Non‐representational Theory(ies) as a Style in Poststructuralist and Relational Geographies

Yıl 2016, Sayı: 33, 83 - 93, 21.07.2017

Ahmet Uysal Şenay Güngör

Öz

Non-representational theory, which emerged in the 1990s through the study of Thrift, has criticized the representation of space
and the new cultural geography, which obsessively focuses on the politics of representation. Additionally, non-representational theory has
criticized the dualism of Cartesian logic, which is based on binary oppositions such as nature/culture, mind/body, agent/structure, and has
attempted to go beyond such binary constructions. In other words, non-representational theory might be seen as an “umbrella” or a
“framework” that houses several distinct approaches, including phenomenology, structuralism, feminism and post-structuralism. Thus,
rather than calling it non-representational theory, one may call it non-representational theories, plural.
The first aim of this paper is to cover the nature and emergence of the theory as well as the impact of the aforementioned
intellectual traditions. The second aim of this paper is to highlight the main aspects and principles of non-representational theory. Finally,
this paper aims to examine the critique of non-representational theory. In this respect, it is notable to mention that this paper offers a
critique as well. This paper will also provide a critical overview of the intellectual activities which attempt not just to understand nonrepresentational
theory in Anglo-American geographies but to transfer it into the Turkish academy in a critical fashion. In parallel, the
possible contributions of the theory to the theoretical discussions in the Turkish academy will be considered briefly at the end of this essay.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Non‐representational theory, non‐representational style, everyday life, practice, emotion

Postyapısalcı ve İlişkisel Coğrafyalarda Bir Tarz Olarak Temsil Ötesi Teori(ler)

Öz

1990’lardan sonra Thrift’in çalışmaları ile ortaya çıkıp daha sonra özellikle İngiltere’de yaygınlaşan temsil ötesi teori, mekânın
temsillere indirgenmesini ve özellikle yeni kültürel coğrafyanın temsil politikalarını eleştirmektedir. Bir diğer eleştiri ise kartezyen mantığın
düalistik yapısıdır. Temsil ötesi teoriler doğa/kültür, zihin/beden, fail/yapı gibi ayrımlardan birini diğerine tercih etmeyip böylesi bir ikiliğin
ötesine geçmeye çabalamaktadır. Postyapısalcı, ilişkisel coğrafyacıların düşüncelerini, farklı nispetlerde buluşturan temsil ötesi teori, bu
özelliğinden dolayı içinde birçok teori ve yaklaşımı barındıran bir ‘şemsiye’ ya da ‘çatı’ olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu çalışmada, ilk olarak,
temsil ötesi teorinin ne olduğu, nasıl ortaya çıktığı ve hangi düşüncelerden etkilendiğinin izi sürülmüştür. İkinci olarak, temsil ötesi teorinin
ilkeleri üzerinde durulduktan sonra teorinin yeni bir biçim ya da tarz olan yönü irdelenmiştir. Ayrıca, çalışmada temsil ötesi teoriye karşı
yapılan eleştiriler incelenmiştir. Anglo‐amerikan coğrafyalardaki temsil ötesi teoriler tartışılırken ve Türkiye’ye aktarılırken, aktarma
eyleminin de eleştirel bir bakışa ihtiyacı vardır. Bu eleştirel bakış çerçevesinde çalışmanın bir diğer amacı ise, temsil ötesi teorinin Türk
coğrafyasındaki teorik ve metodolojik tartışmalara sunabileceği katkı ve imkânları ele almaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Temsil ötesi teori, temsil ötesi tarz, gündelik yaşam, pratik, duygu

Kaynakça

• Adey, P. (2006) Airports and air‐mindedness: spacing, timing and using the Liverpool airport, 1929–39. Social and Cultural Geography 7, 343–63.
• Anderson, B. (2009) Affective atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Society 2(2): 77–81.
• Anderson, B. (2009), ‘Affective atmospheres’, Emotion, Society and Space 2(2), 77‐81.
• Anderson, B. and Harrison, P. (2010) The promise of nonrepresentational theories, Anderson, B. and Harrison,P. (eds) Taking Place: Non‐Representational Theories and Geographyiçinde (s. 1‐34), London: Ashgate.
• Binnie, J., Edensor, T., Holloway, J., Millington, S. and Young, C. (2007) Mundane mobilities, banaltravels. Social and Cultural Geography 8, 165–74.Ashgate, 1–36.
• Bissell, D. (2010) Passenger mobilities: Affective atmospheres and the sociality of public transport, Environment and Planning D: Society & Space 28(2): 270–289.
• Buser, M. (2014) Thinking through nonrepresentational and affective atmospheres in planning theory and practice, Planning Theory, 13(3), 227‐243.
• Büscher, M. (2006) Vision in motion. Environment and Planning A 38, 281–99.
• Cant, S. and Morris, N. (2006) Geographies of art and the environment. Social and Cultural Geography 7, 857–61.
• Clough, P. (2007) Introduction, Clough PT and Halley J (eds) Affective Turn: Theorizing the Socialiçinde (s. 1–33). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Colls, R. (2004) ‘Looking alright, feeling alright’: emotions, sizing and the geographies of women’s experiences of clothing consumption. Social andCultural Geography 5, 583–96.
• Cresswel, T. (2013) Geographic Thought A critical Introduction, West Sussex, Wiley‐Blackwell.
• Doel, M. (2007) Post‐Structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space by Jonathan Murdoch. Annals for the Association of American Geographers, 97, 809–810.
• Doel, M. (2010) Representation and difference, B. Anderson and P. Harrison (eds), Taking Place: Non‐Representational Theories and Geography içinde (s. 117‐145).Ashgate, Farnham, pp. 117– 130.
• Edensor, T. (2007) Mundane mobilities, performances and spaces of tourism. Social and Cultural Geography 8, 199–215.
• Horton, J. and Kraftl, P. (2005) For more‐than usefulness: six overlapping points about children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies 3, 131–43.
• Horton, J. and Kraftl, P. (2006) What else? Some more ways of thinking and doing children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies 4, 69–95.
• Ingold, T. (2011) Being alive, London: Routledge. Jones, P. (2005) Performing the city: a body and a bicycle take on Birmingham, UK. Social and CulturalGeography 6, 813–30.
• Kaygalak, İ. (2011) Postmodern eleştirilerin coğrafî düşünce ve yeni mekân kavrayışları üzerine yansımaları, Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1),1‐10.
• Kraftl, P. (2006) Building an idea: the material construction of an ideal childhood. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 31, 488–504.
• Kraftl, P. (2015) Geographies of alternative education; Diverse learning spaces for children and young people, Bristol: Policy Press University of Bristol.
• Lassen, C. (2006) Aeromobility at work, Environment and Planning A 38, 301–12.
• Latham, A. (2003) Research, performance, and doing human geography: Some reflections on the diary‐photograph diaryinterview method. Environment &Planning A, 35 , 1993–2017.
• Lorimer, H. (2005) Cultural geography: The busyness of being “more‐thanrepresentational.” Progress in Human Geography, 29 , 83–94.
• Lorimer, (2006) Herding memories of humans and animals. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24, 497–518.
• Lorimer, H. (2008) Cultural geography: Non‐representational conditions and concerns, Progress in Human Geography, 32 , 551–559.
• Manning, E. (2015) Against Method, Vannini P (eds) Non‐ Representational Methodologies Re‐Envisioning Research içinde, London, Routledge.
• McCormark, P.D. (2005) Diagramming practice and performance, . Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23, 119‐147.
• Massey, D. B. (2005) For Space, Sage, London Murdoch, J. (2006) Post‐Structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space, Sage, London.
• Normark, D. (2006) Tending to mobility: intensities of staying at the petrol station. Environment andPlanning A 38, 241–52.
• Özgüç ve Tümertekin (2014) Coğrafya: Geçmiş, Kavramlar, Coğrafyacılar, İstanbul, Çantay Kitabevi
• Öztürk, M. ve Karadağ, S. (2013) Coğrafyada Paradigmalar, Journal of European Education, 3,1: 1‐32.
• Paterson, M. (2005) The forgetting of touch, Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 10, 115–32.
• Pinder, D. (2005) Arts of urban exploration, Cultural Geographies 12, 383–411.
• Revill, G. (2004) Performing French folk music: dance, authenticity and nonrepresentational theory, Cultural Geographies 11, 199–209.
• Rose, M. and Wylie, J. (2006) Animating landscape, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24, 475–79.
• Rose, M. (2006) Gathering ‘dreams of presence’: a project for the cultural landscape. Environment andPlanning D: Society and Space 24, 537–54.
• Scott, H. (2006) Rethinking landscape and colonialism in the context of early Spanish Peru. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24, 481–96.
• Sheller, M. (2007) Bodies, cybercars and the mundane incorporation of automated mobilities, Social andCultural Geography 8, 175–97.
• Sihirlow, P. (2002) Representation, Gallahe C, Dahlman C, Gilmartin M, Mountz A ve Shirlow P (eds),Key Concepts in Political Geography içinde (s. 308‐318), London, Sage Publications.
• Spinney, J. 2006: A place of sense: a kinaesthetic ethnography of cyclists on Mont Ventoux. Environmentand Planning D: Society and Space 24, 709–32.
• Tekeli, İ. (2012) Türkiye'de coğrafyacıların çok paradigmalı bir bilim dünyasında yaşamayı öğrenmesi gerekiyor, TÜCAUM VI. Coğrafya Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı içinde (s.348‐354). Ankara: TÜCAUM.
• Thrift, N. (2008) Non‐Representational Theory: Space/Politics/Affect, London, Routledge Unwin,P.T.H. 1992 The Place of Geography, Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow.
• Uysal, A. (2016) Londradaki Türkiyeli çocukların ulusaşırı mekanlarda duygusal coğrafyaları, Göç Dergisi, 3:1, 99‐119 Vannini P (2015) Non‐Representational Methodologies Re‐ Envisioning Research, London, Routledge.
• Waitt, G. and Lane, R. (2007) Four‐wheel drivescapes: embodied understandings of the Kimberley, Journal of Rural Studies 23, 156–69.
• Whatmore, S. (2002) Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Cultures, Spaces, London, University of Oxford.
• Wylie, J. (2006) Depths and folds: on landscape and the gazing subject. Environment and Planning D:Society and Space 24, 519– 35.