Kentsel müdahalelerin kurgusal anlatısına ait sınırların kartezyen altlıklar üzerinden yeniden okunması

Abstract

Günümüz kentlerinin oluşum süreçlerinde modern dönem sonrası ön plana çıkan kentsel müdahalelerin altlıkları incelendiğinde Kartezyen bakış açısı temelinde ortaya konulan yaklaşımların müdahaleler üzerindeki yönlendirici etkisi görülebilir. Temelde belirli bir tarihsel süreci baz alarak çoğu zaman geriye dönük olarak yapılan lineer okumalar neticesinde ilerlemeci bir altlık ile oluşturulduğu ifade edilen bu yaklaşımların toplumsal ikna ve kabulün sağlanması üzerinde etkileri sınırlıdır. Buna karşın bugünün dinamik etkileşimler üzerinden ilerleyen dünyasında ise sosyo-politik ve sosyo-kültürel süreçler lineerlikten uzak şekilde üst üste çakışan katmanların etkisiyle, ilerlemek için bir miktar geri gidişlerin de olabileceği bir kurgu ile gelişir. Bu etkileşim sistematiği karar vericinin sorgulanmasını da beraberinde getirir ve kimi zaman bağımsız şekilde kendi egemenini ve yaratıcısını sisteme dâhil ederek ilerler. Kentsel gelişim ise karşıtlıklar ve ikilikler gibi Kartezyen altlıkların sınırlayıcı bir şekilde ortaya konularak bağlamın göz ardı edilebildiği yaklaşımlar üzerinden ele alınır. Sürecin ve katmanlaşmanın getirisi olarak çatışmanın da oluşacağı bu ara mekânlar kentin tüm aktörleri için verimli kullanım olasılıklarını ve her an orada olabilecek durum içerisinde saklı olan eğilimleri barındırır. Saklı olan bu eğilimler aracılığıyla bağlamın yitimi ile oluşacak bağlam-bağımsız yaklaşımlar da kentsel müdahale süreçleri içerisine dâhil edilebileceklerdir. Müdahale yaklaşımları bu sistematiğe anlatıları üzerinden etkin şekilde dâhil oldukları ölçüde gerçekleştirilebilme şansına sahip olurlar. Bu doğrultuda, toplumsal kabulün sağlanabilmesi için müdahalenin anlatısı geliştirilir. Anlatı kendisini bir bütünselliğin parçası yapabildiği sürece etkin olabilecektir. Tamamlayıcı bütünsellik küresel veya yerel altlıklar aracılığıyla oluşturulan kurgusal altyapı alanı üzerinden ortaya konulur. Kentsel müdahaler için anlatının taşıyıcısı uzmandır, ve bu uzman müdahalenin kahraman anlatıcısı olarak ortaya çıkan mimardır, plancıdır. Uzmanın öncelikle kurgusal altlıktaki tüm çatlakları kapatarak kendi kabulünü, sonrasında da anlatının kabulünü sağlayabilmesi için anlatıya yön verebilmesi gerekir. Bu amaçla çeşitli sınırlamalar ve tanımlı bir üst kurallar sistematiği gereklidir. Üst kurallar koyabilme açısından oldukça verimli olan günümüz kentleri incelendiğinde bu dizimin kimi zaman özgürlükler, kimi zaman gereksinimler, ama her an için içeriği ve kurgusu sorgulanabilecek bir üst tanım üzerinden oluşturulduğu görülür. İlk bakışta bu kuralların müdahaleyi yönlendirebilme amacıyla ortaya konulduğu düşünülse de gerçekte kontrolün sağlanabilmesi için kurgulanmıştır ve sürekli olarak güncellenir. Müdahalenin anlatısı da bu güncellemenin parçası olarak günümüz kentinin kentsel kurgusunun sahip olduğu altyapı düzeninde yerini alır. Altyapı alanının bir parçası olan anlatı artık kurgusaldır, içeriği sorgulanmaz ve toplumsal kabulün sağlanabilmesi amacıyla sık tekrarlar aracılığıyla bir meta-anlatı halini alarak günümüz kentlerinin müdahale yaklaşımlarına yön verir.

Progressive basis of the urban interventions and mass demolition in the formation processes of contemporary cities especially after the modern era show the influence of René Descartes and the Cartesian approach in their formulations. The social acceptance and persuasion powers of these approaches, which are mostly based on a retrospective linear reading with a progressive backdrop of a certain historical process, are intrinsically quite limited. Nonetheless, socio-political and cultural processes in today's world, which progress through dynamic interactions develop in a non-linear path shaped by overlapping layers, within a construct which allows for a certain amount of step backs in order to be able to move forward. Regeneration of the urban fabric is addressed in a restrictive way through approaches in which the context can be ignored by introducing a Cartesian approach such as the imposition of contradictions and dualities. The occurrence of in-between spaces, where conflicts arise as a result of the process, accommodates potentials of efficient usage and latent dispositions for all the actors. Thus, context-free approaches as a result of loss of the context also get a facilitative role on urban intervention processes. On the other hand, the reasonable questioning made along with the intervention processes have enabled the discussions about what the city is, who/what it contains, who it belongs to and can intervene in the urban realm and under what conditions to persist. In today's cities, we can observe that the progressive basis is applied within a multi-dimensional Cartesian logic. Hereunder, the disclosure of the sovereign and creator of such processes, which can develop independently to a certain degree, can lead to rapid deterioration of their relations with reality and integrity. The in-between spaces that manifest themselves through conflict and contradiction still exist as gray spaces which are still open to interpretation and redefinition. These gray spaces, which can be evaluated from both spatial and administrative perspectives, are also areas in need of regulation and control in order for the system's sovereignity to sustain its operations smoothly and to create uniqueness and resemblance in a deliberate direction. However, in this field of action where practice is strongly involved, the relationship between theory and praxis continuously contributes to the development of these gray areas. An intervention that materializes in the city as its place of action needs an existing spatial or systemic infrastructural setup at which it articulates itself. Its newly formulated narrative provides it with the possibility to exist within the established order. The common space that arises as a result of the new narrative's setup also has the potential to allow all latent dispositions to emerge. The narrative becomes the language of the intervention, which is fictional and an infrastructural activity - spells the death for the author with its creation. In that manner, the relationship of the intervention with the integrity of infrastructures as a whole is established through its language and narrative. The object of this infrastructural space is the narrative, and the facilitator is the architect, planner, and individuals or institutions intervening the city, emerging as the 'heroic narrator'. This 'hero', as described by Henri Lefebvre, is the healer of the city and society (Lefebvre, 2016). In this context, the use of dichotomy and developing new narratives and meta-narratives with a progressive perspective through a linear approach becomes a simple action for the urban intervention logic to justify its existence. The mediator to make this happen is the 'expert'. The expert possesses a social responsibility and makes sure that the language and narrative of the intervention hits home, with the purpose of creating the illusion of necessity and justification for manipulative action. The objective is for the urban intervention to obtain credibility in the public eye and within the collective memory and to become doable. Following this, the aim and the manufactured consent of the public are integrated in the narrative as a strategic action while keeping its language either latent or ambiguous, which serves the purpose of leading the society towards the intended position. Among the sine qua non for the completion of the process are the frequent preaching and the indoctrination of the implicit by the experts who embody trust in order to augment the power of ambiguity over the narrative, obtaine public approval and forge common consent. Ensuring the manufacturing of consent, even if it is the object of a manipulative narrative, is only possible by liberating the production of information from all risks. Information should be produced in a healthy manner and then standardization should be provided. As in Karl Mannheim's example of making vocational education academic in order to achieve standardization through the discipline of architecture or city making, this is not due to an intellectual accumulation and a capacity that everyone has at all times, but rather due to the multiplicity of objective responses to the complexity of technical knowledge and subjects (Mannheim, 2016). In other words, knowledge sets its own infrastructural space by standardizing it in the widest and most comprehensive way possible. Within the framework of the Cartesian approach to its production, the absolute true knowledge, which can only be determined by wisdom and a path which itself can be formulated for the absolute truth thereof, is revealed through a methodic doubt. The process of the realization of action within a material or mental basis consequently begins by reduction, reducing it to the smallest possible part of it through a sequence of rules designed to progress from the simple to the difficult. The process cannot always make a reduction to the self-awareness 'I for me', but it assumes that it can limit it in order to reach an objective view. The 'I' is the subject with the capacity to observe a whole system from an external point of view in the process of producing knowledge and can only provide an objective view by means of reduction. Providing this view in an ideal way and not being affected by externalities can only be possible with the formation of the situation defined as 'ceteris paribus', that is, with everything else remaining constant. However, the break from the external world required by this approach is not entirely possible even if it is attempted to be achieved transcendentally. The 'I of other-awareness', which can also be referred to as 'someone else's I', that is, the almighty subject, is always present because it can dominate reason and guidance at any time, even if an attempt is made to organize it in isolation. Through this state of being there, the external world is always included in the reduction, which leads to the biggest internal obstacle, which is the lack of relation to the external world, for which the Cartesian approach longs. This situation reduces the subject with a mechanical approach and by neglecting differences by its definition which is handled over a set of rules. In this context, in order to suspend differences -and in a sense also suspend judgment- it suggests the act of 'parenthesing' as in the phenomenological epoché, which is an action that can only be defined through mutual interaction. This evaluation also reveals the intention of the phenomenological epoché. Intention, which can be considered as a feature of consciousness, enables the creation of perception and ultimately the emergence of the narrative. It is manipulative and in reality, can never break free with the external world - if it breaks, it cannot orient itself towards its intention. Each reduction and the intention it comprises can be defined by the very moment that the reduction actualizes. The ignored externality by parenthesis that can be valid at any given time is only possible through someone else. In this context, the inability to parenthese the 'someone else's I' with transcendental reduction is the main obstacle to accessing the absolute truth. At this point, inclusive definitions can be made over 'now' to include that moment. 'Horizontal-' 'living-', and 'live-' and in the most inclusive form the 'everlasting-' 'now's, 'yet-not-being-', 'not-known-to-exist-', 'known-unknown' or the 'unknown-known' 'now's are classified as an increasingly elongated collection of moments and 'now's. What they have in common is the 'dispositions' they comprise. These dispositions are what is possible at any time or latent in the 'now' at any given moment. It is also the context-free liberation from the parenthesis provided by the phenomenological epoché through the present rather than transforming into the bracketing. Indoctrinations prevent active participation by pacifying the observer, pursuant to the divine Cartesian subject. In this context, a perpetual repetition is also that which can be reproduced, and then reproduced at any time. At the same time, it is the leakage of the external into the bracketings through the cracks. This crack is a void that creates a fear of the void itself which the process tries to suppress at any cost. Its repressor is the architect as the heroic narrator, and the architect tends to blend itself into the narrative while producing his unquestionably Cartesian mechanical subject. However, this context-free process brings about the loss of place along with it. In the spatial order, a constantly active subject, or the fictional construction of the latent through the network of subjects, together with the displacement of 'nows' enables the formation of a 'non-place'. The 'non-places' here represent the 'loss of geography' as mentioned by Paul Virilio in his approach to urban public space (Virilio, 2013). In this context, the production of an inferior set of relationships and the initiation of the process of thematization can be interpreted as the increase in the power and impact potential of the fictional narrative; thus meets George Orwell's words of lost in meaning with the displaced physical space. The place lost also becomes distance-less, however this is a sign of 'not-yet-realized' that can happen at any moment instead an extinction. With the evolution of methodical doubt into rational questioning, it emerges as 'every-possible-place' first, and then as a 'any-possible-place' that can produce the whole past through 'simultaneous now's. In this respect, when today's city is observed, the intervention is an effort to prevent the formation of an environment of uncertainty, in which the challenges of today's society frequently take place by allocating a safe 'neighborhood' instead of places of ambiguity, full of cracks and with an abundance of gray zones. In addition, constructing the city as a parenthesis to accommodate differences requires determining how each difference can be accommodated in the system in order for the city to function safely. This stems from a liberal point of view, but differences mean uncertainty for a city. This environment in which ambivalence occurs may bring about the formation of a permanent crisis of media, and in this process, not only production but also the media may need to be redefined through new paradigms. In this context, the parenthesis of the city, which Hannah Arendt first observes in the ancient Greek city, included in the system a restrictor instead of the accommodator of freedoms or generosities. Although it pretends to refer to the multitude and pluralism, it puts the city in the center of the lack of freedom by disclosing the city with a homogeneous base produced by similarities. In Karl Marx's definition, 'the illusion of democratic freedom' constitutes an infrastructural unity as a meta-narrative, and in this way, the loss of differences blesses the systematic functioning for the continuity of the order by including the city ant the urban fabric in the body of lost physical space. However, the permanent prevention of uncertainty can only be achieved by constructing the meta-policy systematic of the neo-liberal approach, which is created only for new versions to be formulated at a superior level of regulations. At the outset, these superior regulations require the formation of order for the system to function, and then the ability to put forward mechanisms for intellectual policing in order to keep this order under restraint. The occurrence of such a situation is only possible through the efficient use of the existing within the approach put forward. This efficiency can only be achieved through networked structures where mutual interactions take place. In this direction, it is necessary to standardize the networked structure at certain points and the system can only function through the standardization. The act of standardization is the production of the infrastructural space. The formation of the narrative of the urban intervention occurs in the form of metalepsis. It becomes part of the infrastructural space by articulating the former narratives at times through global free zones, or through additions to the existing physical urban space construct and historical elements as part of locality. In this process, the architect's belief in the narrative is often absolute. However the process and the formation of the narrative point to a 'deus ex machina', a theatrical god who is lowered onto the stage with the help of a crane. The fictional narrative already becomes a meta-narrative. It is repeated, delivered, repeated, whereas the narrator becomes transparent, then the audience becomes transparent, but the narrative remains. For urban interventions, the expert is the architect, planner or the disciplines intervening the city who emerges as the heroic narrator of the intervention. The expert needs to give a certain direction to the narrative in order to achieve his own broad acceptance and then in turn the narrative's acceptance. This requires various restrictions and defined sets of rules to be integrated into the narrative. When cities are examined, the syntax is sometimes put forward as a higher set of meta-definitions in the pretext of freedoms, or needs the content and construct of which can be questioned at any time. Although these rules seem to have been created with the goal of directing the intervention, they are actually constantly updated to keep the narrative under control. The narrative of the intervention takes its place in the infrastructure construct of the urban setting of today's city. The narrative, which is a part of the infrastructure, is now fictional, its content is unquestionable, and by taking the form of a meta-narrative with frequent repetitions to ensure social acceptance, it directs urban development and the intervention narrative of the contemporary city. When we live, or buy, when we sell, or rent, when we invest in tenement, or just try to exist in today's city, the main trait and character we look for is its narrative. It is at times integrative, conciliatory, complementary and encompassing, and at others independent, sometimes separatist and even exclusive. The basis for the construction of the narrative set forth in order to persuade individuals or society by defining itself within the set of systems in which each layer is articulated, is infrastructural. Fiction rules reality and narrative is the production of infrastructure. The language of the intervention of today's city is the infrastructure of its fictional narrative; it is societal, physical and global.