Space-Place Dichotomy in a Nutshell

After all, rethinking about everyday life practices happening on common spheres in context of space-place was very challenging. The hidden values that strictly embedded in place is not seen without a purposely structured distance between observer and event. That kind of distant-alienation is instantaneous and fading by time until next recall.

Now, I am going to try to explain some of my thoughts that appear based on intuition about space practices in Turkey.

Well, there is 2 topics that I would like to discuss about:

- Generally, conceptualization processes praxis on academia and its power to explain lived world.

- Personnel public place experiences/observations and lessons-learned from

***

We may assume that each concept is not strong enough when it is possible to use one instead of the other. It is a general argument but I am particularly talking about space-place dichotomy. After a class I kept reading on this division but unfortunately I have not been getting clear and hopefully that’s not a bad news. This questioning experience is also reminded me a similar discussion on mekân-yer in Turkish ​and I think to continue with this path will be much more efficient.

The axis of mekân-yer discussion focuses on to make a perfect translation from English to transfer the conceptual frame if I am not wrong. The word “mekân” has been manipulated to correspond to “space”, and the “yer” to “place”. Turkish intellectuals have long believed in the importance of the effort to transfer concepts especially from Western World — instead of build new ones. The effectiveness of this effort is controversial. The transfer process distorts the original frame and content; and they do not match each other as expected because of their different contexts and historical backgrounds.

All the meanings of any word is highly dependent on its context. In a different location and time -and with different people the word can reformed smoothly. So our expectation of a fluid word turning into a crystallized concept is tricky. In everyday relationship-based speech, the initial meaning of these words does not necessarily represent their use in the academic community. For example, “mekân in Turkish refers to the private property regime”, I may say, if someone ask me the association of the word right now. But in conceptual frame however, the direct translation of this word should not include any socially structured meaning, by definition (Please remember, the widely accepted equivalent of space in Turkish is mekân). This is not only a linguistic disagreement by the way. Academy can define their approach to create nuance artificially. It means a lot, maybe none. My doubt is about how effective these concepts to explain lived reality.

***

We have a similar dichotomy on private[1]-public[2] spaces as similar as on space-place. I believe that how the ownership phenomenon realized in this particular geography is extremely important to discover the genus of concrete social structures. Whether there is a presume of communing in the public space and how it is reflecting in the collective consciousness and memory also matters.

In my observations, the inclusive power of the understanding of private space in common sense, must cause every space outside the private space to be perceived as belonging to the others. “The Others” refers to a faceless single subject whose definition is ambiguous and who fond of privacy just like her/him. I’m talking about being blind to the difference between being a real person like your neighbor or an abstract character like the state[3]. Thus, the feeling of being in a zero-sum game makes a public partnership option impossible. The notion of gaining by checking the boundaries and moving forward until reach the limit of the stronger is common. The unlimited right to action in her/his place of domination is assumed to be indisputable. Therefore, the idea that “others also have this right” establishes a basic norm. We see a common unwritten law constructed in this way. I think this point is often overlooked on public space debate in Turkey.

I have never encountered shopkeepers accepting that their property rights are over at the cross-section where their shop meets the street. They declare that you should leave if you “occupied” in front of their shop window (showcase). Even when you gather with your friends to have couple of drink in front of a blank wall across the street, a bar guard can come and warn you to leave or pay-to-drink from them. In other words, we are faced with a property practice that goes beyond its defined and limited territory and encroaches on the public space[4]. And you know that you are in a disadvantaged position on this unwritten legal ground compare to these owners.

***

Your contribution to add time factor (daytime vs nighttime) in argument as a component, shows us that a night walk on the most famous street of the entire city is not considered safe enough even by an adult man(Yusuf) –although at least existing five check points for police. When Maryam mentioned about restrictions and police control points as reason of uncomfortableness for not use the street, she said something important I guess. The surveillance feeling is not able to make you feel secure but only feel under control. This is yet another proof that we should not rush when we think and talk on and about public spaces especially in Turkey.

— — — — — — — — — — — —

[1] The literaly meaning of “private” in Turkish is “özel”. “Özel” also means “distinguished (seçkin)”, “specific (muayyen)”, “separated (müstakil)”, “personel (kişisel/mahrem)” etc. -but not have any military reference like in English.

[2] “Kamu” in Turkish means and represents both “public (toplumsal/halka ilişkin/milli/umumi)” and “state (devlet)”; but without any significant intersection in everyday usage.

[3] An expression in Turkey which “devletin malı” means “property of the state” literally. It can be seen this definition set for anything that is not private. For example, the glass at the bus stop broken by the protesters, or the bribe received by a government official, is the property of the state. I think ownership is an unbearable key concept to define, limit and explain any urban-related concept.

[4] Actually I am not sure if it is appropriate to describe non-private properties in urban area as public spaces or not. Because unless you have an acceptable reason for standing (e.g. shopping), you are only allowed to use these places if you are fluent enough to passing by. The co-control of these places are provided by shopkeepers and police –and also citizen’s collectively shaped minds.