{"id":1656,"date":"2019-05-02T19:53:24","date_gmt":"2019-05-02T17:53:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/?p=1656"},"modified":"2019-05-02T19:53:24","modified_gmt":"2019-05-02T17:53:24","slug":"issue-49-on-commons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/sayilar\/issue-49-on-commons\/","title":{"rendered":"Issue 49 – On Commons"},"content":{"rendered":"

Editors: Co\u015fku \u00c7elik, Ali Ekber Do\u011fan, Ali R\u0131za G\u00fcngen, Ali Yal\u00e7\u0131n G\u00f6ymen<\/strong><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

Enclosures and the Hollowing Out of the Political: The Urban Regime in Turkey<\/strong>
\n<\/span><\/h3>\n

F\u0131rat Gen\u00e7<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n


\n<\/span>This article seeks to explore the ways in which basic concepts of the commons literature (commons, enclosure, commoning) can be operationalized in urban studies, and suggests hypotheses on core characteristics of the spatial regime established in Turkey in the 2000s. In the first part of the \"\"<\/a>article, I outline three premises to help clarify the analytical limits of the conceptual tool employed: i) Commons denotes a relational category that emerges out of the conflict between acts of enclosure and those of commoning; ii) Enclosures are strategically mobilized power technologies that must be analyzed in the context of certain conjunctures; iii) Enclosures denote one particular form of exploitation and domination, they are top-down interventions that comprise place-making processes with material and imaginary dimensions. In the second part, through a discussion of urban transformation projects and the taming of public spaces, I propose two hypotheses with<\/span> regard to recent forms of urban enclosures in Turkey: i) Enclosures that can be observed in residential areas of the urban poor deepen the commodification of space while undermining their political capacity; ii) Enclosures that target centrifugal practices in public spaces contribute to the hollowing out of the political by limiting the possibilities for the circulation of counter political horizons and promises. In conclusion I argue that one of the main features of the neoliberal urban regime is the
\narticulation of processes of commodification and de-politicization.
\n<\/span>Keywords:<\/strong> <\/span>Commons; enclosure; neoliberal urbanism; de-politicization; commodification.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Time of Commoning and Enclosure: Land Struggles in G\u00f6ll\u00fcce<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Beg\u00fcm \u00d6zden F\u0131rat<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n


\n<\/span>This article discusses the temporal dimension of the relationship between commoning practices and enclosure processes by focusing on the commoning struggles of the villagers of G\u00f6ll\u00fcce in \u0130zmir against that of the land owner\u2019s acts of enclosure, a struggle that is going on since the 1950s till today. I follow the temporal characteristics of the double movement between acts of enclosure and commoning by focusing on their respective rhythm, timing, tempo and duration on two interrelated temporal levels. The first is the \u201csyncopated\u201d rhythm of those of the irregular, fragmented and messy everyday acts of commoning taking place against different spatial strategies of enclosure. The second is the it \u201ccoeval\u201d temporality of those moments in which the ongoing collective action<\/span> against enclosures, such as the land occupation taken place in G\u00f6ll\u00fcce in 1969, accumulates in concurrency with other local struggles and becomes a movement. I try to understand the land struggle in G\u00f6ll\u00fcce by focusing on these two different temporal relationships between the processes of enclosure and commoning without establishing a hierarchy between them, hoping to discuss the temporal dimension of the double movement between the commoning and the enclosure on the theoretical plane.
\n<\/span>Keywords: <\/span><\/strong>Land Occupations, 1960\u2019s Turkey, Peasant Movements, Commoning, Land Enclosure, Commons.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Experience of The Space in the World as a Commons: \u201cEveryone\u2019s but also no one\u2019s\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

Adem Ye\u015filyurt<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n


\n<\/span>D\u00fcnyada Mek\u00e2n <\/span>(literally translated as \u201cThe Space in the World\u201d), considered as a coworking space with a solidarist and collective spirit, is also designed as a means\/space of organization against precarisation and a place for socialization. The term <\/span>Coworking Spaces<\/span>, which is translated into
\nTurkish as \u201cortak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma mek\u00e2nlar\u0131\u201d, refers to a spatial arrangement that allows employees to work independent from each other but at a common time and space, rather than describing working together on a particular job. In this study, the experience of <\/span>D\u00fcnyada Mek\u00e2n <\/span>is evaluated as a practice of commonsin the light of the findings of the field research conducted via in-depth interviews and participatory observation, and the problems and challengesfaced until today is associated with the discussions about commons. In this context, the emergence of space, its
\nhistory, the problems experienced and its future is reviewed through the literature on commons.
\n<\/span>Keywords:<\/strong> <\/span>Commons, space, coworking, coworking spaces, white-collars.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Organizing the Labour Power as Commons<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Dario Azzelini<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

Translator: <\/span>Sezer Karag\u00f6z<\/span><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

A Critique of the Precariat as a Class Concept<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

Selin Pelek<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n


\n<\/span>The concept of \u201cprecariat\u201d has been theorized as a new class with an assertion of re-defining the working class when precarious employment became widespread and the power of organized labor retreated in the neoliberal era. This study examines the ideological roots and political routemap of the precariat and discusses the limits of this concept through a Marxist perspective. Using Turkish Household Labor Force Survey (2016) to analyze precariat\u2019s attributes, this paper argues
\nthat the classical forms of employment still effective in the labor market. The findings indicate the convenience of the evaluation of wage earners in the context of the reserve army of labor rather than constituting a new class.
\n<\/span>Keywords: <\/span><\/strong>Precariat, precariousness, reserve army of labor, informal employment, part-time work, temporary work.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Book Review:<\/strong> Common Space<\/strong>\u00a0by Stavros Stavrides and On the Idea of Revolution<\/strong> by Ali Yal\u00e7\u0131n G\u00f6ymen – Ali Ekber Do\u011fan and Mehmet Penbecio\u011flu<\/h4>\n

Book Review: Common: On Revolution in the 21st Century<\/strong> – Deniz Durdu and Ali Yal\u00e7\u0131n G\u00f6ymen<\/h4>\n

Book Review: Forces of Labor: Workers’ Movementes and Globalization Since 1870<\/strong> – Mina Kozluca<\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Editors: Co\u015fku \u00c7elik, Ali Ekber Do\u011fan, Ali R\u0131za G\u00fcngen, Ali Yal\u00e7\u0131n G\u00f6ymen   Enclosures and the Hollowing Out of the Political: The Urban Regime…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1656","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sayilar","category-sayilar-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1656","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1656"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1656\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1657,"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1656\/revisions\/1657"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1656"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1656"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1656"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}