anddeployed its physicians to various European countries to be trainedin the prevention and treatment of malaria and other ailments. Asexamples from the archival record, even President Mustafa Kemal(Atatürk) was involved in authorizing such initiatives; as heapproved directly a proposal from Dr. Cevdet, director of Konya’santimalarial campaign, to attend a 1932 League of Nations malariaworkshop held in Paris (BCA 030-18-01-02/31-69-008). Similarapproval was granted in March 1933 for two physicians to attendanother League of Nations malaria workshop hosted in Rome (BCA030-18-01-02/34-18-003). In making these connections abroad,Turkey asserted its presence and presented its achievements atinternational symposia such as the 1931 international public healthexhibit in Dresden (Sa�glık Dergisi, 1948, p. 64). The ministry alsoeducated physicians about and standardized therapeutic regimesfor many of the diseases that they confronted.

In addition to regulations and legislation, the ministry convenednational health congresses to convey innovations in medicine andencourage research. In total, ten such congresses were heldbetween 1925 and 1948 (Sa�glık Dergisi, 1948, pp. 64e65). Each

congress emphasized a particular national health concern. The firstof these meetings featured malaria, was organized under theauspices of Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) and took place in September1925 in Ankara (Anonymous,1926), and some of its most significantpapers focused on the disease and its geographic aspects (e.g.,Abdülkadir Lütfi & Ahmed Fikri, 1926; analyzed in Evered & Evered,2011b).

Delivering the opening remarks to the roughly 300 physicianswho attended this inaugural congress, Prime Minister _Ismet(_Inönü) Pasa declared, “Today, as it was on the first day of therepublic, we are determined to do everything at our disposal in ourstruggle [to realize] public health [as we] elevate our citizens’wellbeing to the highest level.” He continued by extolling thecurative and pedagogical missions of the physician in achieving thistask: “There is no more effective way to demonstrate the virtues ofscience and mathematics than by applying their results to thebodies of the people, to sustain their most treasured possession,health. You must employ this powerful weapon over the nexttwenty-five years by being among the people, being among themost underdeveloped, the most needy, and the most suffering ofcommunities and by bringing [the benefits and lessons of modernscience] to them” (_Ismet Pasa, 1926, pp. 2 and 4). In his followingremarks, Minister of Health and Social Assistance Dr. Refik (Say-dam) encouraged the republic’s physicians to be models of a civi-lized life for the nation’s peasantry and to embrace this challenge,rather than simply enjoy the comforts of a city life (1926, pp. 5e7).

This populist approach tomedicine thatwouldplace thephysicians“among the people” was promoted not only by establishing researchcenters inareasmostaffected (e.g., themalaria center located inAdana)but also through regimes of professional training and certification andas a legislated requirement for early-career physicians (Evered &Evered, 2011b). Believing that national success in public health was“proportionate to the level of information that villagers had and howwell theybelieved in thatknowledge,” theministryemployed travelingdoctorsdserving as “organic intellectuals” within the nation’scommunities (recall Caprotti, 2008), and it instructed themhowbest toeducate thepeasantpopulaceofAnatolia regardinghealthandmedicalmatters in terms that they could comprehend. In 1934, the healthministry posted its “instructions regarding the duties of travelingdoctors” (a talimatname). This 51-item regulation detailed the qualifi-cations and appropriate payment for traveling physicians and outlinedthe state’s expectations for these doctors. Among the topics that thesedoctors-teachers should cover was malaria, a major priority in manyregions, especiallymatters associatedwith thedisease’sderivation (i.e.,wetlands) and methods for treatment and preventiondlessons thatwere emphasized repeatedly in texts and in law (e.g., note Sa�glıkDergisi, 1934, p. 333). In this context of asserting biopolitical control,tradition represented both an obstacle and a mode of resistance.

Teaching against rural traditiondand instilling fear

For physicians and provincial health directors, modern lessonsin health seemed dependent upon reducing villagers’ reliance uponlocal cures and healers. As the nascent republic and its advocatessought to facilitate modernization in a manner that was spatiallyand socially comprehensive (thus distinguishing itself in practiceand in self-representations from the empire), these rural traditionswere perceived to be anathema to the vaunted sciences of modernmedicine and statecraft. In this context of a state that wasexpanding rapidly its biopolitical reach, we contend, tradition mayalso be construed as having constituted a significant means ofresistance for peasant communities (Scott, 1985). In the earliest ofthe socio-medical geographies that provincial health directorsauthored, these perceived barriers to overcoming under-development and malaria were condemned as primitive and

K.T. Evered, E.Ö. Evered / Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323318

ineffectual. Describing local customs, the director of Bayezid wroteof locals’ habits of tying rags to the trees near cemeteries and alongroads to remedy the disease (_Ibrahim Edhem, 1925, p. 17). Dr.Mehmet Said, the provincial health director for Sinob (today’sSinop), complained about villagers’ treating those stricken withmalaria by having themwear shirts soaked with garlic and vinegar(1922, p. 41). Criticizing the superstitious peasantry of Mu�gla(Mentese), the director for that province wrote,

In order to be cured from malaria, people carry amulets inscri-bed with the blood of a pigeon or a blackbird, or they go topeople who read and then blow religious verses as a cure. Thereason for this is [their] ignorance (Esad, 1923, p. 70).

Similar commentaries were echoed by other provincial healthdirectors in their socio-medical geographies of Turkey.

In one of the Turkish medical texts published in the late 1920s,traditional practices were connected with malaria’s ongoing spreadamong the people of Anatolia:

In health matters there exist some false beliefs and superstitionsthat provide no benefits but do inflict harm. Others cause neitherbenefit nor harm. However, even though theymay not inflict harmon the surface, they are to be considered harmful because theywaste time in countering the disease by taking the place of neces-sary measures. Let us present an example to explain what thesesuperstitions mean: For example, unfortunate people who remainin ignorance in protecting [their] health expect remedies fromamuletswrittenwith the blood of pigeons or blackbirdswhen theyhave malaria. They tie cotton threads with three knots on theirwrists and ankles, they cut [their] spleens in the midst of incenseand prayers, and they tie lead pieces over the spleen. They foolthemselves with these [remedies] and cause the disease to get outof hand (Resit Galip, 1929, p. 14).

In the eyes of the republic’s proponents, these beliefs andpractices needed to be refuted by science in the modern republic:“Incompatible with today’s science and knowledge, these beliefsmust be uprooted and thrown away” (Resit Galip, 1929, p. 14).

Apart from their scientific and societal disdain for traditionalcuratives, physicians further perceived these practices as a realobstacle to proper therapies and to eventual control and eradica-tion of the malaria. However, in the experience of the provincialhealth director of Gelibolu, changing popular perceptions regardingthe efficacy of modern medicine were impeded by its lack ofimmediate physical results; in other words, for many villagers,modern therapies did not appear to be evidence-based treatments.Writing in colorful prose (i.e., Halkın aklı gözünde oldu�gundan, or“People’s minds do not go beyond what their eyes see”) andresponding to ministry inquiries as to locals’ levels of receptivenessto modern medicine, Dr. Fahri Cemal wrote,

[Since p]eople’s minds do not go beyondwhat their eyes see, thebenefits of a doctor’s treatment must be very clear and visible.Thus, they have more faith in surgical branches of medicinebecause there are incisions. [By contrast, remedies for]malaria, typhoid fever, and syphilis require time to cure, and thisbecomes a motive to avoid the doctor. Since people expect to becured over a short period of time, they cannot persist with a longtreatment, even if it is free. (1925, p. 20)

Ministry officials and physicians also communicated theirdismay over a perceived lack of popular receptiveness to lessonsfrommodern science. In particular, regarding the epidemiologies ofmalaria, modern scientific ideas of its causes (i.e., from Plasmodium)and vectors of transmission (i.e., the mosquito) contradicted firmlyentrenched traditional views on the derivation of malaria. Such

views ranged widely, but they most commonly centered onmiasmic notions of the disease and opinions concerning theconsumption of contaminated food or water. Though physicianswere often shocked by these assumptions, their reactions weremore telling regarding their own social and/or scientific posturingvis-à-vis their patients than they were about the local populationsand the peasants’ “backward” perspectives. Indeed, attributions ofmalaria to miasmic origins were not entirely uncommon within“modern” medicine only a few decades earlier, and many of thepresumed luminaries of Western medicine not only promoted suchviews but were also very much informed by their own observationswithin Anatolia (e.g., on miasma and the earliest of malariologists,Hippocrates and Galen, note Mitchell, 2011, pp. 536e538).

Addressing these concerns about rural “superstitions” in hispaper on malaria at the republic’s first medical congress in 1925,Neset Ömer wrote,

The organization for the campaign against malaria must beuniform and scientific and must extend down to the villagesespecially. It is only then that we can have an effective campaignagainst malaria (1926, p. 266).

Animated commentaries followed Neset Ömer’s paperdandprovided a good indication of the varied perspectives that existed atthe time regarding not only public health but also views on society andpolicy formulation, in general. Formanyof the attendees, instilling fearin the peasantry seemed a requisite to achieving desired goals, andthese messages needed to be disseminated as widely as possible. AsSaid Cemil Bey stated, knowledge “must be propagated, theremust besermons in villages, maps and pictures must be prepared, and peoplemust be shown pictures that reflect the devastation of malaria” (1926,p. 286). Asıf _Ibrahim Bey also remarked on “scientific ignorance” andcommunicated his views on how to overcome itdin terms that bothmarginalized and established possession over the peasantry: graphicpropaganda depicting the effects of malaria and the specter ofmosquitoes. As he stated,

Our peasants are very ignorant. Our peasants never believe thatmalaria is carried by mosquitoes. We cannot make them believethatmalaria is not caused by eating spoiled food. They assume thatis the cause. In order to inject the truth intoourpeasantsweneed tohave some pictures, as some friends suggested, and hang them inthe mosques, the coffeehouses, and the schools. For instance, wecanhave coloredanophelespictures anddisplay them;wecanhaveimages of anopheles biting people; then, we can show the accu-mulation of these [mosquitoes]; we can have images of marshesanddepict the spreadof [eggsor larvae] in themarshes. Thesecouldbe shown in vivid pictures. Thus our villages will discover thatmalaria is carried bymosquitoes. Furthermore, in those posters wecan show malaria-stricken people. Villagers will see these condi-tions and learn to associate the two; that those people are like thatbecause of the mosquitoes. We can succeed in protecting peoplefrom the mosquito and let them know that it is a harmful enemy.Furthermore, one of the posters could depict an individual with anenlarged spleenwho looks lifeless [as he] stands up (1926, p. 288).

Aswill be seen in the subsequent sections, this emphasis upon fearinTurkishpublic health educationwould assume fantastic proportionsas the state sought to communicate graphically the dangers of killermosquitoes to an assumedly naïvedand resistantdpeasantry.

Regulating therapies

In scientific and medical education there was also an emphasis oninculcating discipline and knowledge in the matter of selected thera-pies employed to treat the disease. Commenting on socio-cultural

K.T. Evered, E.Ö. Evered / Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323 319

barriers to proper therapeutic treatment, Dr. Mehmet Said wrote thatthe local population seemed to “respect and trust Sulfato”dbut onlyuntil the immediate attack ended. Subsequently, the doctor lamented,the typicalmalariapatientwouldassumethatheor shehadbeencuredafter the first “three to five pills” (1922, p. 59). Similar complaintsderived from the director in Kayseri as well. Indicating that manyvillagers in the area never even heard ofdmuch less encountereddamodern physician, Dr. Hıfzı Nuri stated that most had learned about“Sulfato.”However, theirefforts toacquire thetreatmentextendedonlyas far as the local herbalists, who often purveyed small amounts inhighly adulterated forms (1922, p. 32). Commenting on a presumedlaxity in observing the instructions that people received from theirphysicians, Said Cemil Bey stated,

When we tell patients that they have malaria, they take it as ifmalaria is not a [real or serious] illness. Some take quinine forfive days; sometimes, without even consulting with a doctor,they go to a pharmacy to acquire it as if they are buying breadand cheese (1926, p. 286).

In Said Cemil Bey’s view, such incomplete or unprescribed usesof quinine were worse than not taking the medicine at all (1926, p.286). Such complaints over poor compliancewith prescriptions andinappropriate uses of medicines led to endorsements of laws andregulations that would mandate uniform standards in treatmentand enforce observance of prescribed therapies (Neset Ömer, 1926,p. 266).

Although many provincial health directors blamed villagers orlocal healers for their inappropriate uses of medicines, the directorfrom Kırsehir instead identified another dimension to the problem.For Dr. _Ibrahim _Ismail, the same state that the peasants weregrateful todand even prayed fordneeded to recognize that theinsufficient supply of free quinine was the real culprit:

Some villagers have not even heard about doctors. It is appre-ciated that they all learned that Sulfato is the right medicine formalaria. They welcome the free quinine given to the poor andpray for those who provide it [i.e., the state]. Unfortunately, thisquinine cannot be provided regularly. Therefore its benefitscease after a few malaria attacks. [This is] because, with quininetreatment, in order to give the scientifically required dose, theremust be thousands of kilograms of quinine available (_Ibrahim_Ismail, 1925, p. 40).

Apart from possible logistical impediments, however, manyobservers still emphasized prescription compliance and lessonsabout the disease and its derivation. To enhance observance ofprescriptions among children, therewere even proposals to providechocolate quinine (Özpekcan, 2002, p. 222). Again, however, withrespect to the extended regimes of treatment with medication,some of the major recommendations were not only logistical buteducational. As Neset Ömer wrote,

Treating malaria patients with quinine is the most importantpart of the struggle against malaria. Therefore, for this purpose,at least 15 tons of state quinine must be distributed. It is highlydesirable to establish a kinin darussanayisi [a quinine industrialhouse]. To succeed in this struggle against malaria, peoplemust know the way it is spread and they must trust quinine. Inorder to achieve this goal, an intensive propaganda campaignmust commence that employs every medium (1926, p. 266).

Regulating preventiondand the consequences of not doing so

From its earliest years, administrators and physicians workingfor the Ministry of Health and Social Assistance envisioned and

prioritized a pronounced role for preventative health measures inthe republic’s confrontation with malaria. In doing so, they estab-lished lessons for the peoples of Anatolia that extended far beyondthe disease itself. Moreover, through their graphic educationalmaterials, they reinforced the top-down orientation of a state thatwas more apt to apply its policies to a populace rather than workwith it to arrive at ideal outcomes. In such a context, inducing fearas ameans of warning people of the ramifications of ignoring publichealth directives was common, and the ideals of civilizationaldevelopment were inextricable from goals of disease control oreradication. A passage from Resit Galip’s text illustrates how publichealth measures were encouraged with suggestions to incorporatethem into traditions that state leaders accepted (e.g., the dowry ofa bride).

Malaria spreads from person to person by mosquitoes. Usemosquito nets during the seasons when mosquitoes are alive.Make a habit of putting amosquito net in a bride’s dowry. Do nottolerate any standing water in your city, village, or neighbor-hood. Mosquitoes breed in these water collections. Oncea month completely empty the fountains, drinking basins(yalaklar), and garden pools and let them stay dry for twenty-four, or better yet, forty-eight hours. This will cause allmosquito eggs and mosquito larvae to die. (1929: 19)

In other cases, idyllic imagery was combined with dangerousconsequences to communicate clear messages to the widerpublicdas the ministry’s 1926 atlas’ verdant yet barren landscapesattempted to convey. Employing its own artist, Refet Basokçu, theMinistry of Health and Social Assistance produced posters thatemphasized vividly the state’s desired lessons in preventivemedicine and appropriate behavior. In the case of malaria, one suchposter from the 1930s (see Fig. 5) depicted in words and imageswhat was at stake (i.e., home, health, and prosperity) and what wasthe nation’s enemy in this struggle (i.e., the mosquito).

Containing eleven small portraits, the poster begins witha “strong and healthy baby.” During his nighttime sleep, theotherwise fit baby is bitten on the check by a mosquito. Leftuntreated, the boy as an older child is weakened, with “less blood”and “less energy,” and he is shown in the next image with a dis-tended abdomen, suffering from an enlarged spleen. Incorporatingthe socioeconomic ramifications of disease, for both the individualand the republic’s population, the subsequent images reveala youngman incapable of tilling the soil of his own farm and devoidof prospects for marriage and a meaningful family life. In thebottom row of small portraits, the poster indicates the measuresthat each citizen can take to inhibit the spread of malaria andmosquitoes. It encourages people to drain standing pools of water,to sleep under mosquito nets at night, and to hang screens onwindows and doors to prevent the intrusion of mosquitoes into thehome. Another image and text encourages citizens to take thequinine and Atebrin prescribed by state physicians and dispensedfree of charge by state clinics, and to follow associated instructions.In its final portrait, the poster depicts a former victim of malariawho sought treatment, took his medicine, and followed instruc-tions. This obedient citizen has lived to realize a happy family andenjoy a successful farmduniting in one image the individual’saspirations for health, home, and prosperity, on the one hand, andthe state’s biopolitical objective for a vigorous and productivepopulace, on the other hand.

Themes of appropriate and inappropriate behaviors and starkcontrasts between the outcomes associated with these respectivebehaviors continued in state and state-related brochures, posters,and other media in the coming decades. Though there were vari-ations in content, the health ministry continued to emphasize thebiological origins of malaria as part of its preventative message to

Fig. 5. A Turkish public health poster of the 1930s states, “MalariadEnemy of Our Home, Health, and Development: Malaria Is Spread Only by Mosquitoes” (Sıhhat ve _IçtimaiMuavenet Vekaleti; image courtesy of Wellcome Library, London).

Fig. 6. Sıtma (or “Malaria”) an educational brochure that advertised Atebrin, producedand distributed by Bayer and Turkey’s Ministry of Health and Social Assistance, ca.1930se1940s (authors’ collection).

K.T. Evered, E.Ö. Evered / Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323320

the nation’s largely rural populace. The recurring image of the1930s and 1940s came to be that of an enormous mosquitodescending upon peasants and their villages. Oftentimes depictingcommunities in close proximity to wetlands or other bodies ofwater, these portrayals of place and of an alarming and colossalmosquito were especially evident in the public health mediadeveloped by the Ministry of Health and SocialAssistancedsometimes in concert with international pharmaceu-tical interests or health organizations. For example, the ministry’spromotion of prevention and proper treatment complementedBayer’s marketing of Atebrin. In line with both sets of interests,Bayer issued, and the Turkish republic approved, brochures withvivid cover pages. Simply titled Sıtma (or “Malaria”), one four-pagebrochure (see Fig. 6) features a gigantic mosquito looming over thehorizon and a swampdunderscoring the perils to the populace offailing to heed the state’s warning regarding settlements nearwetlands.

Within its pages, the Sıtma brochure depicts the story of Ahmetand Ayse (titled simply Ahmet ve Ayse Hikâyesi). Both are infected bythe same mosquito, but Ahmet neglects his instructions for propertreatment and suffers in the fields. Once both Ahmet and Ayse heedtheir physician’s advice, however, they are a thoroughly curedcouple and are depicted as a productive family in their fields, and ashappy parents with their child. In this imagery tailored to theTurkish public, Ahmet not only resembles a Turkish farmer but Ayseis the quintessential image of an Anatolian wife and mother,wearing a headscarf and salvar (the traditional, baggy trousersworn by rural Anatolian women). On the back page, information ispresented regarding Atebrindalong with the seals of both Bayerand the Turkish republic. Once again, the goals of the individual fora fit, fruitful, and joyful life are depicted in consonance with thestate’s objective to protect the health, wealth, and progeny of thepopulace.

On the cover of another brochure (Fig. 7), titled Sıtma Geliyor (or“Malaria is Coming”), another giant mosquito hovers over a villageadjacent to a wetland from which hapless peasants are fleeing.Stressing a preventative message, this eight-page brochure

Fig. 7. Sıtma Geliyor (or “Malaria is Coming”), an educational brochure that advertisedAtebrin, produced and distributed by Bayer and Turkey’s Ministry of Health and SocialAssistance, ca. 1930se1940s; authors’ collection.

Fig. 8. The cover of a 1948 booklet titled Sıtma (“Malaria”) that was published by thestate’s Ministry of Education in its village library series (Millî E�gitim Bakanlı�gı KöyKitaplı�gı; authors’ collection).

K.T. Evered, E.Ö. Evered / Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323 321

underscores essential messages regarding the origins of malaria,keys to its prevention, and the consequences of infection (withanother common image of a youngmalewith a distended abdomenon the last page). Although this brochure also promotes Atebrin, itrefers to the short supply of medicines during this period and thusdevotes far greater attention to the preventative obligations that allTurkish citizens must assume in this national struggle.

Indeed, stated shortages of Atebrin and quinine in the 1930s andearly 1940s compelled the Ministry of Health and Social Assistanceto further underscore prevention as an essential duty for goodcitizens of the republic. Discourse emphasizing the link betweenprevention and citizenship was especially evident in statebrochures. Stressing that malaria derived not from foul air associ-ated with wetlands but from the mosquito, the health ministry’sten-page 1939 brochure titled Sıtma (or “Malaria”) focused ontransmission, the nature of attacks of the disease, treatment byappropriate medicines, the observance of prescription instructions,and the free provision of treatment by the state (BCA 490-01-1405-653-13; T.C. Sıhhî ve _Içtimaî Muavenet Vekaleti, 1939). Thepreventative lessons this brochure imparted emphasizedmalaria asthe world’s number one killer and the greatest cause of povertyamong both individual households and the wider global economydue to decimation of the workforce. Included within this brochurewas a sample quinine usage card, intended to familiarize the publicwith its ease of use and the importance of taking regular andappropriate doses. Depicting the mosquito graphically, thebrochure also conveyed in words the imperatives of prevention:

“Eliminating mosquito nests wherever they exist means closing upa grave that opened to suffocate a citizen and devour a family.”

Even heavier emphasis was placed upon preventiondand theduties of the responsible citizendin the republic’s four-pagebrochure titled Sıtmadan Nasıl Korunaca�gız? (or “How to ProtectOneself from Malaria?”), published in 1943. It encouraged theelimination of opportunities for mosquitoes to breed by drainingstanding water and the avoidance of mosquito bites. Its biopoliticalrhetoric of citizenship almost evidenced a regard for eugenics:

Citizens: As you all know, malaria is a disease that washes outthe population, ruins the lineage, and prevents our prosperity.The main medicines for malaria are “quinine” and “Atebrin.”Under the conditions of today’s world, acquiring them hasbecome very difficult. .[Citizens thus have a duty] not toacquire malaria and employ all means to [guarantee] protectionfrom it.

Although this emphasis upon prevention continued throughoutthe 1940s, along with themes of the mosquito-imperiled peasantand his community (see Fig. 8), by the years followingWorld War IITurkey began to rely upon DDT to eliminate the threat of malaria,especially under conditions of external support from the United

K.T. Evered, E.Ö. Evered / Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323322

States through the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Underthese circumstances, depictions shifted from the peasant as abso-lute victim to images that portrayed DDT as a shield, a tank, ora fortress to protect people and their communities. No longershowing a panic-stricken and defenseless populace, most postersand brochures from the period of the Marshall Plan depictedvillagers and their children with smiling facesdhappy in theknowledge that DDT was protecting them. In line with thesechanges, both in fighting against malaria and in the lessonsconveyed to the public, a greater emphasis was placed onhumanity’s chemical arsenal and on eradication of (and not justcontrol over) malaria in Anatolia. This goal, however, remains to berealized.

Conclusion

We have noted how, at first glance, images from Turkey’s publichealth educational campaigns against malaria from the 1920sthrough the 1940s appear strikingly similar to B-movie postersfrom America’s early ColdWar era. Indeed, considering the giganticmosquitoes, the panicked people, and the threat of disease, it istempting to regard these images, the connected discourse, and thebiopolitical motives of republican officials in light of metaphorsshared by early Cold War politicians and entomologists (asanalyzed in Russell’s 2011 environmental history). In the Turkishcase, however, the rhetoric was not about a foreign menace,anddat least until the late 1940sdthere was no chemical solution.Rather, the adversaries in the early republic’s war on malaria wereconstrued as internal enemies; the largely rural majority of therepublic’s population itself.

Surely mosquitoes were involved, but the greatest amount ofenergy deployed in educating the public concerned socio-culturalcures for what officials and physicians deemed ignorance, indo-lence, resistance, and superstition. Civilizationaldnotbiologicaldills were thus the state’s primary targets. In light ofthis ongoing and institutionalized depiction of malaria as a “villagedisease,” perhaps the mosquito of statist propaganda loomed solarge instead because of the republic’s profound diminution of thepeasantry and their rural communities. In Seeing Like a State, Scottwrites of such instances of a miniaturization of society and space inthe plans of ultra-modernist governments (1998, pp. 223e261 and347e357). In reducing the dimensions of a population and theircommunities amid top-down planning, state officials not onlyshrink society to a “thin” abstraction of itself, they also alienate thevery population and communities they seek to educate and govern.While Turkey’s biopolitical schemes to combat malaria have notresulted in “failure” (as per Scott’s thesis), they have not yetresulted in an absolute victory, either.

Striving to implement a “legible” program to educate/govern theTurkish population regarding malaria both as a disease and asa surmountable problemdand frequently lacking adequatesupplies of appropriate medications to dispense, state officialsopted for instilling fear of the disease and its vectors morecommonly than instilling actual knowledge or reliability in mate-rial resources. While this approach and more tangible programs(e.g., the opening of clinics, increased efforts to obtain medications,and the draining of wetlands) collectively yielded results, setbacksin this progressdmeasurable in terms of periodic episodes ofresurgence in the rates of infectiondarose most commonly whenthe republic’s resource limitations prevented its provision ofrequisite therapies (Tekeli & _Ilkin, 1999). Clearly, such experiencesunderscored the inadequacies of education alone in confronting thedisease.

Despite such impediments and shifts within the state’s lessonstoward a greater promotion of prevention and a heavier emphasis

on the responsibilities of its (“biological”) citizens, subsequentnarratives regarding the successes of antimalarial campaigns neverrevealed the republic’s shortcomingsdmaterial or otherwise.Rather, such narratives and later declarations of victory reinforcedstatist lessons regarding the health-related requisites of good citi-zenship. In this context, neglecting one’s obligations “not to acquiremalaria”were taught to be regarded as notmerely individual acts ofirresponsibility but transgressions against the republic itself. Inthese regards, the goal for rural inclusion in Turkey and a realizationof Atatürk’s slogan Köylü yurdun efendisidir! (Turkey’s true masteris the peasant farmer)dmuch like eradication itselfdremainstoday an elusive objective.

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers and James Sidaway for theircomments and advice. We also enjoyed and benefitted from ourdiscussions regarding this and other projects with doctoral candi-dates Jordan P. Howell and David L. Baylis, both at Michigan StateUniversity. We are especially grateful for assistance received frompersonnel at the Basbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arsivi, the Türkiye BüyükMillet Meclisi Library, and the Refik Saydam Library, Turkey. Wealso appreciate the assistance received from our friend TimurKocao�glu in locating particular materials for inclusion, and wecontinue to thank _Ilhan Tekeli for inspiring this trajectory ofresearch. Support for this project was awarded by Michigan StateUniversity’s Center for the Advanced Study of InternationalDevelopment (CASID), Center for Gender in a Global Context(GenCen), and Muslim Studies Program, and assistance withacquiring materials was also received from the interlibrary loanservices at Michigan State University.

Endnotes

2While many excellent works on histories of the Turkish nation-state and itsengagement withdeven its pronounced glorification ofdmodernity have illumi-nated problems with the modernization project of the republic (beginning mostforcefully with the contributions in Bozdo�gan & Kasaba, 1997), too few historicizemodernism in Turkey prior to the republic. In fact, many in the late Ottoman statealso espoused a profoundly modernist agenda and, in keeping with their ideals, hadless than favorable sentiments regarding vast segments of the empire’s citizens,who were viewed as less than enlightened. Although Makdisi (2002) madea significant contribution in examining “Ottoman Orientalism” in terms of Turkishperspectives on the empire’s Arab territories, a similar project might look at theOthering practiced by modernist elites of the empire vis-à-vis rural pop-ulationsdand how such practices persisted well into the republican period.3 “‘Yeni kurumlar açarken, yeni deneyimler elde etmek için de�gil, denenmis yollardayürüyerek Türk milletinin sa�glı�gını koruyacak ö�geleri yetistirmeyi ama-çladık’dRefik Saydam, 2 December 1936.” We are grateful to the library employeeswho allowed us to visit and photograph this office, which is otherwise closed to thepublic.

References

Abdülkadir Lütfi, & Ahmed Fikri. (1926). Türkiye’de sıtmanın co�grafyası. In Anon-ymous. (Ed.), Birinci Millî Türk Tıb Kongresi Müzakerâtı (1e3 September 1925)(pp. 212e233). Istanbul: Kader.

Alatout, S. (2006). Towards a bio-territorial conception of power: territory, pop-ulation, and environmental narratives in Palestine and Israel. Political Geog-raphy, 25(6), 601e621.

Alvarez, A. (2008). Malaria and the emergence of rural health in Argentina: ananalysis from the perspective of international interaction and co-operation.Canadian Bulletin of Medical History/Bulletin canadien d’histoire de la médicine,25(1), 137e160.

Anonymous. (1926). Birinci Millî Türk Tıb Kongresi Müzakerâtı (1e3 September 1925).Istanbul: Kader.

Asıf _Ibrahim Bey. (1926). Münakasa [“Discussion”dAsıf _Ibrahim Bey’s comments onNeset Omer’s paper]. In anonymous. (Ed.), Birinci Millî Türk Tıb KongresiMüzakerâtı (1e3 September 1925) (pp. 288e290). Istanbul: Kader.

BCAdBasbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arsivi (the Prime Minister’s Archive of the Republic),Ankara, Turkey.

Berridge, V., & Loughlin, K. (Eds.). (2005). Medicine, the market and the mass media:Producing health in the twentieth century. London: Routledge.

K.T. Evered, E.Ö. Evered / Political Geography 31 (2012) 311e323 323

Besim Zühtü. (1922). Türkiye’nin Sıhhî-{ _Içtimaî Co�grafyası: Hamidabad (Isparta)Sanca�gı. Ankara: Ö�güd Matbaası.

Bozdo�gan, S., & Kasaba, R. (Eds.). (1997). Rethinking modernity and national identityin Turkey. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Brandt, A. M. (1987). No magic bullet: A social history of venereal disease in the UnitedStates since 1880, expanded edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Caprotti, F. (2008). Internal colonization, hegemony and coercion: investigatingmigration to Southern Lazio, Italy, in the 1930s. Geoforum, 39(2), 942e957.

Carter, E. (2007). Development narratives and the uses of ecology: malaria controlin Northwest Argentina, 1890e1940. Journal of Historical Geography, 33(3),619e650.

Carter, E. (2008). State visions, landscape, and disease: discovering malaria inArgentina, 1890e1920. Geoforum, 39(1), 278e293.

Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.).London: Sage Publications.

Deringil, S. (1999). The well-protected domains: Ideology and the legitimation ofpower in the Ottoman Empire, 1876e1909. London: I.B. Tauris.

Derviso�glu, F. M. (2009). Milli Mücadele’de sa�glık teskilatı’na bir bakıs. Ankara: CeditNesriyat.

Elden, S. (2007a). Rethinking governmentality. Political Geography, 26(1), 29e33.Elden, S. (2007b). Governmentality, calculation, territory. Environment and Planning

D: Society and Space, 25(3), 562e580.Esad. (1923). Türkiye’nin sıhhî-{ içtimaî co�grafyası: Mu�gla (Mentese) Sanca�gı. Ankara:

Ö�güd Matbaası.Ettlinger, N. (2011). Governmentality as epistemology. Annals of the Association of

American Geographers, 101(3), 537e560.Evered, E.Ö. (2012). Empire and education under the Ottomans: Politics, reform, and

resistance from the Tanzimat to the young Turks. London: I.B. Tauris.Evered, E.Ö., & Evered, K. T. (2011a). Sex and the capital city: the political framing of

syphilis and prostitution in early republican Ankara. Journal of the History ofMedicine and Allied Sciences, . doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrr054.

Evered, K. T., & Evered, E.Ö. (2011b). Governing population, public health, andmalaria in the early Turkish republic. Journal of Historical Geography, 37(4),470e482.

Evered, K. T., & Evered, E.Ö. (2012). Syphilis and prostitution in the socio-medical geog-raphies of Turkey’s early republican provinces. Health and Place, 18(3), 528e535.

Evered, E. Ö., & Evered, K. T. “Protecting the national body”: regulating the practiceand the place of prostitution in early republican Turkey. Gender, Place, andCulture, in press.

Fahri Cemal. (1925). Türkiye’nin sıhhî-{ içtimaî co�grafyası: Gelibolu Vilayeti. Istanbul:Ka�gıtçılık ve Matbaacılık Anonim Sirketi.

Fedunkiw, M. (2003). Malaria films: motion pictures as a public health tool.American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1046e1056.

Fortna, B. C. (2002). Imperial classroom: Islam, the state, and education in the LateOttoman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.),The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87e104). Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. (2003). Governmentality. In P. Rabinow, & N. Rose (Eds.), The essentialFoucault: Selections from essential works of Foucault, 1954e1984 (pp. 229e245).New York: The New Press.

Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: lectures at the Collège deFrance, 1977e78. In M. Senellart (Ed.), G. Burchell (trans.). Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.

Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: lectures at the Collège de France,1978e79. In M. Senellart (Ed.), G. Burchell (trans.). Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.

Friedman, L. D. (Ed.). (2004). Cultural sutures: Medicine and media. Durham: DukeUniversity Press.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. In Q. Hoare, & G. N. Smith(Eds.). New York: International Publishers.

Hannah, M. G. (2000). Governmentality and the mastery of territory in nineteenth-century America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hansen, B. (2009). Picturing medical progress from Pasteur to polio: A history of massmedia images and popular attitudes in America. Piscataway: Rutgers UniversityPress.

Hasan Tahsin. (1932). Türkiye’nin sıhhî-{ içtimaî co�grafyası: Sivas Vilâyeti. Istanbul:Hilâl Matbaası.

Hıfzı Nuri. (1922). Türkiye’nin sıhhî-{ içtimaî co�grafyası: Kayseri Sanca�gı. Ankara:Ö�güd Matbaası.

_Ibrahim Edhem. (1925). Türkiye’nin sıhhî-{ içtimaî co�grafyası: Bayezit Vilayeti.Istanbul: Ka�gıtçılık ve Matbaacılık Anonim Sirketi.

_Ibrahim _Ismail. (1925). Türkiye’nin sıhhî-{ içtimaî co�grafyası: Kırsehri Vilayeti. Istan-bul: Ka�gıtçılık ve Matbaacılık Anonim Sirketi.

Ingram, A. (2011). The Pentagon’s HIV/AIDS programmes: governmentality, politicaleconomy, security. Geopolitics, 16(3), 655e674.

_Ismet Pasa. (1926). Basvekil _Ismet Pasa Hazretleri’nin nutku. In anonymous. (Ed.),Birinci Millî Türk Tıb Kongresi Müzakerâtı (1e3 September 1925) (pp. 1e4).Istanbul: Kader.

Kaplan, S. (2006). The pedagogical state: Education and the politics of national culturein post-1980 Turkey. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Karaömerlio�glu, M. A. (1998). The People’s Houses and the cult of the peasant inTurkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 34(4), 67e91.

Karpat, K. H. (1963). The People’s Houses in Turkey: evolution and growth. MiddleEast Journal, 17(1/2), 55e67.

Karpat, K. H. (1974). The impact of People’s Houses on the development ofcommunication in Turkey: 1931e1951. Die Welt des Islams, 15(1e4), 69e84.

Kemal. (1922). Türkiye’nin sıhhî-{ içtimaî co�grafyası: Kastamonu Vilayeti. Ankara:Ö�güd Matbaası.

League of Nations. (1925). League of Nations, Health Organisation, Malaria Commis-sion: Report on its tour of investigation in certain European countries in 1924.Geneva: League of Nations.

Legg, S. (2005). Foucault’s population geographies: classifications, biopolitics andgovernmental spaces. Population, Space and Place, 11(3), 137e156.

Luckett, G. S., & Gray, H. F. (1923). The elements of public health administration.Philadelphia: P. Blakiston’s Son and Company.

Luckett, G. S., & Gray, H. F. (1926). Sıhhat-ı içtimaîye idaresi esasatı, translation.Istanbul: Hamid Matbaası.

Makdisi, U. (2002). Ottoman orientalism. The American Historical Review, 107(3),768e796.

Mehmet Ali. (1991, 1925 original). Türkiye’nin sıhhî-{ içtimaî co�grafyası: ÇatalcaVilayeti [transcribed by M S Koz]. Istanbul: Çatalca Belediye Baskanlı�gı.

Mehmet Hayri. (1994, 1922 original). Türkiye’nin sıhhî-{ içtimaî co�grafyası: Ni�gdeSanca�gı [transcribed by _I Gedik]. Ni�gde.

Mehmet Said. (1922). Türkiye’nin sıhhî-{ içtimaî co�grafyası: Sinob Sanca�gı. Ankara:Ö�güd Matbaası.

Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present: Administering economic, socialand personal life. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Millî E�gitim Bakanlı�gı Köy Kitaplı�gı, no. 2. (1948). Sıtma. Istanbul: Millî E�gitimBasımevi.

Mitchell, T. (1991). The limits of the state: beyond statist approaches and theircritics. American Political Science Review, 85(1), 77e96.

Mitchell, P. (2011). Geographies/aerographies of contagion. Environment and Plan-ning D: Society and Space, 29(3), 533e550.

Nazmi. (1922). Türkiye’nin sıhhî-{ içtimaî co�grafyası: Konya Vilayeti. Ankara: Ö�güdMatbaası.

Neset Ömer. (1926). Sıtma mücadelesi. In Anonymous. (Ed.), Birinci Millî Türk TıbKongresi Müzakerâtı (1e3 September 1925) (pp. 253e267). Istanbul: Kader.

Özpekcan, M. (2002). Büyük Millet Meclisi tutanaklarına göre Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ndesa�glık politikası (1923e1933) II. Bölüm. Yeni Tıp Tarihi Arastırmaları, 8, 163e274.

Packard, R. M. (2007). The making of a tropical disease: A short history of malaria.Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Painter, J. (2006). Prosaic geographies of stateness. Political Geography, 25(7),752e774.

Reagan, L. J., Tomes, N., & Treichler, P. A. (2007). Medicine’s moving pictures: Medi-cine, health, and bodies in American film and television. Rochester: University ofRochester Press.

Refik Bey. (1926). Sıhhiye ve Muavenet-i _Içtimaîye Vekili Doktor Refik Beyefendi’ninnutku. In Anonymous. (Ed.), Birinci Millî Türk Tıb Kongresi Müzakerâtı (1e3September 1925) (pp. 5e7). Istanbul: Kader.

Resit Galip. (1929). Sıhhat Koruma Bilgisi. Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası.Resmî Gazete. (6 May 1930). Umumî Hıfzısıhha Kanunu (24 April 1930). Resmî

Gazete.Rose, N. (2007). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the

twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Rosenberg, C. E. (1992). Explaining epidemics and other studies in the history of

medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Rosenberg, C. E., & Golden, J. (Eds.). (1992). Framing disease: Studies in cultural

history. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Russell, E. (2001). War and nature: Fighting humans and insects with chemicals from

World War I to Silent Spring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sa�glık Dergisi. (1934). Seyyar tabiplerin vazifeleri hakkında talimatname. Sa�glık

Dergisi, 10(70), 315e334.Sa�glık Dergisi. (1948). Sa�glık Dergisi. Fevkalâde Nüsha 25 (Ekim-Kasım1948), no.10e11.Said Cemil Bey. (1926). Münakasa [“Discussion”dSaid Cemil Bey’s comments on

Neset Omer’s paper]. In Anonymous. (Ed.), Birinci Millî Türk Tıb KongresiMüzakerâtı (1e3 September 1925) (pp. 286e288). Istanbul: Kader.

Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. NewHaven: Yale University Press.

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the humancondition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Stein, E. A. (2006). Colonial theatres of proof: representation and laughter in 1930sRockefeller Foundation hygiene cinema in Java. Health and History, 8(2), 14e44.

Süyev, M. (1952). Sıtma savası çalısmaları albümü. Istanbul: Hüsnütabiat Matbaası.TBMMdTürkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Kütüphanesi (the Library of the Grand

National Assembly of Turkey), Ankara, Turkey.T.C. Sıhhiye ve Muavenet-i _Içtimaîye Vekaleti. (1926). Sıhhî müze atlası.T.C. Sıhhî ve _Içtimaî Muavenet Vekaleti. (1939). Sıtma. no. 65. Ankara: T.C. Sıhhî ve

_Içtimaî Muavenet Vekaleti.T.C. Sıhhat ve _Içtimaî Muavenet Vekaleti. (1943). Sıtmadan nasıl korunaca�gız?. no. 86

Ankara: T.C. Sıhhî ve _Içtimaî Muavenet Vekaleti.T.C. Sa�glık ve Sosyal Yardım Bakanlı�gı. (1947). Millî Sa�glık Plânı (Birinci On Yıllık).

Sayı no. 124. Ankara: Basbakanlık Devlet Matbaası.Tekeli, _I., & _Ilkin, S. (1999). Türkiye’de sıtma mücadelesinin tarihi. In G. E. Kundakcı

(Ed.), 70. Yılında Ulusal and Uluslararası Boyutlarıyla Atatürk’ün Büyük Nutuk’u veDönemi (pp. 209e255). Ankara: Orta Do�gu Teknik Üniversitesi Basım _Isli�gi.

Temel, M. (2008). Atatürk döneminde bulasıcı ve salgın hastalıklarla mücadele.Istanbul: Nehir Yayınları.

Tınal, M. (2009). Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi birinci döneminde doktor mil-letvekilleri. Uluslararası Sosyal Arastırmalar Dergisi, 2(6), 617e627.