Production of heterotopias as public spaces and paradox of political representation: A Lefebvrian approach

Over the recent decades, both the requirements for and the affordances of pub- lic spaces have been an unavoidable and growing discussion in the spatial sciences literature. This growing discussion and research have been articulated through the argument that public spaces have been eroding under the neoliberal conditions and the capitalist mode of production. However, from the insights of social sciences, as the physical setting to be included in socio-political life, public spaces appear exclusionary for some as a timeless fact. Although historical public spaces have been idealized and envied, they appear as ideal places for a privileged spectrum of the societies to learn how to rule and to teach the rest how to obey rather than to allow them to be included in the public sphere. Considering the meaning of to be public, this study claims that this is the paradox of public space, which becomes evident in contemporary rising social struggles for public spaces in the form of occupy movements. In this context, this study aims to anatomise the paradox of public space from also the insights of social sciences in the conditions of representative democracy. As the main contribution of this study, we introduce a re-interpretation of Lefebvre’s multi-triads and operationalize his concept of heterotopia to offer a deeper understanding in revealing the paradoxical production of public spaces. We conclude that the social production of a heterotopia is the manifestational realization of an ideal public space and the dissolution its paradox for only a temporary period of time.


Arendt, H. (1998). The Human Condition. 2nd ed. London: The University of Chicago Press.

Bell, R. (2012). Public Space and Its Disconnects. In: Shiffman, R. et al. (eds.) Beyond Zuccotti Park: Freedom of Assembly and the Occupation of Pub- lic Space. Oakland: New Village Press, 214-236.

Berman, M. (2012). The Romance of Public Space. In: Shiffman, R. et al. (eds.) Beyond Zuccotti Park: Freedom of Assembly and the Occupation of Pub- lic Space. Oakland: New Village Press, 197-207.

Butler, C. (2012). Henri Lefebvre: Spatial Politics, Everyday Life and the Right to the City. USA and Canada: Routledge.

Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G. and Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cenzatti, M. (2008). Heterotopias of Difference. In: Dehaene, M. and De Cauter, L. (ed.) Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Post-civil Society, 1st ed. London: Routledge.

Demir Kahraman, M., Pak, B., Scheerlinck, K. (2016). Making the Heterotopia: Gezi Park Occupy Move- ment. International Conference Con- tested Cities - Working Paper Series IV – 5A. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 140-161.

Demir Kahraman, M., Türkoğlu, H. (2017). Pub­lic; Up in the Air or in the Ordinal Scale. Journal of Planning – UCTEA Publications, 27(2), 141-151. Foucault, M. (1986). Of Other Spac- es. Trans. J. Miskowiec, Diacritics. 16(1), 22-27.

Foucault, M. (1989). The order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1998). Different Spac- es. In: Faubion, J. D. (ed.) Trans. R. Hurley et al. Aesthetics, Method and Epistemology. New York: New Press. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Cri- tique of Actually Existing Democ- racy. Social Text, 25/26, 56-80.

Gehl, J. (1987). Life Between Build- ings: Using Public Spaces. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Habermas, J. (1974). The Pub- lic Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964). New German Critique, 1974(3), 49-55.

Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Rev- olution. Brooklyn – New York: Verso Books.

Harvey, D. (2014). Seventeen Con- tradictions and the End of Capitalism. Profile Books: Kindle Edition.

Hetherington, K. (1997). The Bad- lands of Modernity: Heterotopia and Social Ordering. London: Routledge.

Iveson, K. (2007). Publics and the City. Wiley: Kindle Edition.

Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 13(4), 9-14.

Lax, S. (1997). Heterotopia from a Biological and Medical Point of View. In: Ritter, R. and Knaller-Vlay, B. (eds.) Other Spaces. Graz, Austria: Haus der Architektur.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Trans. Nicholson-Smith, D. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Lefebvre, H. (2001). Comments on a New State Form. Trans. Johnson, V. and N. Brenner, N. Antipode, 33(5), 769–782.

Lefebvre, H. (2003). Urban Revolution. Trans. Bononno, R. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lippmann, W. (1925). Phantom Public: A Sequel to “Public Opinion”. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Madanipour, A. (2010). Whose pub- lic space?: International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

Manin, B. (1997). The Principles of Representative Government. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, R. (2013). Public and Com- mon(s). Places Journal, Retrieved from lic-and-commons/

Mitchell, D. (2003). Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford Press.

Pak, B. (2016). Strategies and Tools for Enabling Bottom-up Practices in Architecture and Urban Design Studios. Knowledge Cultures Journal, Special Issue (Learning, technologies, and time in the age of global neoliberal capitalism), 1-12.

Pitkin, H. (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pitkin, H. (1968). Commentary: The Paradox of Representation. NOMOS X: Representation. R. J. Pennock and W. J. Chapman (eds.) New York: Atherton Press, 38-42.

Raaflaub, K. A., Ober, J. and Wallace, R. W. (2007). Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Robbins, B. (1993). Phantom Pub- lic Sphere. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Runciman, D. (2007). The Paradox of Political Representation. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 15(1), 93-114.

Saldanha, A. (2008). Heterotopia and Structuralism. Environment and Planning A, 40(9), 2080-2096.

Shields, R. (1999). Lefebvre, Love and Struggle: Spatial Dialectics. Lon- don: Routledge.

Sohn, H. (2008). Heterotopia: An- amnesis of a Medical Term. In: De- haene, M. and De Cauter, L. (eds.) Het- erotopia and the City: Public Space in a Post-civil Society, London: Routledge, 41-50.

Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: Expand- ing the Geographical Imagination. London: Blackwell Publishing.

Thompson, A. H. (1954). Agora at Athens and the Greek Market Place.

Tibbalds, F. (1991). Making Peo- ple-Friendly Towns: Improving the Pub- lic Environment in Towns and Environ- ment. London: Longman Publishing.

Urbinati, N. (2006). Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. London: The University of Chicago Press.

Vieira, B. M. and Runciman, D. (2008). Representation. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kaynak Göster