ELEŞTİREL BİR DİYALOG ARAYIŞI: GÜNDELİK HAYAT VE KAMUSAL ALAN ETKİLEŞİMİNİN SORGULANMASI

Öz

Bu makale, “gündelik hayat” ve “kamusal alan” arasındaki karmaşık teorik bağlantıları eleştirel teori merceğinden incelemektedir. Kuramdaki ufuk açıcı çalışmalardan yararlanarak, kamusal alanların gündelik faaliyetler tarafından şekillendirildiğini ve karşılıklı olarak insanların gündelik varoluşu nasıl deneyimledikleri üzerinde derin bir etki yarattığını savunmaktadır. Gündelik hayat ile kamusal alan arasındaki ilişki, rutinleri, zamansallıkları ve sosyal pratikleri kapsayan çok yönlü bir ilişkidir. "Gündelik hayat" ve "kamusal alan" kavramları arasındaki teorik bağlantıları anlamak, bireylerin ihtiyaçlarına ve davranışlarına yanıt veren mekânlar tasarlamak için çok önemlidir. Bu makale, sosyal açıdan sürdürülebilir ve canlı kamusal alanlar tasarlarken, "gündelik hayat" ve "kamusal alan" arasındaki teorik bağlantıları anlamanın ve bu bağlantılar arasında ilişkiler kurmanın önemini savunmaktadır. Bu kavramsal diyalog sadece özgürleştirici pratikleri ortaya çıkarmakla kalmaz, aynı zamanda farklı bireysel ihtiyaçlara yanıt veren ortamların tasarımını da içerir. Mimarlar ve tasarımcılar, gündelik hayat içindeki direniş mekanizmaları, yaratıcılık ve anlamlı sosyal etkileşim potansiyellerinin farkına vararak, kamusal alanda bireylerin dönüşümüne ve güçlenmesine katkıda bulunabilirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamusal Alan
• Gündelik Hayat
• Eleşirel Teori

IN SEARCH OF A CRITICAL DIALOGUE: INTERROGATING THE INTERPLAY OF EVERYDAY LIFE AND PUBLIC SPACE

Öz

This paper explores the intricate theoretical interconnections between “everyday life” and “public space” through the lens of critical theory. Drawing from seminal works from theory, it argues that public spaces are shaped by everyday activities and, reciprocally, exert a profound impact on how people experience daily existence. The relationship between everyday life and public space is multifaceted, encompassing routines, temporalities, and social practices. Understanding the theoretical connections between the notions of “everyday life” and “public space” is crucial for designing spaces responsive to individuals' needs and behaviors. This paper argues that for designing socially sustainable and vibrant public spaces, it is crucial to acknowledge and navigate the theoretical connections between “everyday life” and “public space.” This conceptual dialogue not only reveals emancipative practices, but also includes the design of environments responsive to diverse individual needs. By recognizing the potential for resistance mechanisms, creativity, and meaningful social interactions in everyday life, architects and designers can contribute to the transformation and empowerment of individuals within the public sphere.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public Space
• Everyday Life
• Critical Theory

Kaynakça

1. Arendt, H. (1958). Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.
2. Barrett, J. (2012). Museums and the Public Sphere. John Wiley & Sons.
3. Bennett, T. (2005). Everyday. In T. Bennett, L. Grossberg, & M. Morris (Eds.), New Keywords: A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society (pp. 115–117). Wiley-Blackwell.
4. Dant, T. (2003). Critical Social Theory: Culture, Society and Critique. Sage Publications.
5. de Certeau, M. (1988). The Practice of Everyday Life. In Practice (Vol. 4, Issue 126/127). University of California Press.
6. Debord, G. (1958). The Situationist Definitions. http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/definitions.html
7. Debord, G. (1959). Détournement as Negation and Prelude. http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/detournement.html
8. Debord, G. (1994). The Society of the Spectacle. Zone Books.

9. Debord, G. (2002a). Report on Construction of Situations and on the Terms of Organization and Action of the International Situationist Tendency (1957). In T. McDonough (Ed.), Guy Debord and the Situationist International: Texts and Documents (pp. 29–51). The MIT Press.
10. Debord, G. (2002b). The City of Marx and Coca-Cola. In A. Merriifeld (Ed.), Metromarxism A Marxist Tale of the City. Routledge.
11. Debord, G. (2002c). The Situationists and the New Forms of Action in Politics or Art (1963). In T. McDonough (Ed.), Guy Debord and the Situationist International: Texts and Documents (pp. 159–167). The MIT Press.
12. Fiske, J. (1989). Reading the popular. Unwin Hyman.
13. Fraser, N. (2004). Kamusal Alanı Yeniden Düşünmek: Gerçekte Varolan Demokrasinin Eleştirisine Bir Katkı. In Kamusal Alan (pp. 103–133). Hil Yayın.
14. Geuss, R. (1981). The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge University Press.
15. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
16. Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press.
17. Hall, S. (1980). Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms. Media, Culture and Society, 2, 57–72.
18. Kracauer, S. (2002). Boredom (1924). In B. Highmore (Ed.), The Everyday Life Reader (pp. 301–305). Routledge.
19. Lefebvre, H. (1957). Romantisme Révolutionnaire. Nouvelle Revue Française, 58, 644–672.
20. Lefebvre, H. (1971). Everyday life in the Modern World. The Penguin Press.
21. Lefebvre, H. (1987). The Everyday and Everydayness. Yale French Studies, 73, 7–11.
22. Lefebvre, H. (1991a). Critique of Everyday Life: Introduction, Volume 1 (1947). Verso.
23. Lefebvre, H. (1991b). The Production of Space. In Production. Blackwell Publishers.
24. Lefebvre, H. (2009). Space: Social Product and Use Value (1979). In N. Brenner, S. Elden, & G. Moore (Eds.), State, Space, World: Selected Essays Henri Lefebvre (pp. 185–195). University of Minnesota Press.
25. Lefebvre, H. (2013). Şehir Hakkı (1967). Sel Yayıncılık.
26. McDonough, T. (2002). Introduction: Ideology and the Situationists Utopia. In T. McDonough (Ed.), Guy Debord and the Situationist International: Texts and Documents (pp. ix–1). The MIT Press.
27. Mitchell, D. (1995). The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), 108–133.
28. Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to The City : Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. Guilford Press.
29. Mouffe, C. (2002a). For an Agonistic Public Sphere. In O. Enwezor (Ed.), Democracy Unrealized: Documenta 11, Platform 1 (pp. 87–97). Hatje Cantz.
30. Mouffe, C. (2002b). Which Public Sphere for a Democratic Society? Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, 99, 55–65.
31. Mouffe, C. (2007). Artistic Activism and Agonistic Spaces. Art & Research: A Journal of Ideas, Contexts and Methods, 1(2), 1–5.
32. Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. Verso.
33. Mouffe, C. (2014). Artistic Strategies in Politics and Political Strategies in Art. In F. Malzacher & A. Faucheret (Eds.), Truth is Concrete: A Handbook for Artistic Strategies in Real Politics (pp. 66–75). Sternberg Press.
34. Orum, A. M., & Neal, Z. P. (2010). Common Ground: Readings and Reflections on Public Space. Routledge.
35. Oskar, N., & Kluge, A. (2004). Kamusal Alan ve Tecrübe’ye Giriş. In Kamusal Alan (pp. 133–141). Hil Yayın.
36. Sadler, S. (1998). The Situationist City. MIT Press.
37. Sennett, R. (1992). The Fall of Public Man. W. W. Norton & Company.
38. Simmel, G. (1998). The Metropolis and Mental Life. In D. Frisby & M. Featherstone (Eds.), Simmel on Culture: Selected Writings (pp. 174–187). Sage Publications.
39. Strasbourg, M. of the S. I. and some S. of the U. of. (1966). On the Poverty of Student Life. https://studentsnotcustomers.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/on-the-poverty-of-student-life-imposed.pdf
40. Wark, Mckenzie. (2011). The Beach Beneath the Street: The Everyday Life and Glorious Times of the Situationist International. Verso Books.
41. Wark, McKenzie. (2008). 50 Years of Recuperation of the Situationist International. Princeton Architectural Press.
42. Williams, R. (2002). Culture is Ordinary [1958]. In B. Highmore (Ed.), The Everyday Life Reader (pp. 91–100). Routledge.
43. Wilson, J. (2013). “The Devastating Conquest of the Lived by the Conceived”: The Concept of Abstract Space in the Work of Henri Lefebvre. Space and Culture, 16(3), 364–380.