pragmatism and utopia under the auspices of neoliberalism

216 Pages·2012·3.61 MB·English

PRAGMATISM AND UTOPIA
UNDER THE AUSPICES OF NEOLIBERALISM:
TURNING OUT TO BE CITTASLOW OF SEFERIHISAR

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

CAN GÜNDÜZ

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

SEPTEMBER 2012
Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences

Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık
Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.

Prof. Dr. Ayşe Saktanber
Head of Department

This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in
scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erdoğan Yıldırım
Supervisor

Examining Committee Members

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Helga Rittersberger-Tılıç (METU, SOC)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erdoğan Yıldırım (METU, SOC)

Prof. Dr. Tansu Açık (AÜ, HUM)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bülent Batuman (BU, LAUD)

Assist. Prof. Dr. Pelin Tan (KHAS, NM)
PLAGIARISM

I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented
in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required
by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that
are not original to this work.

Name, Last name : Can GÜNDÜZ

Signature :

iii
ABSTRACT

PRAGMATISM AND UTOPIA
UNDER THE AUSPICES OF NEOLIBERALISM:
TURNING OUT TO BE CITTASLOW OF SEFERIHISAR

Gündüz, Can
Ph.D., Department of Sociology
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erdoğan Yıldırım

September 2012, 205 pages

This thesis tries to identify the new city-governance mechanisms deployed in the Western
Aegean small town of Seferihisar, following the town‘s membershipto the international
Cittaslowassociation of small towns. The membership has quickly transformed the place into a
yearlong touristic destination, while leading several other agendas for the improvement of
theurbanquality of life in the town. Regarding Turkey‘s EU Accession Process, this thesis regards
Cittaslow as a multi-scalar meta-governance mechanism, which guides the municipalities of small
towns in rescaling their urban governance as tailor-fit to their corresponding sociospatial
specificities. The thesis argues that the social-democratic municipality in Seferihisar plays a key
energizing role in the ―joining-up‖ of the ―bottom-up‖ community inertia by constantly
counterbalancing the state‘s neoliberal policies at the local. The proactive outlook of the
municipal leadership in the town is particularly operational in the staging of a neo-
communitarian, self-regulatory gesture by the community, since (a) this outlook is more and
more demanded by the ―good institutions‖ of the global neoliberal order, which are now
functioning in socially and environmetally (re)embedded protocols, and (b) the restructuring and
rescaling policies of the central government have to be made compatible in the local through a
risk sharing attitude by all parties in order to make the contradictions of the neoliberal state
manageable. The essential finding of this thesis is thatmulti-scalar meta-governance mechanisms are
far more operational in our daily lives than ever, as part of the restructuring and rescaling
processes of the state.

Keywords: Cittaslow, Slow City, Quality of Life, New Institutionalism, Autogestion.
iv
ÖZ

NEOLİBERALİZMİN GÖZETİMİNDE PRAGMATİZM VE ÜTOPYA:
SEFERİHİSAR‘DAN BİR CITTASLOWÇIKARMAK

Gündüz, Can
Doktora, Sosyoloji Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Erdoğan Yıldırım

Eylül 2012, 205 sayfa

Bu tez çalışması, bir Batı Ege kıyı kasabası olan Seferihisar‘ın uluslararası Cittaslow şehirler ağına
üyeliği sonrası yeni yönetişim mekanizmaları aracılığıylakasabaya getirilen düzenlemeleri kültürel
siyasal iktisatyaklaşımıyla ele almaktadır. Cittaslow üyeliği Seferihisar‘ı bir anda sezon aşırı turistik
ilgi gören bir yer haline getirmenin ötesinde, yerleşimin kentselyaşam kalitesinigeliştirmeye yönelik
pek çok farklı projeyi gündeme taşımıştır.Bu tez çalışması, Türkiye‘nin AB uyum sürecinde
gündeme gelmesi bakımından, Cittaslow‘u bir çok-ölçekli yönetişim-sonrası mekanizması olarak ele
almaktadır. Bu mekanizmalarıkent-bölgesel politikalar düzeyinde gündeme getiren küresel
gelişmeler tartışılmaktadır.Son dönemde Türkiye‘de gerçekleştirilen yerel yönetim reformları ile
birlikte devletin yerelde yeniden ölçeklendirilmesi sürecinin Cittaslow modeliyle alışverişi önemli
bir analiz kriteri olarak ele alınmıştır. Bu bakımdan Cittaslow, belediye öncülüğünde kasabada
toplumsal kalkınma dinamiklerini harekete geçirerek,yukarıdan aşağıya aktarılan yeniden
ölçeklendirme ve yeniden yapılandırma politikalarını yerelde dengeliyici bir model olarak ortaya
çıkmaktadır. Belediye öncülüğünde kasabanın kendi kendini yönetme yönünde bir irade
sahnelemesinde özellikle iki unsur öne çıkmaktadır: (a) toplumsal ve çevresel ilişkilere yeniden
yerleştirilme sürecindeki küresel neoliberal düzenin ―iyi kurumlar‖ı, yerelde kendi kendini
örgütleyen bir iradenin mevcudiyetini proje ortaklıklarının olmazsa olmazı haline
getirmektedirler, (b)neoliberal devlet, yeniden yapılandırma ve yeniden ölçeklendirme
politikalarının sunduğu çelişkileri yönetilebilir hale getirmek için riski yerelde olabildiğince fazla
tarafa aktarmak/ paylaştırmak durumundadır. Bu bakımdan tezin en önemli bulgusu, belediye
öncülüğünde yürütülen Seferihisar‟dan bir Cittaslow çıkarma girişiminin, günümüz neoliberal
kentleşme süreçlerinin ―üretkenlik-sonrası‖ paradigmabağlamında sunduğu ―alışveriş merkezleri‖
ve ―kapalı konut siteleri‖ gibi kamuya tamamen kapalı mekansal örgütlenme biçimlerinin yanına
vekarşısına―küçük şehirler‖ seçeneğini yerleştirmiş olduğudur.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Yavaş Şehir, Sakin Şehir, Yaşam Kalitesi, Yeni Kurumsalcılık, Özyönetim.

v
DEDICATION

To my grandmother
İffet Köken

vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe my interest in Sociology to my late encounter with the beloved figure of Ulus
Baker, who had lured me into an ongoing project of collective self-experimentation in Ankara.
My deepest gratitude goes to all those that made it happen.
In completing this thesis;
I amindepted to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erdoğan Yıldırımfor carrying on my supervisorship
following the loss of our beloved Prof. Dr. Hasan Ünal Nalbantoğlu, and also for the invaluable
support and friendship he offered throughout my thesis work.
I am very grateful to the members of the Thesis Examination Committee:
Prof. Dr. Tansu Açık, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bülent Batuman, Assist. Prof. Dr. Pelin Tan
and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Helga Rittersberger-Tılıç. I especially want to express my gratitude to
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Helga Rittersberger-Tılıç, who has been extremely supportive throughout the
thesis process with her invaluable comments and constructive criticism.
My special thanks go to Sündüs Aydın on behalf of all the workers of the Middle East
Technical University.
I wish to thank to the people of Seferihisar for their openness.I am indepted to Rahmi
Çınar, Feray Karapınar, Okşan Akşit, Arslan Sayman, Hale and Levent Yıldır for the help and
friendship they offered throughout the conduct of the site study in Seferihisar.
I wish to express my thanks to the mayor of Seferihisar, Tunç Soyer, and all the
workers of the Seferihisar municipality.
I am grateful to TUBİTAK for awarding me with the Ph.D. scholarship.
I am grateful to all my friends and colleagues at the Faculties of Architecture in Izmir
Institute of Technology, Dokuz Eylul University and Izmir University of Economics. I
especially want to express mygratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Koray Velibeyoğlu for sharing his
experience on Urla Peninsula and for his willingness to listen to immature ideas.
I am also grateful to my friends and colleagues, Altan İlkuçan, Serdar Aşut, Adile
Arslan Avar, Bülent Batuman, Reyhan Varlı-Görk andSertaç Çimen.
Lastly, I owe a whole lot:
To my friend Tansu Açık, for being there as a tranquil shadow,
To my friend Tonguç Akış,for being there for me when I was at my most distressed,
To my parents Leyla and Orcan Gündüz, my sister Canan and mononcleOrhan
Köken,for bearing with me at all the turns and twists in my life,
To my love, Bilge Demirtaş Gündüz, for sharing my misery and joy.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAGIARISM ............................................................................................................................................ iii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................iv
ÖZ .................................................................................................................................................................. v
DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................................................vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................xi
CHAPTERS
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1. The Aim and the Scope of the Study............................................................................................... 4
2. Research Questions ............................................................................................................................ 6
II. THEORY AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 8
1. Social sciences and the changing ‗rules of engagement‘ with urban politics ............................. 8
2. Slowing down at the crossroads of ‗political economy‘ and ‗culture‘ .......................................... 12
3. Cittaslow and the Cultural Political Economy(CPE) Approach ....................................................... 18
4. Methodology and Methods of the Study ..................................................................................... 22
III. THE SLOW MOVEMENT AND ITS INTERNAL TENSIONS .......................... 29
1. Substrata: Community and Communists ..................................................................................... 30
1.1. The question of leisure in labor movement ................................................................................. 30
1.2. Recognizing ‗diversity‘ and ‗subjectivity‘ ...................................................................................... 32
1.3. Towards a lived reality of nationhood .......................................................................................... 34
1.4. Self-branding against the colonization of Brands ....................................................................... 36
2. The Emergence of Slow Food .......................................................................................................... 39
2.1. Emerging set of organizations: 1975-1990 .................................................................................. 39
2.2. Internationalization and Diversification: 1990-2005 .................................................................. 41
3. Tensions to Slow Food‘s mode(s) of operation ............................................................................. 43
3.1. Slow Food activism: local food against global problems.............................................................. 43
3.2. Realignments with emerging economies and institutions ......................................................... 49
viii
4. The Emergence of Cittaslow as a European phenomenon ..................................................... 62
4.1. The premises and promises of the Right to the City .................................................................. 64
4.1.1. The Greco-European Project of individual and collective autonomy ................................. 64
4.1.2. Eco-decentralism .......................................................................................................................... 64
4.1.3. Autogestion in its impossibilty .................................................................................................... 68
4.1.4. Democratic-associationalist approach to local development ................................................. 72
4.2. The Good City rising above Cités ............................................................................................... 76
4.2.1. Governmentality and new state spaces...................................................................................... 76
4.2.2. Pragmatism and utopia under the auspices of the neoliberal environments ....................... 86
4.3. Recasting the role of small towns for a politics of quality of life ............................................. 92
IV. CULTURAL POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SEFERIHISAR ............................... 107
1. Gearing expectations towards a ―downsized‖ mega-event .................................................. 107
2. Seferihisar in Urban Governance Context .............................................................................. 117
2.1. A Brief Historical Geography of Seferihisar........................................................................... 118
2.2. Regionalization without regions through cities, agencies, brands ....................................... 128
2.3. Implementation of the new Municipality Law in Izmir & Seferihisar ................................ 131
3. Seferihisar municipality adopting its recently allocated functions ....................................... 135
3.1. Quick-Slow in the Leadership of the Mayor ............................................................................. 136
3.2. Regulatory Inititatives for the Environment .......................................................................... 141
3.3. Regulatory Initiatives in the Construction Sector .................................................................. 148
3.4. Regulating the Social through Cultural Activities .................................................................. 152
V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 160
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 166
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 175
A. INTERNATIONAL CITTASLOW CRITERIA ....................................................................... 175
B. LIST OF URBAN PROFESSIONALS CONTACTED IN IZMIR ...................................... 177
C. IZMIR STRATEGIC INTEGRATED GOVERNANCE MODEL .................................... 179
D. SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS OF SEFERIHISAR ..................................................... 180
E. MUNICIPAL ACTIVITIES IN THE SCOPE OF THE CITTASLOW CRITERIA ........ 181
F. REAL ESTATE BROCHURE ...................................................................................................... 189
G. TURKISH SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 190
H. CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................................................. 204
I. TEZ FOTOKOPİ İZİN FORMU................................................................................................ 205
ix
x