Kırsal Bağlamda Temsil Ötesi İlişkiselliklerin Üretimi: Teorik Bir Çerçeve

Öz

Kültürel coğrafya radikal paradigma değişimlerine sahne olmuş alanlardan biridir. 1990’larla birlikte literatürde temsil ötesi teoriler (TÖT) önem kazanmaya başlamıştır. TÖT gündelik yaşama odaklansa da bu çalışma kırsaldaki durumu anlamaya çalışmaktadır. Teorik nitelikteki bu çalışma TÖT’yi oluşturan duygulanım, duygular, materyalite ve bedenselleşme, pratikleri kırsal bağlamda irdelemektedir. Ayrıca kırsal mekanın üretimiyle bu teoriler arasında da bir bağlantı kurulmuştur. Kırsalın gündelik ve ekonomik hayatı içerisinde gerçekleştirilen pratik ve deneyimlerin yanı sıra kullanılan materyallerin temsil ötesi teori içerisindeki yeri ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Yine benzer şekilde bunların ürettiği duygulanım ve duygular kırsal yaşam içerisinde hayati bir rol oynamaktadır. Tüm bunların ortaya çıkardığı ilişkisellikler kırsal mekanı (yeniden) üretmektedir. Sonuç olarak temsil ötesi teoriler kırsalı anlamada araştırmacılara farklı bir lens sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Temsil ötesi teoriler
• Kırsal
• Kırsal mekan
• Kültürel coğrafya

The Production of Non-Representational Relationalities in Rural Context: A Theoritical Framework

Öz

Cultural geography is one of the fields that has witnessed radical paradigm shifts. Since the 1990s, non-representation theories (NRT) have gained prominence in the literature. Although NRTs focuses on everyday life, this study attempts to understand situation in rural areas. This compilation examines sub-theories of NRT—affect, emotions, materiality, practices and performances—within a rural context. Furthermore, a connection has been established between the production of rural space and these theories. The place of the materials used, as well as practices and performances carried out within daily and economic life of rural, within non-representational theory has been revealed. Similarly, affect and emotions produced by these play a vital role in rural life. The relationalities revealed by all of these (re)produce rural space. Consequently, non-representational theories offer researchers a different lens through which to understand rural.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Non-representational theory
• Rural
• Rural space
• Cultural geography

Kaynakça

1. Agnew, J. (2005). Space: Place. In P. Cloke & R. Johnston (Eds.), Spaces of geographical thought: Deconstructing human geography’s binaries (pp. 81-96). Sage.
2. Bilgili, M. (2020). Coğrafyada mekân felsefesi üzerine yaklaşımlar. International Journal of Geography and Geography Education, (41), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.32003/igge.674936
3. Bravo-Monroy, L., Potts, S., & Tzanopoulos, J. (2016). Drivers influencing farmer decisions for adopting organic or conventional coffee management practices. Food Policy, 58, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.11.003
4. Cadman, L. (2009). Non-representational theory/non-representational geographies. In R. Kitchin, & N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 456–463). Elsevier.
5. Chaney, D. (2002). The cultural turn: Scene-setting essays on contemporary cultural history. Routledge.
6. Clarke, N., Cloke, P., Barnett, C., & Malpass, A. (2008). The spaces and ethics of organic food. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(3), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.008.
7. Clough, P. T. (2007). Introduction. In P. T. Clough & J. Halley (Eds.), The affective turn: Theorizing the social (pp. 1–33). Duke University Press.
8. Dirksmeier, P., & Helbrecht, I. (2008). Time, non-representational theory and the “performative turn”: Towards a new methodology in qualitative social research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(2).

9. Galani-Moutafi, V. (2013). Rural space (re)produced: Practices, performances and visions—A case study from an Aegean island. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.04.007.
10. Halfacree, K. H. (2006). Rural space: Constructing a three-fold architecture. In P. Cloke, T. Marsden, & P. H. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of rural studies (pp. 44–62). Sage.
11. Halfacree, K. H. (2007). Trial by space for a ‘radical rural’: Introducing alternative localities, representations and lives. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.10.002.
12. Hayden, A., & Buck, D. (2012). Doing community supported agriculture: Tactile space, affect and effects of membership. Geoforum, 43(2), 332–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.08.003.
13. Ince, A. (2015). From middle ground to common ground: Self-management and spaces of encounter in organic farming networks. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(4), 824–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2015.1039110.
14. Kaya, İ. (2015). Kültürel dönüş ve yeni kültürel coğrafya. İçinde Coğrafyacılar Derneği Uluslararası Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı (629–633). Gazi Üniversitesi.
15. Lähdesmäki, M., & Vesala, K. M. (2022). How can organic farmers be good farmers? A study of categorisation in organic farmers’ talk. Sociologia Ruralis, 62(3), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12382
16. Lefebvre, H. (1984), The Production of Space, (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell.
17. Lefebvre, H. (2014). Mekânın üretimi (I. Ergüden, Çev.). Sel Yayıncılık.
18. Lorimer, H. (2008). Cultural geography: Non-representational conditions and concerns. Progress in Human Geography, 32(4), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507086882
19. Luhrs, D. E. (2018). Australia’s family farms and farming communities: Interdependent, reconstituted, threatened spaces. Journal of Rural Studies, 62, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.07.005
20. Massey, D. (2001). Space, place, and gender. University of Minnesota Press.
21. Okudum, R. (2021). Aydın ve Van illerinde organik tarım uygulamaları: Kültür, mekân ve kalkınma (KMK) (Tez No. 699700) [Doktora tezi, Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
22. Okudum, R., & Şeremet, M. (2026). Spatial affect (SA) as a new frame for organic farming spaces (OFSs): A comparative analysis from Türkiye. Journal of Rural Studies, 121, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2025.103925
23. Özgür, E. M. (2021). Türk beşeri coğrafyasında ihmal edilmiş bir paradigma: Hümanist coğrafya. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 30(1), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.51800/ecd.892187.
24. Phillips, M. (2014). Baroque rurality in an English village. Journal of Rural Studies, 33, 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.10.008
25. Popke, J. (2009). Geography and ethics: Non-representational encounters, collective responsibility and economic difference. Progress in Human Geography, 33(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132508090441
26. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432.
27. Sauer, C. O. (1925). The morphology of landscape. University of California Publications in Geography, 2(2), 19–53.
28. Simpson, P. (2021). Non-representational theory. Routledge.
29. Sutherland, L. A. (2020). The ‘desk-chair countryside’: Affect, authenticity and the rural idyll in a farming computer game. Journal of Rural Studies, 78, 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.05.002
30. Sutherland, L. A. (2021). Two good interview questions: Mobilizing the ‘good farmer’ and the ‘good day’ concepts to enable more-than-representational research. Sociologia Ruralis, 61(4), 681–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12344
31. Thorpe, H., & Rinehart, R. (2010). Alternative sport and affect: Non-representational theory examined. Sport in Society, 13(7–8), 1268–1291. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430431003780278
32. Thrift, N. (2004). Intensities of feeling: Towards a spatial politics of affect. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 86(1), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2004.00154.x
33. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. Routledge.
34. Torrens, P. M. (2024). Ten traps for non-representational theory in human geography. Geographies, 4(2), 253-286. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/geographies4020016.
35. Türk Dil Kurumu. (t.y.). Güncel Türkçe Sözlük. Erişim tarihi: 23 Eylül 2025, https://sozluk.gov.tr/
36. Uysal, A., & Güngör, Ş. (2016). Postyapısalcı ve ilişkisel coğrafyalarda bir tarz olarak temsil ötesi teori(ler). İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Coğrafya Dergisi, (33), 73–81.
37. Vigors, B., Wemelsfelder, F., & Lawrence, A. B. (2023). What symbolises a “good farmer” when it comes to farm animal welfare? Journal of Rural Studies, 98, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.01.009
38. Waight, E., & Yin, Y. (2021). Using non-representational theory to explore older people’s travel to and from the supermarket. Mobilities, 16(4), 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2021.1889753
39. Waitt, G., & Lane, R. (2007). Four-wheel drivescapes: Embodied understandings of the Kimberley. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(2), 156–169. https://doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.07.001
40. Warf, B., & Arias, S. (Eds.). (2008). The spatial turn: Interdisciplinary perspectives (Vol. 26). Routledge.
41. Williams, N. (2020). Non-representational theory. In International encyclopedia of human geography (2nd ed., pp. 421–427). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10747-423