قابل توجه نویسندگان محترم، مقالاتی که از تاریخ 1404/07/13 برای نشریه ارسال می شوند،  شامل پرداخت هزینه بررسی نخواهند شد.

----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
Volume 10, Issue 2 (Semi-Annual 2025)                   CIAUJ 2025, 10(2): 129-152 | Back to browse issues page

Research code: 7441


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

(2025). From Empire to Nation-State: Paradigm Shift in Architectural Patronage in Turkey. CIAUJ. 10(2), 129-152. doi:10.61882/ciauj.10.2.648
URL: http://ciauj-tabriziau.ir/article-1-648-en.html
Abstract:   (1213 Views)
This article investigates the fundamental rupture in the system of architectural patronage during the transition from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic of Turkey—a transformation that permanently reconfigured the logic, objectives, and resources underpinning the production of the built environment. Challenging conventional narratives that focus solely on stylistic change, the study approaches architectural change as an indicator of far-reaching socio-political shifts. The research begins by situating architectural patronage as a central process linking power structures, ideologies, and values across historical periods. Employing a qualitative, comparative-analytical methodology, the study models and contrasts two ideal-types of patronage: the inward, hierarchical, integrated system of the classical Ottoman paradigm, and the outward, bureaucratic, dependent configuration that emerged with the modern Turkish Republic. The study’s primary contribution is to clarify how a rupture in the patronage paradigm catalyzed fundamental transformations in architectural identity, objectives, and modes of agency. Data derive from extensive literature review, documentary analysis, and the comparative study of five emblematic architectural scenarios: the Süleymaniye Külliye (classical peak), Dolmabahçe Palace (transition and fragmentation), the Ottoman Bank (deepening economic rupture), Ankara’s Master Plan (birth of the new paradigm), and the Turkish Grand National Assembly (consolidation of the modern system). The findings demonstrate that the classical Ottoman paradigm relied on a charismatic patron (the Sultan), a religiously legitimated framework, a self-sustaining endowment-based (waqf) economy, and a primary audience within the Islamic polity, resulting in resilient and harmonious architectural production. By contrast, the modern Turkish paradigm substituted charismatic authority with institutional bureaucracy, sanctified objectives with pragmatic modernization, stable waqf funding with vulnerable state budgets and international loans, and internal audiences with a dual focus on citizenship and international prestige. This rupture inverted the meaning of architecture—from an instrument of internal social cohesion and religious legitimacy to a means of international representation and image management. The article concludes that understanding these structural ruptures in systems of patronage provides crucial insight into the identity crises and hybridities that characterize societies undergoing rapid modernization.
Full-Text [PDF 1585 kb]   (55 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Conceptualization of theorizing in Islamic architecture and urban ism
Received: 2025/07/12 | Accepted: 2025/10/29 | ePublished: 2025/12/30

References
1. Akın, N. (2018). The Genesis of Modern Turkish Urbanism: The Case of Jansen's Plan for Ankara. In H. Bodnar & A. Soos (Eds.), Planning and the Fall of the Wall: From Contested to Integrated City (pp. 45-62). Routledge.
2. Aksakal, M. (2017). The Ottoman State, the Great Powers, and the Global War. In M. S. Hanioglu & R. Aksan (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Turkey, Vol. 4: Turkey in the Modern World (pp. 120-145). Cambridge University Press.
3. Banimasoud, A. (2015). Memari-ye mo'aser-e Iran: Dar takapooye bein-e sonnat va modernite. Tehran: Honar-e Memari-ye Gharne Publishing. [In Persian]
4. Batur, A. (2006). Dolmabahçe Palace. In DB Istanbul Encyclopedia.
5. Blair, S. S., & Bloom, J. M. (1994). The Art and Architecture of Islam 1250-1800. Yale University Press.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.
7. Bozdoğan, S. (2001). Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. University of Washington Press.
8. Çelik, Z. (1993). The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth Century. University of Washington Press.
9. Elshahed, M. (2019). Cairo Since 1900: An Architectural Guide. The American University in Cairo Press. [DOI:10.2307/jj.38433839]
10. Erdem, Y. H. (2015). The bureaucratic transformation of the Ottoman state. In M. K. Kırpık & M. B. Çelik (Eds.), The Great Transformation of the Ottoman Empire (pp. 23-44). I.B. Tauris.
11. Ghobadian, V. (2012). Memari dar Dar-ol-Khalafe-ye Naseri: Sonnat va tajaddod dar memari-ye mo'aser-e Tehran. Tehran: Pashootan. [In Persian].
12. Goodwin, G. (1971). A History of Ottoman Architecture. Thames & Hudson.
13. Hanioğlu, M. Ş. (2010). Atatürk: An Intellectual Biography. Princeton University Press.
14. İnalcık, H. (1973). The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
15. Işın, E. (2019). The Public Sphere and Representation in the Late Ottoman Empire: The Case of Municipal Gardens. Journal of Urban History, 45(3), 531-553.
16. Keyder, Ç. (1987). State and Class in Turkey: A Study in Capitalist Development. Verso.
17. Kırlı, C. (2013). The struggle over the city: The politics of urban space in late Ottoman Istanbul. Middle Eastern Studies, 49(3), 408-425.
18. Kostof, S. (1995). A History of Architecture: Settings and Rituals (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. [DOI:10.1093/oso/9780195083781.001.0001]
19. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
20. Necipoğlu, G. (2005). The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire. Reaktion Books. [DOI:10.3202/caa.reviews.2006.129]
21. Özkan, S. (2020). From Waqf to State Budget: Financing Public Works in the Transition from Empire to Republic. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 52(1), 25-44.
22. Pamuk, Ş. (2000). A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge University Press.
23. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press.
24. Sutton, K. and Fahmi, F. (2001). Cairo's urban growth and strategic master plans in the light of Egypt's 1996 population census results. Cities, 18(2), 135-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(01)00006-3 [DOI:10.1016/S0264-2751(01)00006-3.]
25. Volait, M. (2017). Foreign Architects and the Modernization of Cairo and Istanbul (1830-1930): Beyond the "Colonial" versus "Non-Colonial" Divide. ABE Journal. Architecture beyond Europe, (11). [DOI:10.4000/abe.3508]
26. Weber, M. (1949). The Methodology of the Social Sciences (E. A. Shils & H. A. Finch, Trans.). Free Press.
27. Zürcher, E. J. (2017). Turkey: A Modern History (4th ed.). I.B. Tauris.

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2026 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Culture of Islamic Architecture and Urbanism Journal

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb