Abstract
Bu makalede enformel yerleşim bölgeleri hakkında feminist okumanın sunduğu imkânlara baktık. Bunu yaparken Türkiye'deki bir büyükşehir belediyesi (İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi) sınırlarında yer alan bir gecekondu mahallesine (Limontepe) odaklandık ve belediye kayıtlarında, meclis kararlarında, devlet ve belediye arşivlerinde toparlandığı haliyle kurumsal resmî tarihin sınırlarını soruşturduk. Metnin arka plânındaki temel argümana göre, çeperlerdeki nüfusun ve/ya da marjinalleştirilmiş grupların resmî tarih kapsamında okunması mekân hakkında kısmî bilgi üretiyor. Böyle bir kısmiliğin farklı, eşitlikçi ve katılımcı önceliklerle şekillendirilen bilgi üretim süreçlerine uygun metotlarla dengelenebileceğini düşündük. Buna bağlı olarak enformel yerleşimlerde yaşayanların gündelik yaşamlarından doğru toplanan, biriken ve paylaşılan bilginin resmî tarihin kısmiliğinin denetlenmesi ve boşlukları doldurmak açısından işler bir seçenek olduğunu düşünüyoruz. Bu makalede, geçmişin bilgisini bugünün mekân kurulum pratiklerine bağlamakta feminist (oto)etnografiye dayandık. Feminist araştırmacılar olarak mahalle sâkinlerinin gündelik yaşam pratikleriyle ilişkilenmeyi mekâna dair durağan olmayan bilgi üretim süreçlerine katılmanın yolu olarak gördük ve metinde bununla ilgili dayanaklarımızı paylaştık. Makale, feminist bilgi üretim süreçlerine farklı pozisyonlardan katılımın yatay ilişkilenmeyle gerçekleştirilmesine bir örnek olarak tasarlandı.
References
- Adams, T. E., Holman Jones, S. & Ellis, C. (2015). Autoethnography: Understanding Qualitative Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Aleksiyeviç, S. (2016). Kadın Yok Savaşın Yüzünde. İstanbul: Kafka Kitap.
- Ascensão, E. (2016). The slum multiple: A cyborg micro-history of an informal settlement in Lisbon. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(5), 948-964.
- Benson, K. & Nagar, R. (2006). Collaboration as resistance? Reconsidering the processes, products, and possibilities of feminist oral history and ethnography. Gender, Place and Culture, 13(5), 581–592.
- Chang, H. (2016). Authoethnography as Method. New York: Routhledge.
- Daniels, D. (2002). Using the life histories of community builders in an informal settlement to advance the emancipation and development of women. R. M. Cervero, B. C. Courtenay & C. H. Monaghan (Eds.), In The Cyril O. Houle Scholars in Adult and Continuing Education Program Global Research Volume 2 (pp.56-69). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
- Grosz, E. (2000). Histories of a feminist future!. Signs, 25(4), 1017-1021.
- High, S. (2011). Mapping memories of displacement: oral history, memoryscapes, and mobile methodologies. S. Trower (Ed.), In Place, Writing, and Voice in Oral History (pp. 217-232). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Iared, V. G. & de Oliveira, H. T. (2017). Walking ethnography and interviews in the analysis of aesthetic experiences in the Cerrado. Ambiente & Sociedade, 20(3), 97-114.
- Kelly, L., Burton, S. & Regan, L. (1994). Researching women’s lives or studying women’s oppression? reflections on what constitutes feminist research. M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds.), In Researching Women’s Lives from a Feminist Perspective (pp. 27-48). London: Taylor & Francis.
- Kohl, E. & McCutcheon, P. (2015). Kitchen table reflexivity: negotiating positionality through everyday talk. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 22(6), 747-763.
- Lee, J. & Ingold, T. (2006). Fieldwork on foot: perceiving, routing, socializing. S. Coleman & P. Collins (Eds.), In Locating the Field: Space, Place and Context in Anthropology (pp. 67-86). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Önen, S. (2016). Kenti yürüyerek keşfetmenin sosyolojisi. İdealkent, 7(18), 286 – 303.
- Pink, S. (2008). An urban tour: the sensory sociality of ethnographic place-making. Ethnography, 9(2), 175–196.
- Scott, J. W. (1986). Gender: a useful category of historical analysis. The American Historical Review, 91(5), 1053-1075.
- Author 1, 2021
- Author 1, 2022
- Author 1, forthcoming 2023
- Author 2, 2023, forthcoming
Abstract
This article elaborated on the possibilities of feminist interference to the reading of informal settlements. In so doing, we focused on a squatter settlement (Limontepe) in a metropolitan municipality (İzmir Metropolitan Municipality) in Turkey, and tried to interrogate the institutional, official history, based on city registers, parliamentary decisions and state and municipality archives. We argue that the way peripheral populations and/or marginalized groups are treated in official histories of nation-states leads to partial knowledge of the place. We propose that the knowledge collected, accumulated and exchanged through everyday lives of the inhabitants, past and present might be a viable option to check the official history writing and fill in the blanks therein. The article is an attempt to walk through feminist (auto)ethnography to tie the knowledge of the past to today’s placemaking practices. As feminist researchers we consider engaging in the everyday life practices of inhabitants as a way to participate in the dynamic knowledge production processes of the place.
References
- Adams, T. E., Holman Jones, S. & Ellis, C. (2015). Autoethnography: Understanding Qualitative Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Aleksiyeviç, S. (2016). Kadın Yok Savaşın Yüzünde. İstanbul: Kafka Kitap.
- Ascensão, E. (2016). The slum multiple: A cyborg micro-history of an informal settlement in Lisbon. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(5), 948-964.
- Benson, K. & Nagar, R. (2006). Collaboration as resistance? Reconsidering the processes, products, and possibilities of feminist oral history and ethnography. Gender, Place and Culture, 13(5), 581–592.
- Chang, H. (2016). Authoethnography as Method. New York: Routhledge.
- Daniels, D. (2002). Using the life histories of community builders in an informal settlement to advance the emancipation and development of women. R. M. Cervero, B. C. Courtenay & C. H. Monaghan (Eds.), In The Cyril O. Houle Scholars in Adult and Continuing Education Program Global Research Volume 2 (pp.56-69). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
- Grosz, E. (2000). Histories of a feminist future!. Signs, 25(4), 1017-1021.
- High, S. (2011). Mapping memories of displacement: oral history, memoryscapes, and mobile methodologies. S. Trower (Ed.), In Place, Writing, and Voice in Oral History (pp. 217-232). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Iared, V. G. & de Oliveira, H. T. (2017). Walking ethnography and interviews in the analysis of aesthetic experiences in the Cerrado. Ambiente & Sociedade, 20(3), 97-114.
- Kelly, L., Burton, S. & Regan, L. (1994). Researching women’s lives or studying women’s oppression? reflections on what constitutes feminist research. M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds.), In Researching Women’s Lives from a Feminist Perspective (pp. 27-48). London: Taylor & Francis.
- Kohl, E. & McCutcheon, P. (2015). Kitchen table reflexivity: negotiating positionality through everyday talk. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 22(6), 747-763.
- Lee, J. & Ingold, T. (2006). Fieldwork on foot: perceiving, routing, socializing. S. Coleman & P. Collins (Eds.), In Locating the Field: Space, Place and Context in Anthropology (pp. 67-86). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Önen, S. (2016). Kenti yürüyerek keşfetmenin sosyolojisi. İdealkent, 7(18), 286 – 303.
- Pink, S. (2008). An urban tour: the sensory sociality of ethnographic place-making. Ethnography, 9(2), 175–196.
- Scott, J. W. (1986). Gender: a useful category of historical analysis. The American Historical Review, 91(5), 1053-1075.
- Author 1, 2021
- Author 1, 2022
- Author 1, forthcoming 2023
- Author 2, 2023, forthcoming
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Urban Sociology and Community Studies |
| Journal Section | Research Articles |
| Authors | |
| Early Pub Date | September 30, 2023 |
| Publication Date | September 29, 2023 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2023 |