Spatiality, phenomenology and democracy: Rethinking inclusive design

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 3, 1469 - 1492, 29.09.2025

Devran Bengü

https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1613972

Öz

This study adopts a phenomenological approach to democratic space design, proposing that space should be understood not only as an experienced domain but also through the multidimensional dynamics of spatiality. In this context, spatiality is seen as a dynamic construct encompassing attachment, social interactions, cultural memory, and communication processes shaped by individuals and communities. Phenomenology serves not only as a means to understand the impact of space on individuals but also as a foundation for developing spatial norms and approaches that reinforce democratic values. The article explores how different dimensions of spatiality contribute to democratic values. The first section grounds the relationship between spatiality and democracy within the perspectives of theorists such as Foucault, Lefebvre, Massey, and Merleau-Ponty. The second section presents the subjective, social, cultural, and communicative dimensions of spatiality and their dynamics. The third section demonstrates how phenomenological methods can analyze these dynamics to enhance democratic space design. Ultimately, this study provides a theoretical foundation for future research, aiming to develop a multidimensional perspective based on spatial experiences. This approach suggests that incorporating subjectivity, social interaction, cultural values, and communication in democratic space design can strengthen the democratic functionality of space.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Democracy , Phenomenology , Spatiality , Architecture , Planning

Mekânsallık, fenomenoloji ve demokrasi: Kapsayıcı tasarımı yeniden düşünmek

Öz

Bu çalışma, demokratik mekân tasarımına fenomenolojik bir yaklaşım benimseyerek, mekânın yalnızca deneyimlenen bir alan olarak değil, aynı zamanda mekânsallığın çok boyutlu dinamikleri aracılığıyla da anlaşılması gerektiğini öne sürmektedir. Bu bağlamda mekânsallık, bireyler ve topluluklar tarafından şekillendirilen aidiyet, sosyal etkileşimler, kültürel hafıza ve iletişim süreçlerini kapsayan dinamik bir yapı olarak görülmektedir. Fenomenoloji, mekânın bireyler üzerindeki etkisini anlamak için bir araç olmanın yanı sıra, demokratik değerleri güçlendiren mekânsal normlar ve yaklaşımlar geliştirmek için de bir temel oluşturmaktadır. Makale, mekânsallığın farklı boyutlarının demokratik değerlere nasıl katkıda bulunduğunu incelemektedir. İlk bölüm, mekânsallık ve demokrasi arasındaki ilişkiyi Foucault, Lefebvre, Massey ve Merleau-Ponty gibi teorisyenlerin bakış açılarıyla temellendirmektedir. İkinci bölüm, mekânsallığın öznel, sosyal, kültürel ve iletişimsel boyutlarını ve bunların dinamiklerini sunmaktadır. Üçüncü bölüm, fenomenolojik yöntemlerin demokratik mekân tasarımını geliştirmek için bu dinamikleri nasıl analiz edebileceğini göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, mekânsal deneyimlere dayalı çok boyutlu bir perspektif geliştirmeyi amaçlayan gelecekteki araştırmalar için teorik bir temel sağlamaktadır. Bu yaklaşım, öznelliğin, sosyal etkileşimin, kültürel değerlerin ve iletişimin demokratik mekân tasarımına dâhil edilmesinin, mekânın demokratik işlevselliğini güçlendirebileceğini öne sürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Demokrasi , Fenomenoloji , Mekansallık , Mimarlık , Planlama

Kaynakça

• Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford University Press.
• Anderson, B. & Harrison, P. (Eds.). (2010). Taking-place: Non-representational theories and geography. Ashgate.
• Assmann, J. (2011). Cultural memory and early civilization: Writing, remembrance, and political imagination. Cambridge University Press.
• Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
• Barnett, C. (2011). Situating the geographies of injustice in democratic theory. Geoforum, 43(3), 677–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.03.002
• Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297-298.
• Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
• Brighenti, A. M. (2010). Visibility in Social Theory and Social Research. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230282056
• Burke, P. & van der Veken, J. (Eds.). (2002). Merleau-Ponty in contemporary perspectives. Springer Science & Business Media.
• Buttimer, A. & Seamon, D. (2020). The human experience of space and place. Routledge.
• Carmona, M. (2019). Public space: The essential guide to its design and management. Routledge.
• Casey, E. S. (1997). The fate of place: A philosophical history. University of California Press.
• Casey, E. S. (2000). Remembering: A phenomenological study. Indiana University Press.
• Calhoun, C. (Ed.). (1993). Habermas and the Public Sphere. MIT Press.
• Calhoun, C. (2005, February 7). Rethinking the Public Sphere [Conference presentation]. Ford Foundation, New York.
• Crampton, J. W., & Elden, S. (2007). Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography. Ashgate.
• Cuthbert, A. R. (2006). The form of cities: Political economy and urban design. Blackwell.
• Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the Societies of Control. October, 59, 3-7.
• Elden, S. (2004). Understanding Henri Lefebvre: Theory and the Possible. Continuum.
• Elden, S. (2007). Governmentality, Calculation, Territory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(3), 562-580.
• Foucault, M. (1979). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Çev.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975)
• Foucault, M. (2003). Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-1976. (D. Macey, Çev.). Picador.
• Flynn, T. R. (2005). Foucault and Philosophy. Ashgate.
• Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Duquesne University Press.
• Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Çev.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1950)
• Hale, J. (2016). Merleau-Ponty for architects. Routledge.
• Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of hope. University of California Press.
• Harvey, D. (2017). Social justice and the city. University of Georgia Press.
• Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Çev.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1927).
• Hsieh, H. F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
• Husserl, E. (1983). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: First Book (F. Kersten, Çev.). The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. (Orijinal çalışma 1913'te yayımlanmıştır).
• Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C. (Eds.). (2010). Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space. Bloomsbury.
• Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Art. 43.
• Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE.
• Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2014). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. (3. Baskı). SAGE Publications.
• Latham, A. & McCormack, D. P. (2009). Thinking with images in non-representational cities: Vignettes from Berlin. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00868.x
• Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Çev.). Blackwell.
• Low, S. M. & Smith, C. (2018). The politics of public space. Routledge.
• Malpas, J. (2006). Heidegger's topology: Being, place, world. MIT Press.
• Malpas, J. (2018). Rethinking dwelling: Heidegger, place, architecture. Bloomsbury.
• Manzo, L. C. & Devine-Wright, P. (2020). Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications. Routledge.
• Massey, D. (1991). A global sense of place. Marxism Today, 35(6), 24-29.
• Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place, and Gender. University of Minnesota Press.
• Massey, D. (2005). For Space. SAGE Publications.
• Massey, D. (2013). World City. Polity.
• McKinlay, A. & Starkey, K .(Eds.). (1998). Foucault, Management and Organization Theory. SAGE.
• McCormack, D. P. (2003). An event of geographical ethics in spaces of affect. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28(4), 488–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.2003.00106.x
• McCormack, D. P. (2008). Geographies for moving bodies: Thinking, dancing, spaces. Geography Compass, 2(6), 1822–1836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00159.x
• Mendel, M. (2019). The spatial ways democracy works: On the pedagogy of common places. Research in Education, 103(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523719839743
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception (C. Smith, Çev.). Routledge.
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The Visible and the Invisible (A. Lingis, Çev.). Northwestern University Press.
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception (D. A. Landes, Çev.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945)
• Merrifield, A. (2006). Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction. Routledge.
• Merrifield, A. (2013). The politics of the encounter: Urban theory and protest under planetary urbanization. University of Georgia Press.
• Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de mémoire. Representations, 26, 7-24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2928520
• Philo, C. (2000). Foucault’s Geography. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18(3), 243-268.
• Pink, S. (2013). Doing sensory ethnography. Sage.
• Plot, M. (2014). The aesthetico-political: The question of democracy in Merleau-Ponty, Arendt, and Rancière. Bloomsbury Academic.
• Rabinow, P. (1984). The Foucault Reader. Pantheon.
• Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion.
• Sanders, E. B.-N. & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
• Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. John Wiley & Sons.
• Seamon, D. (1979). A Geography of the Lifeworld: Movement, Rest, and Encounter. St. Martin's Press.
• Seamon, D. (1980). Body-subject, time-space routines, and place-ballets. In A. Buttimer ve D. Seamon (Eds.), The human experience of space and place (pp. 148-165). Routledge.
• Seamon, D. (2000). Phenomenology, Place, Environment and Architecture: Literature review. In S. Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto, & H. Minami (Eds.), Theoretical Perspectives in Environment-Behavior Research (ss. 157-178). New York: Plenum.
• Seamon, D. (2018). Life takes place: Phenomenology, lifeworlds, and place making. Routledge.
• Seamon, D. (2023a). Phenomenological Perspectives on Place, Lifeworlds, and Lived Emplacement. Routledge.
• Seamon, D. (2023b). Architecture and phenomenology. In D. Lu (Ed.), The Routledge companion to contemporary architectural history (s. 286-298). Routledge.
• Shields, R. (1999). Lefebvre, Love, and Struggle: Spatial Dialectics. Routledge.
• Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Blackwell.
• Stanek, Ł. (2011). Henri Lefebvre on Space: Architecture, Urban Research, and the Production of Theory. University of Minnesota Press.
• Thrift, N. (2008). Non-Representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. Routledge.
• Touraine, A. (2000). What is democracy?. Westview Press.
• Touraine, A. (2007). Can we live together? Equality and difference. Stanford University Press.
• Touraine, A. (2020). The post-industrial society: Tomorrow's social history. Random House.
• Tuan, Y.-F. (1990). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Columbia University Press.
• Umbelino, L. A. (2017). Onto-phenomenology of spatial memory in adumbrations. Phainomenon, 17(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.2478/phainomenon-2017-0010
• Uysal, A. & Güngör, Ş. (2016). Postyapısalcı ve ilişkisel coğrafyalarda bir tarz olarak temsil ötesi teori(ler). İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Coğrafya Dergisi, 33(2), 73-81. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/365661