SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eskiz: Şehir ve Bölge PLanlama Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 08

TIMESPACE AS A MULTI-LAYERED ANALYTICAL TOOL: TOWARD A FRAMEWORK FOR CRITICAL URBAN STUDIES

ÇOK KATMANLI BİR ANALİTİK ARAÇ OLARAK ZAMANMEKÂN: ELEŞTİREL KENT ÇALIŞMALARI İÇİN BİR ÇERÇEVE DENEMESİ

Ayhan Melih Tezcan(ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, HUKUK FAKÜLTESİ, ADALET MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU, ADALET MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU PR.)0000-0002-0501-9590
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-08-29
🏛️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)

This multidimensional reading provides methodological depth for critical urban studies and establishes a theoretical basis for evaluating urban policies within the context of a broader historical system—capitalism in the present era.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:One of the fundamental methodological tensions in the social sciences, the division between nomothetic and idiographic epistemologies, constrains a holistic understanding of the social dimensions of time and space.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This article offers a critical examination, particularly from the standpoint of urban studies, of Wallerstein's TimeSpace typology (developed from Braudel's multi-layered conception of time) and of the historical production of scientific knowledge.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This multidimensional reading provides methodological depth for critical urban studies and establishes a theoretical basis for evaluating urban policies within the context of a broader historical system—capitalism in the present era.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ZamanMekân · Wallerstein · nomotetik

Abstract

One of the fundamental methodological tensions in the social sciences, the division between nomothetic and idiographic epistemologies, constrains a holistic understanding of the social dimensions of time and space. This article offers a critical examination, particularly from the standpoint of urban studies, of Wallerstein's TimeSpace typology (developed from Braudel's multi-layered conception of time) and of the historical production of scientific knowledge. The study discusses the five epistemological types of TimeSpace identified by Wallerstein (Episodic-geopolitical, Cyclical-ideological, Structural, Eternal, and Transformational) by relating them to urban-spatial phenomena such as urban transformation, social movements, rent cycles, and regional inequalities. The article shows how the two mainstream epistemological approaches which are nomothetic and idiographic (by construing time-space one-sidedly, either through universalization or through particularization), limit our grasp of the historical-structural character of social and spatial realities. This limitation manifests itself, for instance, in the urban studies and spatial planning literature, where phenomena are addressed either at the level of projects and events (episodic) or at the level of universal 'good planning principles' (eternal). Consequently, the article argues that urban processes and spatial practices should be treated not merely as a sequence of episodic events or as eternal truths, but as multi-layered ontological processes interwoven with historical, structural, and capitalist accumulation cycles. This multidimensional reading provides methodological depth for critical urban studies and establishes a theoretical basis for evaluating urban policies within the context of a broader historical system—capitalism in the present era.

Özet

Sosyal bilimlerin temel metodolojik gerilimlerinden biri olan nomotetik ve ideografik epistemolojiler arasındaki ayrışma, zaman ve mekânın toplumsal boyutlarının bütüncül bir biçimde kavranmasını sınırlamaktadır. Bu makale, Wallerstein'ın Braudel'in çok katmanlı zaman anlayışından geliştirdiği ZamanMekân ( TimeSpace ) tipolojisini ve bilimsel bilginin tarihsel üretimini, özellikle kent araştırmaları açısından eleştirel bir biçimde ele almaktadır. Araştırma, Wallerstein’ın tanımladığı beş epistemolojik ZamanMekân türünü (epizodik-jeopolitik, döngüsel-ideolojik, yapısal, ebedi ve dönüşümsel) kentsel dönüşüm, toplumsal hareketler, rant döngüleri ve bölgesel eşitsizlikler gibi kentsel-mekânsal olgular ile ilişkilendirerek tartışmaktadır. Makale ana akım iki epistemolojik yaklaşımın (nomotetik ve ideografik) zaman-mekânı ya evrenselleştirerek ya da tikelleştirerek tek yanlı kurgulamasının, toplumsal ve mekânsal gerçekliklerin tarihsel-yapısal niteliğini kavramayı nasıl sınırladığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu sınırlılık kent araştırmaları ve mekânsal planlama yazınında kendini, olguların ya proje ve olay düzeyinde (epizodik) ya da evrensel 'iyi planlama ilkeleri' düzeyinde (ebedi) ele alınması biçiminde göstermektedir. Makalede kentsel süreçlerin ve mekânsal pratiklerin yalnızca epizodik olaylar dizisi veya ebedi doğrular olarak değil, tarihsel, yapısal ve kapitalist birikim döngüleriyle iç içe geçmiş çok katmanlı ontolojik süreçler olarak ele alınması gerektiği savunulmaktadır. Bu çok boyutlu okuma, eleştirel kent çalışmalarında metodolojik bir derinlik sağlamakta ve kentsel politikaların daha kapsayıcı bir tarihsel sistem (günümüzde kapitalizm) bağlamında değerlendirilmesi için kuramsal bir zemin oluşturmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tezcan, A. M. (2026). TIMESPACE AS A MULTI-LAYERED ANALYTICAL TOOL: TOWARD A FRAMEWORK FOR CRITICAL URBAN STUDIES. Eskiz: Şehir ve Bölge PLanlama Dergisi, Cilt: 08. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22108171

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Akbulut, Ö.Ö. (2007). Kamu Yönetiminde Kuramın Yokluğu ya da Yapılabilirliği Üzerine Yöntemsel Bir Tartışma. İçinde Ş. Aksoy and Y. Üstüner (Der.). Kamu Yönetimi: Yöntem ve Sorunlar. (ss. 5–29). Nobel.
  2. Arrighi, G. (1994). The long twentieth century: Money, power and the origins of our times. Verso.
  3. Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences (3. baskı). Routledge.
  4. Braudel, F. (1980). On history (S. Matthews, Çev.). University of Chicago Press.
  5. Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199270057.001.0001
  6. Brenner, N. ve Schmid, C. (2015). Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City, 19(2–3), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2015.1014712
  7. Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. University of California Press.
  8. Ersoy, M. (2007). Kapsamlı Planlama Yaklaşımının Tarihsel Gelişimi ve Bugünü. İçinde Melih Ersoy (der.). Kentsel Planlama Kuramları (ss. 115–170). İmge.
  9. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press.
  10. Harvey, D. (1982). The limits to capital. Basil Blackwell.
  11. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Blackwell.
  12. Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199264315.001.0001
  13. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199283262.001.0001
  14. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. Verso.
  15. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2
  16. Jessop, B. (2002). The Future of the Capitalist State. Polity Press.
  17. Keyder, Ç. (Der.) (1999). Istanbul: Between the lobal and the local. Rowman & Littlefield.
  18. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2. Baskı). University of Chicago Press.
  19. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Çev.). Blackwell.
  20. Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities (E. Kofman & E. Lebas, Çev. ve Der.). Blackwell.
  21. Massey, D. (2005). For space. Sage.
  22. Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Farrar & Rinehart.
  23. Rickert, H. (1986). The limits of concept formation in natural science (G. Oakes, Çev.). Cambridge University Press.
  24. Sassen, S. (1991). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press.
  25. Smith, N. (1984). Uneven development: Nature, capital, and the production of space. Basil Blackwell.
  26. Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. Verso.
  27. Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Wiley-Blackwell.
  28. Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816666676.001.0001
  29. Şengül, H. T. (2007). Planlama Paradigmalarının Dönüşümü Üzerine Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirme. İçinde Melih Ersoy (der.). Kentsel Planlama Kuramları (ss. 59–113). İmge.
  30. Şengül, H. T. (2009). Kentsel Çelişki ve Siyaset: Kapitalist Kentleşme Süreçleri Üzerine Yazılar. İmge.
  31. Tezcan, A. M. (2023). The Politics and Geography of Urban Security Services Provided by Private Security Companies: The Case of Ankara, Turkey [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi], ODTÜ, Ankara.
  32. Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press.
  33. Wallerstein, I. (1988). The Inventions of TimeSpace Realities: Towards an Understanding of our Historical Systems. Geography, 73(4), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/20436564.1988.12452147
  34. Wallerstein, I. (1996). Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503616219
  35. Wallerstein, I. (1998a). The Time of Space and the Space of Time: The Future of Social Science. Political Geography, 17(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(96)00097-2
  36. Wallerstein, I. (1998b). Time and Duration: The Unexcluded Middle, or Reflections on Braudel and Prigogine. Thesis Eleven, 54(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513698054000007
  37. Wallerstein, I. (1998c). SpaceTime as the Basis of Knowledge. “İçinde O. F. Bordo (Der.), People’s Participation, Challenges Ahead, Apex Press (ss. 43–62). IT Publications.
  38. Wallerstein, I. (1999). The End of the World as We Know It. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
  39. Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences (E. A. Shils & H. A. Finch, Çev. ve der.). Free Press.
  40. Windelband, W. (1998). History and natural science (J. T. Lamiell, Çev.). Theory & Psychology, 8(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354398081001