Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 1

Production of heterotopias as public spaces and paradox of political representation: A Lefebvrian approach

Pages
135–145
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We conclude that the social production of a heterotopia is the manifestational realization of an ideal public space and the dissolution its paradox for only a temporary period of time.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Over the recent decades, both the requirements for and the affordances of pub- lic spaces have been an unavoidable and growing discussion in the spatial sciences literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This growing discussion and research have been articulated through the argument that public spaces have been eroding under the neoliberal conditions and the capitalist mode of production.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We conclude that the social production of a heterotopia is the manifestational realization of an ideal public space and the dissolution its paradox for only a temporary period of time.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Over the recent decades, both the requirements for and the affordances of pub- lic spaces have been an unavoidable and growing discussion in the spatial sciences literature. This growing discussion and research have been articulated through the argument that public spaces have been eroding under the neoliberal conditions and the capitalist mode of production. However, from the insights of social sciences, as the physical setting to be included in socio-political life, public spaces appear exclusionary for some as a timeless fact. Although historical public spaces have been idealized and envied, they appear as ideal places for a privileged spectrum of the societies to learn how to rule and to teach the rest how to obey rather than to allow them to be included in the public sphere. Considering the meaning of to be public, this study claims that this is the paradox of public space, which becomes evident in contemporary rising social struggles for public spaces in the form of occupy movements. In this context, this study aims to anatomise the paradox of public space from also the insights of social sciences in the conditions of representative democracy. As the main contribution of this study, we introduce a re-interpretation of Lefebvre’s multi-triads and operationalize his concept of heterotopia to offer a deeper understanding in revealing the paradoxical production of public spaces. We conclude that the social production of a heterotopia is the manifestational realization of an ideal public space and the dissolution its paradox for only a temporary period of time.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAHRAMAN, M. D., PAK, B., SCHEERLINCK, K. (2018). Production of heterotopias as public spaces and paradox of political representation: A Lefebvrian approach. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 1, 135–145. https://ajindex.com/articles/142551

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Arendt, H. (1998). The Human Condition. 2nd ed. London: The University of Chicago Press.
  2. Bell, R. (2012). Public Space and Its Disconnects. In: Shiffman, R. et al. (eds.) Beyond Zuccotti Park: Freedom of Assembly and the Occupation of Pub- lic Space. Oakland: New Village Press, 214-236.
  3. Berman, M. (2012). The Romance of Public Space. In: Shiffman, R. et al. (eds.) Beyond Zuccotti Park: Freedom of Assembly and the Occupation of Pub- lic Space. Oakland: New Village Press, 197-207.
  4. Butler, C. (2012). Henri Lefebvre: Spatial Politics, Everyday Life and the Right to the City. USA and Canada: Routledge. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G. and Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Cenzatti, M. (2008). Heterotopias of Difference. In: Dehaene, M. and De Cauter, L. (ed.) Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Post-civil Society, 1st ed. London: Routledge. Demir Kahraman, M., Pak, B., Scheerlinck, K. (2016). Making the Heterotopia: Gezi Park Occupy Move- ment. International Conference Con- tested Cities - Working Paper Series IV – 5A. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 140-161.
  6. Demir Kahraman, M., Türkoğlu, H. (2017). Pub­lic; Up in the Air or in the Ordinal Scale. Journal of Planning – UCTEA Publications, 27(2), 141-151.
  7. Foucault, M. (1986). Of Other Spac- es. Trans. J. Miskowiec, Diacritics. 16(1), 22-27.
  8. Foucault, M. (1989). The order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1998). Different Spac- es. In: Faubion, J. D. (ed.) Trans. R. Hurley et al. Aesthetics, Method and Epistemology. New York: New Press.
  9. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Cri- tique of Actually Existing Democ- racy. Social Text, 25/26, 56-80.
  10. Gehl, J. (1987). Life Between Build- ings: Using Public Spaces. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Habermas, J. (1974). The Pub- lic Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964). New German Critique, 1974(3), 49-55.
  11. Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  12. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Rev- olution. Brooklyn – New York: Verso Books. Harvey, D. (2014). Seventeen Con- tradictions and the End of Capitalism. Profile Books: Kindle Edition.
  13. Hetherington, K. (1997). The Bad- lands of Modernity: Heterotopia and Social Ordering. London: Routledge. Iveson, K. (2007). Publics and the City. Wiley: Kindle Edition. Journal of the Society of Architectural Hi