SavedAdd your journal

Journals / TESAM Akademi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

Investigation of the Relationships Between the Concept of Assemblage and Actor-Network Theory: Assemblage Urbanism

Asamblaj Kavramı ile Aktör-Ağ Teorisi Arasındaki Bağlantıların İncelenmesi: Asamblaj Kentçiliği

Şefika Aydın(TEKİRDAĞ NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9925-6484
Murat Şentürk(İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9628-6300
Pages
289–315
Publication Date
2022-02-09
🏛️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)

Because of these features, assemblage urbanism makes it possible to examine the ordinary urban life relationally, as a condensed network or rhizome in which the coming together actors play a role.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The effect of the relation between the assemblage concept of Deleuze and Guattari and the actor-network theory of Bruno Latour on urban studies is discussed in this study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although there are two different versions of using the assemblage concept in urban studies (DeLanda's theory of assemblage and Latour's actor-network theory), it is rather considered in relation with the actor-network theory.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Because of these features, assemblage urbanism makes it possible to examine the ordinary urban life relationally, as a condensed network or rhizome in which the coming together actors play a role.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Asamblaj Kentçiliği · Aktör-Ağ Teorisi · Deleuze ve Guattari

Abstract

The effect of the relation between the assemblage concept of Deleuze and Guattari and the actor-network theory of Bruno Latour on urban studies is discussed in this study. Although there are two different versions of using the assemblage concept in urban studies (DeLanda's theory of assemblage and Latour's actor-network theory), it is rather considered in relation with the actor-network theory. The actor-network theory is influenced by Deleuze, and this is revealed in the field of urban studies by a new research methodology characterized as "assemblage urbanism". Assemblage urbanism highlights the ethnographic method and emphasizes empirical research with thick description. Assemblage urbanism, which has essential differences from context-dependent conventional and neo-Marxist urban studies, defines non-human elements as actors and gives importance to flow, becoming, and the process by rejecting all dichotomy. Because of these features, assemblage urbanism makes it possible to examine the ordinary urban life relationally, as a condensed network or rhizome in which the coming together actors play a role.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Deleuze ve Guattari’nin asamblaj kavramı ile Bruno Latour’un aktör-ağ teorisi arasındaki bağlantının kent çalışmalarına nasıl yansıdığı ele alınmaktadır. Asamblaj kavramının kent çalışmalarında kullanımının temelde iki farklı versiyonu olsa da (DeLanda’nın asamblaj teorisi ve Latour’un aktör-ağ teorisi) daha ziyade aktör-ağ teorisiyle bağlantılı olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Aktör-ağ teorisi, Deleuze’den beslenmekte ve bu durum kent çalışmaları alanında “asamblaj kentçiliği” olarak nitelendirilen yeni bir araştırma yöntemiyle açığa çıkmaktadır. Asamblaj kentçiliği, etnografik yönteme ağırlık vermekte ve yoğun betimlemeyle birlikte ampirik araştırmaya işaret etmektedir. Bağlam bağımlı klasik ve neo-Marksist kent çalışmalarından önemli farklılıklar barındıran asamblaj kentçiliği, insan olanlar kadar insan olmayan unsurları da aktör olarak tanımlamakta ve tüm ikilikleri reddederek akış, oluş ve sürece önem vermektedir. Bu özellikleri ile birlikte asamblaj kentçiliği, bir araya gelen aktörlerin rol oynadığı yoğunlaşmış ağ veya köksap biçiminde işleyen olağan kent yaşamının ilişkisel olarak incelenmesini mümkün kılabilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aydın, Ş., Şentürk, M. (2022). Investigation of the Relationships Between the Concept of Assemblage and Actor-Network Theory: Assemblage Urbanism. TESAM Akademi Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 289–315. https://doi.org/10.30626/tesamakademi.1022695

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (68)

  1. Acuto, M. (2011). Putting ANTs into the mille-feuille. City, 15(5), 552–562.
  2. Akay, A. (2004). Tekil Düşünce. İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları.
  3. Akay, A. (2013). Postmodernizmin ABC'si. İstanbul: Say Yayınları.
  4. Baker, T. ve McGuirk, P. (2017). Assemblage thinking as methodology: commitments and practices for critical policy research. Territory, Politics, Governance, 5(4), 425–442.
  5. Baker, U. (2019). Yüzeybilim Fragmanlar. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  6. Bender, T. (2010). Reassembling the city: networks and urban imaginaries. In I. Farias and T. Bender (Eds.), Urban Assemblages: How Actor network theory changes urban studies (pp. 303-324). New York: Routledge.
  7. Brenner, N. (1997). State territorial restructuring and the production of spatial scale: urban and regional planning in the Federal Republic of Germany, 1960–1990. Political Geography(16), 273–306.
  8. Brenner, N. (2013). Theses on Urbanization. Public Culture, 25(1), 85–114.
  9. Brenner, N., Madden, D. J. ve Wachsmuth, D. (2014). Asamblajlar, Aktör-Ağlar ve Eleştirel Teorisinin Karşılaştığı Zorluklar. (A.Y. Şen, Çev.), N. Brenner, P. Marcuse ve M. Mayer (Ed.), Kar İçin Değil Halk İçin: Eleştirel Teorisi ve Hakkı kitabı içinde, (s. 155-181). İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
  10. Buchanan, I. (2017). Assemblage Theory, or, the Future of an Illusion. Deleuze Studies, 11(3), 457–474.
  11. DeLanda, M. (2018). Yeni Bir Toplum Felsefesi: Öbekleşme Teorisi ve Toplumsal Karmaşıklık. (S. Çalcı, Çev.). İstanbul: Kolektif Yayınları.
  12. DeLanda, M. (2016). Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  13. Deleuze, G. ve Guattarı, F. (1990). Kapitalizm ve Şizofreni 1 Bin Yayla Göçebebilimi İncelemesi: Savaş Makinası. (A. Akay, Çev.). Ankara: Bağlam Yayınları.
  14. Deleuze, G. ve Parnet, C. (1990). Diyaloglar. (A. Akay, Çev.). İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları.
  15. Deleuze, G. (2016). Edimsel ve Virtüel. (H. Yücefer, Çev.). Cogito, (82), 14-17.
  16. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2005). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.
  17. Deleuze, G. ve Guattari, F. (2000). Kafka: Minör Bir Edebiyat İçin. (Ö. Uçkan ve I. Ergüden, Çev.). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  18. Deleuze, G. ve Guattari, F. (2001). Felefe Nedir? (T. Ilgaz, Çev.). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  19. Deleuze, G. ve Guattari, F. (2014). Anti Ödipus: Kapitalizm ve Şizofreni 1. (F. Ege, H. Erdoğan ve M. Yiğitalp, Çev.). Ankara: Bilim ve Sosyalizm Yayınları.
  20. Demir, M. (2014). Laboratuar Yaşamının Antropolojisi: Bruno Latour’un Bilim İncelemeleri ve Metafizik Sonuçları. Divan, 19(36), 145-196.
  21. Dovey, K. (2011). Uprooting Critical Urbanism. City, 15(3-4), 347-354.
  22. Elder-Vass, D. (2015). Disassembling Actor-network Theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 45(1), 100–121.
  23. Farias, I. (2010). Introduction: Decentering the object of urban studies. In I. Farías and T. Bender (Eds.), Urban assemblages: How actor-network theory changes urban studies (pp. 1-24). New York: Routledge.
  24. Farías, I. (2011). The politics of urban assemblages. City, 15(3-4), 365-374.
  25. Farías, I. (2014). Virtual attractors, actual assemblages: How Luhmann’s theory of communication complements actor-network theory. European Journal of Social Theory, 17(1), 24-41.
  26. Goodchild, P. (2005). Deleuze ve Guattari: Arzu Politikasına Giriş. (R. Öğdül, Çev.) İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  27. Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. New York: Routledge.
  28. Harman, G. (2009). Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Melbourne: Re.Press
  29. Holland, E. (2013). Deleuze ve Guattari'nin Anti-Oedipus'u Şizoanalize Giriş. (A. Utku, & M. Erkan, Çev.) İstanbul: Otonom Yayıncılık.
  30. Hostaker, R. (2014). A Different Society Altogether: What Sociology Can Learn from Deleuze, Guattari, and Latour. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  31. Isin, E. (2007). City, state: critique of scalar thought. Citizenship Studies, 11, 211–228.
  32. Karaman, O. (2012). An immanentist approach to the urban. Antipode, 44(4), 1287–1306.
  33. Latour, B. (1999). On Recalling ANT. In J. Law and J. Hassard (Eds.), In Actor Network Theory and After (pp. 15-25.). Oxford: Blackwell.
  34. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling The Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
  35. Latour, B. (2008). The Space of Controversies, New Geographies, 1(1), 122-135.
  36. Latour, B. and Hermant, E. (2006). Paris: Invisible City. Erişim tarihi: 01.22.2021 http://www.bruno-latour.fr/virtual/index.html
  37. Latour, B. and Yaneva, A. (2008). Give me a gun and I will make all buildings move: An ant’s view of architecture. In R. Geiser (Eds.), Explorations in Architecture: Teaching Design Research (pp. 80–89). Basel: Birkhäuser.
  38. Law, J. (2004). After method: mess in social science research. London, New York: Routledge.
  39. Law, J. (2009). Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics. In B. Turner (Eds.), The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory (pp. 141-158). Oxford, Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
  40. Lindemann, G. (2011). On Latour’s Social Theory and Theory of Society, and His Contribution to Saving the World. Human Studies, 34(1), 93-110.
  41. Madden, D. (2010). Urban ANTs:. A Review Essay. In I. Farías and T. Bender (Eds.), Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies (pp. 583-589). New York: Routledge.
  42. McCann, E. (2011). Veritable inventions, cities, policies and assemblage. Area, 43(2), 143–147.
  43. McFarlane, C. (2009). Translocal assemblages: space, power and social movements. Geoforum, 40(4), 561-567.
  44. McFarlane, C. and Anderson, B. (2011). Thinking with assemblage. Area, 43(2), 162–164.
  45. McFarlane, C. (2011a). Learning the City: Knowledge and Translocal Assemblage. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  46. McFarlane, C. (2011b). Assemblage and critical urbanism. City, 15(2), 204-224.
  47. McFarlane, C. (2011c). On context Assemblage, political economy and structure. City, 15(3-4), 375-388.
  48. Nail, T. (2017). What is an Assemblage? SubStance, 46(1), 21-37.
  49. Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode (34), 380–404.
  50. Phillips, J. (2006). Agencement/Assemblage Theory. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(2-3), 108-109.
  51. Puar, J. (2012). 'I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess': becoming-intersectional in assemblage theory. PhiloSOPHIA, 2(1), 49–66.
  52. Rankin, K. N. (2011). Assemblage and the politics of thick description. City, 15(5), 563-569.
  53. Rutzou, T. and Elder-Vass, D. (2019). On Assemblages and Things: Fluidity, Stability, Causation Stories, and Formation Stories. Sociological Theory, 37(4), 401–424.
  54. Simone, A. (2011). The surfacing of urban life A response to Colin McFarlane and Neil Brenner, David Madden and David Wachsmuth. 15(3-4), 355-364.
  55. Tekeli, İ. (2019). Temsili Olmayan Kuramların Gelişimi Planlama Anlayışımızda Ne Tür Değişmeler Yaratıyor. Efil Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(7), 8-37.
  56. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-Representational Theory: Space, politics, affect. New York: Routledge.
  57. Thrift, N. (1993). An Urban Impasse. Theory, Culture & Society, 10, 229-238.
  58. Tonkiss, F. (2013). Cities by Design: The Social Life of Urban Form. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  59. Venn, C. (2006). A note on assemblage. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(2-3), 107-108.
  60. Zourabichvili, F. (2011). Deleuze Sözlüğü. (A. Kılıç, Çev.) İstanbul: Say Yayıncılık.
  61. Bender, T. (2010). Reassembling the city: networks and urban imaginaries. In I. Farias and T. Bender (Eds.), Urban Assemblages: How Actor network theory changes urban studies (pp. 303-324). New York: Routledge.
  62. Deleuze, G. ve Parnet, C. (1990). Diyaloglar. (A. Akay, Çev.). İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları.
  63. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2005). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.
  64. Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. New York: Routledge.
  65. Karaman, O. (2012). An immanentist approach to the urban. Antipode, 44(4), 1287–1306.
  66. Nail, T. (2017). What is an Assemblage? SubStance, 46(1), 21-37.
  67. Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode (34), 380–404.
  68. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-Representational Theory: Space, politics, affect. New York: Routledge.