Lefebvre’s Production of Space in the Context of Turkey: A Comprehensive Literature Survey

Introduction

As Stuart Elden notes, in the 1990s, one could speak of a “renaissance of interest” in the work of Henri Lefebvre (1991), since it was in the 1990s that the English-speaking world finally had access to some of his most important works (Elden, 2001, p. 809), with The Production of Space representing Lefebvre’s most important set of theorizations and conceptualizations on space. It is in this work that Lefebvre presents his theory of the production of space, and where one finds his most comprehensive and systematic discussions on space. Perhaps, the 1991 translation and publication of this work was one of the main reasons that in the English-speaking world, “much of the attention to Lefebvre’s work has been in the field of geography, or related areas such as urban sociology or cultural studies” (Elden, 2001, p. 809), as conceptualizations presented there appear convenient and productive for these fields.

The initial propositions of The Production of Space have been expanded by a wide range of scholars (Brenner & Elden, 2009; Elden, 2001, 2004; Elden, Lebas, & Kofman, 2003; Erdi-Lelandais, 2014c; Goonewardena, Kipfer, Milgrom, & Schmid, 2008; Gottdiener, 1987, 1993; Gregory, 1995; Kipfer, 2002; Kipfer, Saberi, & Wieditz, 2013; Merrifield, 2013; Shields, 2005; Soja, 1996; Stanek, 2011; Zieleniec, 2007), thus nowadays Lefebvrean theoretical propositions and concepts on space have become the core of any scholarship pertaining to theoretical and practical aspects of space and spatializations.

With Lefebvrean production of space theory becoming popular in emergent scholarship pertaining to space and spatializations, particularly in the scholarship embarking upon employing Lefebvre’s various concepts into particular cases, one can find all kind of interesting explications and contextualizations of respective notions, like the notion of abstract space or representational space, contextualizations, which frequently detach the respective notions from the structure and context of the larger theory, and contextualize with respect to research in geography or urban sociology, yet without much consideration given to Lefebvre’s critique to such an approach: approach producing either “mere descriptions which never achieve analytical, much less theoretical, status, or else fragments and cross-sections of space” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 7). Indeed, the dominance of that approach was one of Lefebvre’s departure points for embarking upon his “unitary theory” of space. As a result, year by year, one sees a growing body of literature, especially case studies, which try to apply various concepts elaborated by Lefebvre, in different geographical and historical contexts.

In The Production of Space (1991), Lefebvre’s production of space theory is composed of two main structurally interrelated frameworks: the first refers to the periodization of space framework and consists of absolute space, sacred space, historical space, abstract space, contradictory space, and differential space; the second refers to the spatial triad framework and consists of spatial practices (perceived space), representations of space (conceived space), and representational space (lived space).

The Lefebvrean periodization of space framework although is considered by some as “stereotypical, linear, Eurocentric modelling of historical progress” (Shields, 2005, p. 170), notwithstanding, the framework appears as Lefebvre’s one of the most unique contributions to the general theory of space and the only available coherent framework to understand “the long history of space,” which according to Lefebvre should “be distinguished from an inventory of things in space (or what has recently been called material culture or civilization), as also from ideas and discourse about space” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 116), the inventory of things in space appearing as the space of history. Moreover, according to Lefebvre (1991), the history of space must deal with “modes of production as generalities covering specific societies with their particular histories and institutions” (p. 48). Thus, in this respect, one sees a coherence between Lefebvrean periodization of space framework and the general history of modes of production in Marxism or as Boer (2015) points, The Production of Space “seeks to refashion Marxist periodization in terms of space” (p. 95). ¹ As a result, in the Lefebvrean periodization of space framework, absolute space corresponds to tribal (hunting and gathering) societies and Neolithic agriculture, sacred space pertains to Asiatic mode of production and/or Feudalism, historical space relates to the ancient or classical mode of production (the polis or oligarchic slave-holding society), abstract space appears as the dominant space of Early Capitalism, contradictory space corresponds to the dominant space of Late Capitalism, and differential space is an imaginative proposition by Lefebvre that corresponds to collective and communal association of Communism where difference and lived experience are valued (Boer, 2015, p. 96). ²

Another major constitutive element of Lefebvrean theory of space is the spatial triad framework, which also appears as the most popular element of the theory among the scholarship referring to the theory. With the triad, consisting of three interrelated elements, namely spatial practices, representations of space, and representational space, Lefebvre (1991) in his “unitary theory” of space aims to capture the physical, mental, and social “fields” of space (p. 11). At first, appearing as another unique proposition of Lefebvre, the triad, as Harvey (2006, p. 279) notes, is not the original proposition of Lefebvre, but Lefebvre developed this framework by further expanding the propositions of Cassirer (1944), who considers human spatial experience consisting of tripartite sets of organic, perceptual, and symbolic spaces.

Thus, although the spatial triad framework appears as an important proposition of Lefebvre, as a conceptual framework, its full capacity can be grasped only when considered together with the periodization of space framework. Similarly, the periodization of space framework is not quite an authentic proposition, as it mostly corresponds to the dominant modes of production in human history accepted by Marxism. Thus, Lefebvre’s theory appears to be an authentic theoretical construct, once the above-mentioned frameworks are considered together as a unity.

It is in the above-elaborated background that, in the existing large body of literature contextualizing the above-noted frameworks across various contexts, one sees that the spatial triad framework (or its various constituent elements) is the most frequently referenced Lefebvre’s concepts; there is a frequent reduction of Lefebvre’s theory into the spatial triad framework or selective adoption and appropriation of the various elements of the triad, while the periodization of space framework (or its various components) is not used frequently as a framework for analysis or is disregarded completely. And as argued above, Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space appears as a unique framework only when both the periodization of space and the spatial triad components are considered as structurally interrelated units of the theory. Moreover, only when these two frameworks are considered together can we recognize Lefebvre’s work as one of the most authentic and original contributions to the theory of space. Indeed, while the spatial triad or its various components are being considered detached from Lefebvre’s general theory of the production of space, it could be argued that such applications have more of a descriptive functionality than a capacity for unveiling the underlying relationships and process pertinent to social space.

The context of Turkey is an interesting case for examining these propositions. A preliminary screening of the literature that applies and contextualizes the Lefebvrean conceptualizations on space in the Turkey context shows that although Lefebvrean conceptualizations on space have become popular in recent Turkey-related scholarship, it consists mostly of applications of the spatial triad framework or its various elements. Thus, this article presents a comprehensive survey of Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space in the Turkish context, a survey of literature that “maps” the applications of Lefebvre’s theorizations about space in the context of Turkey. The article below presents the logic, criteria, and steps of the survey conducted. In the discussion, the article summarizes general patterns and trends in the applications of Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space to the Turkish context.

The Logic, Steps, and Criteria of the Survey

To “map” applications of Lefebvre’s theory of space in the Turkish context, several search criteria were set in advance. Since the aim was to “map” the state of the art in the contextualization of Lefebvre’s theory of space within the Turkish context, several wide-scope keywords like Lefebvre, Turkey, and space were used for the preliminary literature search. ³ Furthermore, to capture all relevant publications, English and Turkish language publications as well as “search in full-text” options were employed. ⁴ Since the selected keywords were wide in scope, the second stage of the search entailed evaluating titles, abstracts, and/or the full texts to further narrow the results to those that focus on the context of Turkey and involve the contextualization of various Lefebvrean concepts. Indeed, as noted above, since The Production of Space represents Lefebvre’s most consistent elaboration of his production of space theory, and because it is also where he tried to present the most comprehensive conceptual framework underlying that theory, the basic criteria for the relevancy of any publication was whether it referred to this work. ⁵

Many publications on urban studies with a focus on Turkey intensively mobilize the Lefebvrean concept of the right to the city and most of the research focuses first on this concept before discussing and contextualizing Lefebvre’s theory on space or its constitutive elements. In this regard, although a more inclusionary survey of Lefebvrean propositions in Turkey-related academic publications bears important theoretical and practical implications, we excluded the mobilizations of this concept from our survey due to several key reasons. First of all, as we argued above, Lefebvre aims to present a “unitary theory” of space, and in this regard, in The Production of Space, one sees quite systematic and comprehensive conceptualizations and frameworks aimed at elaboration of such a theory. Those frameworks are the periodization of space frame and the spatial triad. While the notion of the right to the city was proposed by Lefebvre (1968) earlier than The Production of Space (Lefebvre, 1974), interestingly, in the later, there is no any referral to the notion of the right to the city. Thus, the right to the city, as a clear-cut concept, cannot be considered as a part of the theory of space. Hence, the mobilization of this concept in the context of Turkey was left out of the survey. Moreover, compared to other Lefebvrean notions, the notion of the right to the city bears a multitude of interpretations, and the analysis of works pertaining to its mobilization in Turkey-related scholarship requires another large-scale survey to trace its applications and interpretations. Besides, the concept of the right to the city goes beyond the status of being a scholarly notion and is rather a “proper and easily deployable” notion. Thus, to trace its mobilization in a particular context requires not only another large-scale survey but also another hypothesis and approach. Because, according to our hypothesis, Lefebvre’s interrelated propositions on space (unitary theory on space) have been contextualized by the existing scholarship on Turkey rather fragmentary, and the aim of the current survey is to expose such fragmentary contextualization of the theory. Indeed, another survey aimed at “mapping” the contextualizations of the notion of the right to the city in Turkey-related scholarship, the struggles for the right to the city in Turkey and the role and motivations of various actors, particularly the role of researchers in knowledge production and dissemination, could provide important insights into theoretical and practical terms.

Since the survey aimed to reveal contextualizations of Lefebvrean concepts in the context of Turkey, another criterion for narrowing down the search results entailed focusing on the literature itself, which, instead of general references to Lefebvre’s theory and related general propositions, tries to operationalize and apply Lefebvrean concepts. In other words, the main aim here was to eliminate those works that only elaborated propositions, such as “every society produces its own space” and “social space is a social product,” and focus on works that were actual contextualizations of concepts and frameworks such as the spatial triad, periodization of space, or their various elements.

To “map” the state of the art of the Lefebvrean production of space framework in the context of Turkey, a final listed relevant literature (see Supplemental Appendix) ⁶ was evaluated based on the following questions:

Lefebvrean Concepts of Space in the Context of Turkey: General Trends and Patterns

An analysis of 147 relevant studies showed that since 2000, there has been a steady increase in the number of works that apply various Lefebvrean concepts. Interestingly, after 2014, when The Production of Space appeared for the first time in Turkish translation (Lefebvre, 2014), the number of relevant works increased substantially (Figure 1). ⁸

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Number of relevant publications by year.

As the analysis shows, Lefebvrean conceptualizations on space have frequently focused on the Turkish context. In addition, these conceptualizations have been contextualized across a wide range of scholarship. Thus, the literature shows variations not only in terms of topics but also in terms of spatial and historical scope. Lefebvrean conceptualizations have been contextualized in such research fields as literature (Kutlar, 2005; Mirze, 2005; Salman, 2015; Şişmanoğlu, 2003; Yeşil, 2016), communication (Demirkol, 2015), cinema (Aslan, 2014; Atabey, 2010; Ercan, 2011; Sarı, 2010; Uzunali, 2015), performance (Kılıç-Çalgıcı, 2013; Selen, 2010, 2012), and gender and queer studies (Pasin, 2014; Selen, 2010, 2012). However, the most frequent application of the Lefebvrean concepts is in the fields such as architecture and urban studies (Y. Baş, 2010; Çınar, 2014; Gegelioğlu & Aydınlı, 2014; Karakaya, 2010; Kaypak, 2014a, 2014b; Koçak, 2008; Turhanoglu, 2010; C. S. Wilson, 2007) and urban social movements (Batuman, 2003; Erdi-Lelandais, 2013, 2014a, 2014b; Ergin, 2006, 2014; Fırat, 2011); as these fields of research are traditionally more directly related to space as an “object” of inquiry, this pattern seems quite natural. Of particular note in a Turkish context was the application of Lefebvrean conceptualizations in numerous analyses of the 2013 Occupy Gezi Movement (Batuman, 2014, 2015a; Castagno, 2015; E. Erol, 2014; D. Erol, 2015; Eryılmaz, 2016; Hornstein, 2015; Işıklılar, 2016; Karasulu, 2014; Koyuncu, 2015; Şengül, 2015; Yılmaz, 2015).

Another topic frequently elaborated in Lefebvrean concepts was the urban renewal projects and processes (Basa, 2015b; Baydar, Komesli, Yılmaz, & Kılınç, 2016; Demirtaş-Milz & Saraçoğlu, 2015; El-Kazaz, 2014; Eranıl, Tuna, & Demirtaş-Milz, 2015; Önder, 2012; Penpecioglu, 2012) underway in Turkey since the early 2000s. Furthermore, a significant body of literature (Atıcı, 2014; Casier, 2011; F. Gür, 2006; Pasin, 2009, 2014, 2016; Pekasil, 2016; Sarıtaş, 2007; Turan, 2011) was found to apply Lefebvrean frameworks while focusing on singular events, cases, buildings, and projects. Indeed, most of the works mentioned above, for example, works in literature studies and cinema studies, should also be considered as a part of this last group.

The focus of the existing studies presents an interesting pattern with respect to spatial scale and time frame. Regarding spatial scales, approximately 80% of studies focus on Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir cities, thus replicating the general thrust of urban studies literature in Turkey, and its concern for major cities of Western portion of the country. Regarding the time frame of the studies, a significant portion of them emphasized the post-2000 period. However, another frequently analyzed period was the early Republican period in Turkey (1930-1940). The third historical period that was frequently analyzed was the period between 1960 and 1970 (Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Historical scope of the contextualization of the theory.

Arguably, as stipulated above, the Lefebvrean theory (of the production) of space in terms of structure consists of two main interrelated frameworks: (a) the periodization of space framework, consisting of consecutive periods of absolute, sacred, historical, abstract, and contradictory spaces, and (b) the spatial triad framework, consisting of spatial practices, representations of space, and representational space. When considered together, these two interrelated frameworks make the explanatory capacity of the Lefebvrean theory both powerful and unique.

When analyzing how those two frameworks and their various conceptual elements are being applied in the context of Turkey, several dominant trends and patterns in the contextualization of the theory could be discerned.

First, most of the relevant literature draws only upon the spatial triad of Lefebvre’s framework (Ağlargöz, 2016; Altay, 2004; Basa, 2015a, 2016; Baydar et al., 2016; Ceylan, 2015; El-Kazaz, 2014; Eranıl et al., 2015; Ergin, 2006; Erkılıç & Bayraktar, 2015; Gegelioğlu & Aydınlı, 2014; Genç, 2014; Hornstein, 2015; İlkay, 2007; Kayalıgil, 2015; Khakee & Grassini, 2015; Koyuncu, 2015; Kulözü, 2008; Önder, 2012; Salah, 2013; Sandıkcı, 2015; Turhanoglu, 2010; Yılmaz, 2015; Yüksekli, 2013) or upon one or two elements of the spatial triad itself (Akaslan, 2006; Aslan, 2012, 2014; Ateş, 2015; Basa, 2015b; Batuman, 2014; Berber, 2010; F. A. Demirtaş, 2000; Gulhan, 2014; Jongerden, 2007; Kılıç-Çalgıcı, 2013; Mert, 2013; Mirze, 2005; Özgün, 2012; Pasin, 2013; Salman, 2015; Serin, 2016; Şişmanoğlu, 2003; Tirben, 2007; Turan, 2011; Z. S. Uludağ, 1998; C. S. Wilson, 2007; Yildiz, 2016). That said, in studies more generally, there is usually no contextualization or reference to Lefebvre’s periodization of space framework. Due to the topics they tend to focus on, the periodization of space framework tends not to be a relevant framework for some studies. Interestingly, even studies that cover long historical periods, and where the periodization of space framework would have been a useful framework for analysis, it is still usually neglected. Instead, the analysis is conducted within the generally accepted periodization of Turkish political history. Thus, analyses that refer to Lefebvre, instead of revealing the history of space, reveal the space of history, an issue pointed out several times by Lefebvre (1991) himself (pp. 46, 110-111, 122).

Another dominant pattern relates to the nature of elaboration and contextualization of elements of the spatial triad. The spatial triad framework (along with its various elements) detached from Lefebvre’s general theory of space, with each of the triad’s elements also detached from the triad, results in convenient concepts for the analysis of various topics. ⁹ According to Lefebvre (1991), representational space is the “space” of “some artists and perhaps of those, such as a few writers and philosophers” (p. 39); spatial practice “embraces production and reproduction, and the particular locations and spatial sets characteristic of each social formation” (p. 33), whereas the representation of space is defined as “conceptualized space, the space of scientists, planners, urbanists, technocratic subdividers and social engineers” (p. 38). Lefebvre’s terse descriptions offer “convenient” definitions for analyzing say a literary work (i.e., a novel or poem) in terms of representational space, an architectural project in terms of the representation of space, or for using urban space or any particular set of locations in terms of spatial practices. It should be noted that in the context of Turkey, a majority of the relevant literature contextualizes Lefebvre’s spatial triad and its various elements in this way. Thus, it could be argued that such an approach, if it only aims to analyze a literary work, or an architectural project, if it only facilitates the daily use of particular spatial sets, using Lefebvre’s concepts, that are nonetheless detached from his general theory of (the production of) space, or employ elements of the triad independently of the triad itself, fits into Lefebvre’s own critique. According to Lefebvre, intellectual labor under the present mode of production, such as material labor, is subjected to endless division. Consequently, space is continuously being fragmented, never able to unite, and as a result, “we are thus confronted by an indefinite multitude of spaces, each one piled upon, or perhaps contained within” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 8). Another important argument against this kind of approach refers to the nature of Lefebvre’s theory itself, a Marxist theory that places production and reproduction at its core. Thus, any conceptual element from such a theory, if detached from its actual context, runs a risk of becoming nothing more than a convenient metaphor, with only a descriptive function.

Finally, the last issue to be elaborated relates to whether elements of the spatial triad are worth using if they are detached from the theory or the triad itself. For example, with respect to the spatial practice element of the spatial triad, it seems that the field of geography, both in terms of conceptual apparatus and method, offers functional and productive frameworks for analyzing spatial practices. Toward this end, Hägerstraand’s (1970) insights are an important example. Accordingly, if a study aims to elaborate an aspect of social space and fragments the integral nature of Lefebvre’s theory by detaching its various concepts from the theory—a theory with an interrelated conceptual structure that appears as a unity—for the sake of such an inquiry, a search for “convenient” concepts could be conducted elsewhere.

Regarding the Lefebvrean periodization of space framework, the following general patterns could be discerned. First, there is frequent discussion related to various elements of this framework, first and foremost is the concern for notions of abstract and contradictory spaces, absent any mention however of the Lefebvrean history of space framework (i.e., this framework is not much discussed in the literature). Second, the notion of abstract space is sometimes reduced instead of the representation of space (conceived space). Although the abstract space of capitalism entails abstract representations of space, it is more accurate to consider the notion of abstract space as a period in the history of space and different from the abstract representation of space notion used by experts, planners, and technocrats. Third, in the Turkish context, the contextualization of the notion of abstract space acts principally as a kind of deus ex machina. According to Lefebvre, the production of space in capitalism is essentially a production of abstract space. As a result, within the relevant literature, to define the space in various contexts, there is a frequent use of this notion. However, how the production of this abstract space takes place, what aspects predetermine its “abstractness,” and questions about “abstractness” itself and its corresponding characteristics are not very elaborated. Thus, the notion of abstract space serves as a “convenient” shorthand for researchers, a descriptive deus ex machina helping researchers to explain anything that concerns the production of space in capitalism.

One important aspect of the literature about Lefebvre’s periodization of space framework refers not so much to its application but rather with how it was being read. In particular, this reading isolates a framework consisting of consecutive periods of production of absolute, abstract, and differential spaces, while notions of sacred, historical, and contradictory spaces are neglected. In Lefebvre’s work, notions of sacred and historical spaces are not emphasized; furthermore, there are no separate chapters or subheadings for them such as those for absolute, abstract, and differential spaces. Consequently, more superficial readings tend to miss these notions. In addition, Lefebvre has elaborated complicated notions of abstract and contradictory spaces. Moreover, contradictory space could also be read as a particular period of abstract space associated with advanced capitalism. However, differentiating between these two concepts is important, as the space of industrial capitalism and that of advanced capitalism are quite different from one another.

That said, the existing literature contains applications of the Lefebvrean conceptualizations and frameworks, which, in their respective contexts, appear to be a relatively more systematic and comprehensive referral to the above-elaborated concepts and go beyond their fragmentary use. In other words, those works approach the respective theoretical frameworks in a more consistent way, especially to the spatial triad framework, without fragmenting its various elements for the sake of analysis. Among those works—indeed, one of the earlier works employing Lefebvrean spatial concepts and frameworks—is Ali Ekber Doğan’s (2005) study focusing on the case of Kayseri city and analyzing Islamist municipalism and the production of space during 1994-2004. Other examples of such works include Neslihan Demirtaş’s (2007) analysis of squatting (gecekondu) history in Turkey, focusing on the case of the Boğaziçi Neighborhood of Mamak District in Ankara; İlker Cörüt’s (2015) ethnographic research on the assimilation strategies of the Justice and Development Party and the production of space in Hakkâri, focusing on the compulsory public service law for doctors; Seher Şen’s (2008) study of modernization, informal practices, and urbanity in Ankara during the early Republican period; Feryal Aysin Koçak’s (2008) study of the production of urban space in Ankara; Demirtaş-Milz and Saraçoğlu’s (2015) study of the transformation of Kadifekale squatter settlements in Izmir, focusing on an urban renewal project; Çağrı Eryılmaz’s (2016) study of the 2013 Gezi Movement, focusing on the production of space from below against the space produced by neoliberal policies; Nezihe Başak Ergin’s (2014) study of post-2010 urban social movements, examining the ways of resistance, their associated patterns, and dynamics with respect to urban transformation projects in Istanbul; and finally, Işıl Gülkök’s (2013) study of the production of sidewalks in Ankara between the period of 1923 and 2013. Indeed, most of these studies appear not only as systematic applications of the spatial triad framework and each of its constitutive elements but also in these works, one can see contextualizations of such Lefebvrean notions as the notions of abstract space (Cörüt, 2015; Demirtaş-Milz & Saraçoğlu, 2015; N. Demirtaş, 2007; Ergin, 2014; Eryılmaz, 2016; Gülkök, 2013; Koçak, 2008; Şen, 2008), contradictory space (Doğan, 2005), or differential space (Eryılmaz, 2016). Finally, the body of writings by Bülent Batuman should also be mentioned. Batuman (2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2014, 2015a, 2015b), in his writings, offers interesting applications of various Lefebvrean concepts. Although Batuman’s works are not a comprehensive and systematic application of Lefebvrean concepts, those works do reflect a productive and unique contextualization of the relevant theorizations in the Turkish context. ¹⁰

Conclusion

As this survey has shown, Lefebvrean conceptualizations of space appear frequently in Turkey-related scholarship and as variously contextualized notions. Moreover, the applications of such concepts appear across a wide range of scholarship, such as literature, cinema, and gender and queer studies. However, the most frequent application of Lefebvrean concepts occurs in the fields such as architecture and urban studies and in urban social movements. An especially interesting finding was of the frequent application of Lefebvrean conceptualizations in an analysis of the 2013 Occupy Gezi Movement.

Existing studies demonstrate an interesting pattern with respect to spatial scale and time frame, such that approximately 80% of studies focus on various spatial scales of Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir cities. This pattern replicates a feature characteristic of urban studies literature in Turkey, namely a focus on the largest cities of western Turkey: Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir. Regarding the time frame focus of these studies, a significant portion of them concentrated on the post-2000 period. Another frequently analyzed period was the early period of the Turkish Republic (1930-1940). In terms of frequency, the third most popular historical period for analysis was the period between 1960 and 1970.

According to the main assumption of the article, in The Production of Space (1991), the Lefebvrean production of space theory consists of two structurally interrelated main frameworks, namely, the periodization of space framework (consisting of absolute space, sacred space, historical space, abstract space, contradictory space, and differential space) and the spatial triad framework (consisting of spatial practices, representations of space, and representational space). Moreover, these two frameworks, when considered together, make the explanatory capacity of the Lefebvrean theory both more powerful and unique. In this regard, according to the survey, it appears that the spatial triad framework (and its various elements) is the most frequently referenced Lefebvrean conceptualization found in the Turkey-related literature, whereas the periodization of space framework (and its various components) is not being used frequently as a framework of analysis. Moreover, nearly all studies, even those which have a relatively longer historical scope, conduct their analysis within the generally accepted periodization of Turkish political history. Thus, analyses that refer the Lefebvrean framework, instead of focusing on the history of space, focus on the space of history.

Within the literature that refers to the periodization of space framework, or to notions of abstract and contradictory spaces, there is no reference to the Lefebvrean history of space framework, that is, this framework is not much discussed in the relevant literature. Moreover, the notion of abstract space is frequently reduced to the notion of a representation of space (conceived space), or it is used as a kind of deus ex machina, a convenient shorthand for the “explanation” of anything that concerns the production of space in capitalism.

Thus, in the case of recent Turkey-related scholarship, applications of Lefebvrean space theory are mostly fragmentary and related to partial readings of the theory and to applications of the theory’s conceptual elements as convenient tools in an analysis rather than treating the theory with its concepts and frameworks as a structural unity. That said, within the literature, there are also interesting and productive applications of the Lefebvrean conceptualizations and frameworks to various spatial scales, and historical contexts and cases.

Supplemental Material