Varoşun Üç Hali : “İç Varoş”, “Parçalanmış Varoş” ve “Bütünleşik Varoş”

Öz

As an expression of spatial separation fact and social stigmatization "varoş" entered into media rhetoric and then social sciences literature describing old shanties and regions where city's poor people live to conceptualize the spatial separation and stigmatization, after the incidents at Gazi neighborhood in 1995 and during 1 May 1996. The subjects like usage of varoş to express social/cultural distance, political and cultural identity during the process, usage as a stigmatization word focusing the shanty areas those can resist metropolitan transformation with the capability of solidarity, have been under discussion. However, there is a lack of texts those putting forward and discussing their spatial/social diversities, in other words discussing the different types of varoş and life in the varoş. I believe that it will be important to contribute to the discussions about varoş by addressing it according to the distance from center, internal integration and spatial separation, originating from a TÜBITAK research I had participated. In this paper it is suggested to review and model the varoş, based on physical and social features by the terms of "inner varoş", "fragmented varoş" and "integrated varoş" with the examples of Tarlabaşı district, Istasyon neighbourhood and Gazi neighbourhood in Istanbul respectively. It is cited that how the varoş people perceive the different types of varoş from the perspective of the youth as the most sociable group living in those areas. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mekân,Mahalle,Mekânsal kimlik,Varoş,Varoş gençliği,İç varoş,Parçalı varoş,Bütünleşik varoş

Three States of Varoş: "Inner Varoş", "Fragmented Varoş" and "Integrated varoş"

Öz

As an expression of spatial separation fact and social stigmatization "varoş" entered into media rhetoric and then social sciences literature describing old shanties and regions where city's poor people live to conceptualize the spatial separation and stigmatization, after the incidents at Gazi neighborhood in 1995 and during 1 May 1996. The subjects like usage of varoş to express social/cultural distance, political and cultural identity during the process, usage as a stigmatization word focusing the shanty areas those can resist metropolitan transformation with the capability of solidarity, have been under discussion. However, there is a lack of texts those putting forward and discussing their spatial/social diversities, in other words discussing the different types of varoş and life in the varoş. I believe that it will be important to contribute to the discussions about varoş by addressing it according to the distance from center, internal integration and spatial separation, originating from a TÜBITAK research I had participated. In this paper it is suggested to review and model the varoş, based on physical and social features by the terms of "inner varoş", "fragmented varoş" and "integrated varoş" with the examples of Tarlabaşı district, Istasyon neighbourhood and Gazi neighbourhood in Istanbul respectively. It is cited that how the varoş people perceive the different types of varoş from the perspective of the youth as the most sociable group living in those areas. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Location,Neighbourhood,Spatial Identity,Varoş,Youth of Varoş,Inner Varoş,Fragmented Varoş,Integrated Varoş

Kaynakça

2. Pérouse, J. F. (2009) “Émergence et résorption annoncées d'un territoire de transit international au cœur d'Istanbul: le cas de Tarlabaşı (1987-2007)”, Maghreb- Machrek, no.199: 85-100, www.cairn.info/revue-maghreb-machrek-2009-1-page- 85.htm.
3. Pérouse, J. F. (2005) “Les tribulations du terme de gecekondu (1947- 2004): Une lente perte de substance. Pour une clarification terminologique”, European Journal of Turkish Studies, no.1, www.ejts.org/document117.html [35].
4. Pérouse, J. F., (2004b) “Interroger le quartier, quelques repères terminologiques et méthodologiques”, Anatolia Moderna/Yeni Anadolu, no.10: 127-129.
5. Pérouse, J. F. (2004a) “Les métamorphoses de ‘Gazi Mahallesi’: Formation et dilution d’un quartier périphérique d’Istanbul”, Anatolia Moderna/Yeni Anadolu, no.10: 189-204.
6. Paulet, J. P. (2001) Géographie urbaine, Paris: Armand Collin.
7. Öztürk, M. (2005) “Türk Sinemasında Gecekondular”, European Journal of Turkish Studies, no.1, http://www.ejts.org.
8. Mozère, L. (1999) Intelligence des banlieues, Paris: Éditions de l’Aube.

9. Martucelli, D. (1999) Sociologies de la modernité, Paris: Gallimard.
10. Lupton, R. (2003) Neighbourhood Effects: Can we measure them and does it matter?, London: Center for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics. [http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEPAPER73.pdf]
11. Lagrée, J. C. (1991) “Générations !”, Les Annales de Vaucresson, no.30-31.
12. Kozanoğlu, C. (1995) Pop Çağı Ateşi, İstanbul: İletişim Yay.
13. TESEV (1998) İnsan Gelişim Raporu: Türkiye 1997, İstanbul: TESEV.
14. Göktürk, G. (1996) “Eğitimin Varoşları”, Yeni Yüzyıl, 9 Eylül 1996.
15. Goffman, E. (1975) [1963] Stigmate, Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
16. George, P. (1970) Dictionnaire de la Géographie, Paris: PUF.
17. Etöz, Z. (2000) “Varoş: Bir İstila, Bir Tehdit!”, Birikim, 132: 49-53.
18. Erman, T. (2001) “The Politics of Squatter (Gecekondu) Studies in Turkey: The Changing Representations of Rural Migrants in the Academic Discourse”, Urban Studies, vol.38(7): 983-1002.
19. Duben A. (1977) “Class and community in urban Turkey” in C.A.O. Van Nieuwenhuijze, (ed.), Commoners, Climbers, and Notables: A Sampler of Studies on Social Ranking in the Middle East, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
20. Dictionnaire de l’ Urbanisme et de l’Aménagement, (1988) Paris: PUF.
21. Di Méo, G. (2002) “L’identité: une médiation essentielle du rapport espace/société”, Géocarrefour, vol.77: 175-184.
22. Chignier-Riboulon F. (2000) “La banlieue: Entre culture populaire de l’honneur et sentiment de marginalisation”, Géographie et Culture, no.33: 77-79.
23. Chantelat P., Fodimbi M., Camy J. (1998) “Lieux et déplacements sportifs auto-organisés dans la ville”, Agora Débats/Jeunesses, vol.13(1):15-28.
24. Chamboredon J. C. (1970) “Proximité spatiale et distance sociale: Les grands ensembles et leur peuplement”, Revue Française de Sociologie, vol.11(1): 3-33.
25. Castel, R. (1995) “Les Pièges de l’exclusion”, RIAC, vol.34: 13-21.
26. Burgess, E. (1967) “The growth of City”, in Park, R., Burgess, E. (eds.), The City, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
27. Bucholtz, M. (2002) “Youth and Cultural Practice”, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol.31: 525-552.
28. Bozkulak, S. (2005) “Gecekondudan Varoşa: Gülsuyu Mahallesi”, içinde H. Kurtuluş (der.), İstanbul’da Kentsel Ayrışma, İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları, 239-267.
29. Bourdieu, P. (1993) La misère du monde, Paris: Seuil.
30. Boubaker A. (2001) Des mondes de l’ethnicité, la communauté d’expériences des héritiers de l’immigration maghrébine en France, Thèse de sociologie, Paris: EHESS/CADIS.
31. Bleakey, A., Merzel, C. R., Van Devanter N. L., Messeri, P. (2004) “Computer Access and Internet Use among Urban Youths”, American Journal of Public Health, vol.94(5): 744-746.
32. Bayramoğlu Alada A. (2008) Osmanlı Şehrinde Mahalle, İstanbul: Sümer Kitabevi.
33. Bali, R. N. (2002) Tarz-ı hayattan Life Style’a Yeni Seçkinler, Yeni Mekânlar, Yeni Yaşamlar, İstanbul: İletişim Yay.
34. Aykaç, Ç.,Yılmaz, E., Danış, D. (2008) “Bir ‘Medenileştirme’ Projesi Olarak Toplu Konutlar. İstasyon Mahallesi ve Sonrası”, İstanbul Dergisi, vol.64: 26-33.
35. Avenel, C. (2000) “Lien social et politique”, RIAC, vol.43: 143-144.