Memurlar, kalfalar ve işçiler: Geç dönem Osmanlı mimarlık faaliyetleri örgütlenmesinde değişim ve devlet-toplum ilişkisi
Officials, master builders and workers: Transformation of organization and state-society relations in late Ottoman architecture
Yazar: İHSAN SEFA ÖZER
Danışman: DOÇ. DR. VESİLE GÜL CEPHANECİGİL
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü / Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı / Mimarlık Tarihi Bilim Dalı
Derece: Yüksek Lisans, 2023
Konu: Mimarlık = Architecture ; Tarih = History

Özet:
Geç dönem Osmanlı faaliyetleri örgütlenmesine dair olan mimarlık tarihi literatürü, on dokuzuncu yüzyılın ortalarından itibaren inşaat faaliyetlerinde münakasa (açık eksiltme) usulünün ortaya çıktığını ve müteahhitliğin yaygınlaştığını ifade etmektedirler. Sözleşme usulü iş yürütmenin yaygınlaşmasının yanı sıra, inşaat faaliyetlerini denetleyip düzenleyen kurumların dönüşümü, faaliyetlere ilişkin nizamnamelerin ortaya çıkışı ve mimarlığa dair bilginin değişimi bahsi geçen örgütlenmeye dair literatürde ele alınmaktadır. 
Böyle olmakla birlikte, mevcut literatür bahsi geçen tarihsel değişimleri, soyut bir devlet-toplum ayrımını kabul ederek izah etmiş, değişimin ana faili olarak türdeş bir eyleyen olarak "devleti" merkeze almıştır. Tarihsel değişimin failliği özne olarak kabul edilen "devlete" ve/veya "bürokratik elite" hamledilmiştir. Bu değişimlerde etkin olan farklı toplumsal unsurlara, ihtilaflara, alternatiflere, mücadelelere ve uzlaşmalara yeterince ağırlık verilmemiş;  bununla bağlantılı olarak bu değişimler, "modernleşme" ve "sekülerleşme" gibi tek yönlü iktidar ilişkilerini varsayan ve teleolojik zaman kavrayışına istinat eden kategorilerle ele alınabilmiştir.
Bu tez çalışması, inşaat faaliyetleri örgütlenmesinde müteahhitliğin yaygınlaşması ve münakasanın ortaya çıkışı, kurumsal değişim ve mimarlığa ait bilginin dönüşümü anlatısında soyut devlet-toplum ayrımına şüphe düşürmek, bir özne olarak "devletin" failliğini sorgulamak maksadını taşımaktadır. Yine buna bağlı olarak, devletin tarihsel değişimin izahatında özne olarak yarattığı zemin sorgulandığında, bahsi geçen değişimleri farklı zamansal uzunlukları hesaba katan çok katmanlı bir süreç olarak ele almak maksadını taşımaktadır. Bu, tarihsel değişimin anlatısında tek yönlü ve teleolojik anlayışların gözden kaçırabildiği, alternatif fikirleri, ihtilafları, çıkar mücadelelerini ve uzlaşmaları ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Tez çalışması, daha önceden ele alınmamış ve/veya yeniden yorumlanan arşiv belgeleri vasıtasıyla, 19.yüzyıl Osmanlı inşaat faaliyetleri örgütlenmesindeki sözü edilen tarihsel değişimleri bir ilişkiler ağı ve güç mücadeleleri olarak ortaya koymak, farklı toplumsal unsurların failliğini anlatıya dahil etmek ve tarihsel değişimdeki süreklilik ve yoğunlaşmaların üst üste okunduğu çok katmanlı zamansal yapıyı açığa çıkarmak amacındadır. 
Bu maksatla, sözleşme usulü iş yürütmenin ve münakasanın hukuki ve mali zeminindeki değişim ve süreklilik, inşaat faaliyetleri dahilinde hak arayışlar ve meşru söylemler ve inşaat faaliyetlerini denetleyip düzenleyen kurumsal yapı ile bilginin değişimi hususları bahsi geçen devlet-toplum ayrımının sorgulanması zemininde tekrar değerlendirilmektedir.

Abstract:
The architectural history literature, which is about the organization of late Ottoman activities, states that since the middle of the nineteenth century, the method of Dutch auction (münakasa) has emerged in construction activities and contracting has become widespread. In addition to the spread of contract-based business conduct, the transformation of institutions that supervise and regulate construction activities, the emergence of regulations regarding activities and the change of information on architecture are discussed in the mentioned on the organization.
However, the existing literature has explained the aforementioned historical changes by accepting an abstract state-society distinction, and has centered the "state" as a homogeneous agent as the main agent of change. The agency of historical change has been attributed to the "state" and/or the "bureaucratic elite", which is accepted as the subject. The different social elements, conflicts, alternatives, struggles and compromises that are effective in these changes have not been given enough weight; in connection with this, these changes could be handled with categories such as "modernization" and "secularization" that assume one-way power relations and rely on the teleological conception of time.
This thesis aims to cast doubt on the abstract state-society distinction and to question the agency of the "state" as a subject in the narrative of the spread of contracting and the emergence of conflict in the organization of construction activities, institutional change and the transformation of architectural knowledge. Again, depending on this, when the ground created by the state as a subject in the explanation of historical change is questioned, it aims to consider the aforementioned changes as a multi-layered process that takes into account different temporal lengths. This reveals alternative ideas, conflicts, conflicts of interest, and compromises that one-sided and teleological understandings may miss in the narrative of historical change. The thesis study aims to reveal the mentioned historical changes in the organization of 19th century Ottoman construction activities as a network of relations and power struggles, to include the agency of different social elements in the narrative. And by revealing the continuity and intensification of historical change through archival documents that have not been discussed and/or used and reinterpreted before, it aims to recapture the multi-layered temporal structure within aforementioned change.
For this purpose, in the first part of the thesis, the emergence of the Dutch auction method and the change and continuity of the legal and financial basis of the spread of contracting are examined. In the first part of the chapter, the contracts used in construction activities before the 19th century and in the 19th century are examined, and the legal structure that supervises and regulates the disputes arising from these contracts is discussed. While the existing literature deals with the 1857 Regulation, which is the first regulation regulating the practice of Dutch auction, it did not take into account the nature of the previous and existing legal structure and described this legal structure as "custom" and "habit", and the newly issued regulations as "rule". In the research carried out using the Istanbul Court Records before the 19th century, it was pointed out that the supervision activities carried out in coordination by the Kadı courts and the Hassa Mimarlar Ocağı were quite regular and procedural, and therefore the follow-up of the construction activities contracts before the 19th century has a "predictable" structure in Weberian sense. However, although its effectiveness is declining, attention is drawn to the examples that shar'i courts were effective in the control of disputes in construction activities until the end of the century. On the other hand, both the conditional recourse (bi'ş-şarti-rücu') and lump sum (mukavele) contracts used before the 19th century and the construction contracts used in the 19th century may had a similar doctrinal basis, which is derived from the manufacturing contract (istisna' akdi) in the Shari'a law. Therefore, it is underlined that this conceptual, practical and doctrinal continuity is being overlooked in the "legal modernization" narrative, which focuses on the legal structure of contracts, 19th century regulations and codification in construction activities.
The second part of the First Chapter deals with the change and continuity in the financial basis of Dutch auction and contracting practices. For this purpose, within the framework of the documents belonging to the years 1851-52, in which the application and the word "münakasa" (Dutch auction) may have emerged, it has been revealed that this application should be considered in the context of the budget deficit of 1850-51. In the documents examined, it is seen that the invention of the word "münakasa" and the application of this method were brought to the agenda within the scope of the budget deficit issue in 1851. On the other hand, the idea in the Weberian view that there should be a modern bureaucratic administration in order to implement the free contract on which the modern capitalist economy is based, and that this bureaucracy consists of regular salaried civil servants, has been discussed within the framework of the transformation of the institutions that supervise and regulate the construction activities. Accordingly, the change that intensified between 1830-1850 and the "disgrace" of the chief architect seems to have taken place in a reform period, which can be thought to have been shaped by the bureaucratic reforms of the central government, when regular salary began to be implemented rather than the "arbitrary" preferences of the "patrimonial" rule which is underlined in existing literature. Finally, within the scope of financial reforms regarding borrowing and money, which are considered as a part of contracting practice, various forms of payment that have been used or become widespread in construction activities are examined. Examples give indications that payment equipment such as consolidation, billet (pusula), note (kavaim) may have become a part of contracting practice in contract work. Considering the these changes, the emergence of contracting practice and Dutch auction should be considered in a multi-layered historical time, in which short and "accelerated" processes such as 1850-51, 1830-1850 and larger, perhaps century-spreading processes overlapped. It can be stated that this offers a relatively more satisfactory explanation for the teleological and historicist categories.
In the second part of the thesis, focusing on the petitions in the Ottoman State Archives, inequality and the claiming rights in architectural activities and especially the legitimate discourses produced by different social elements are examined. The petitions of master builders, workers and craftsmen were handled separately, and it was seen that in these petitions, different discourses from the reformist discourse of the central government to state servitude, from expatriateness to dignity and honor were used to legitimize the desire of the owner of the petition. This shows that settled legitimate discourses in power relations are produced by different elements of the social structure of which the "state" is a part, and are used for opposition and struggle purposes when appropriate. In the last part of this Chapter, it is looked at how petitions and some pleadings (layiha) that can be considered as petitions in terms of their purpose can function as a means of participation in the functioning and thinking of official institutions, and how this participation is legitimized is underlined.
In connection with this, in the third part of the study, it has been revealed that in the context of the organization of construction activities, it is necessary to deal with the decision-making and action of official institutions not as homogeneous subjects, but as a field of relations that are affected by the opposition and compromises put forward by individuals with various views and by different social elements. This is first discussed in the issue of reform of the Buildings Council (Ebniye Meclisi), which took place between 1850 and 1860 and resulted in the 1861 Regulation (1861 Nizamnamesi). Throughout this process, it is seen that different master builders and civil servants were in a power struggle within the Council, and conflicts and reconciliations led to the consideration of the 1861 Regulation. The second part of this Chapter looks at the transformation of accepted knowledge about architecture. In the literature, it is stated how the new knowledge about architecture, the "science of architecture", was established by "state bureaucrats with the authority to speak" within the framework of the social power of the state in the 19th century. However, the documents dealt with in this regard show that not only the correct knowledge of architecture is considered in different ways within official institutions and  but also that there is also a miscellaneous understanding of architectural knowledge by different elements of the society. On the other hand, considering that the opinion of who the person carrying the information is and the ideas of what is considered correct information cannot be separated, it has been revealed that master builders, who are considered as "erbab-ı vukuf" (expert), could be considered as the owner of correct knowledge about architecture until the end of the century. In the last part of Chapter Three, the ability of different legitimacy discourses used by the Ottoman central government to mobilize social resources in different dimensions is underlined, referring to Max Weber's idea of what might be termed the gradualism of state-hood. In this context, it is underlined that the Islamic discourses used in the construction and repair of the Masjid an-Nabawi and the benevolence and solidarity discourses used in the construction of the Darülaceze were able to mobilize a wide range of social resources within the construction activities. Thus, with these examples, the importance of the idea that "state" power itself is contextual and gradual, underlines the necessity of reconsidering it within the scope of late construction activities.
Finally, this thesis underlines the necessity of reconsidering the historical agency and the concept of time that explains the change in the late Ottoman construction activities, especially when it comes to the changes in the organization of activities and the production of architectural knowledge. In addition to taking into account the agency of different social elements, this raises questioning the nature of the subject expressed as the "state", casting doubt on the one-sided understanding of time in some explanations such as "modernization" and "secularization". Thus, in the context of the organization of construction activities, it is possible to read historical change as a network of relations that includes struggles, reconciliations, exclusions and participations. This makes the narratives that reduce both the power relations in the change of the organization of construction activities and the temporal dimension of this change to one-sided explanations deriving from the abstract state-society distinction, a distinction that can itself be considered as a power practice, at least makes it unsatisfactory.