{"title":"反事实的未来的思路","authors":"Alize Arıcan","doi":"10.1177/02637758231158376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I follow two urban experts, a Turkish construction site manager and a Kurdish foreman, working in Taksim 360, one of Istanbul’s first state-led urban transformation projects still in construction since 2006. Homing in on the protracted landscape of construction, I am concerned with how urban experts in Taksim 360, who do not entirely concur with the seemingly determined trajectory of urban transformation in Tarlabaşı, put inevitability to work. I ask: what makes urban experts stay with a project that might not materialize? The answer lies in what I call “counterfactual future-thinking”: a way of articulating the future in relation to what might have happened—an articulation that comes particularly handy when the gap between inevitable visions and everyday experiences of urban projects seems irreconcilable. Counterfactual future-thinking allows urban experts to navigate the tensions between suspension and inevitability. It offers a way to urban experts to bridge their quotidian experiences of urban projects with their future visions, which become hazier in their attainability. I argue that counterfactuals emanating from protraction are lenses through which we can understand what inevitability actually does, rather than dismiss it as a farse disconnected from urban expertise on the ground.","PeriodicalId":48303,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning D-Society & Space","volume":"37 1","pages":"637 - 655"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Counterfactual future-thinking\",\"authors\":\"Alize Arıcan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02637758231158376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, I follow two urban experts, a Turkish construction site manager and a Kurdish foreman, working in Taksim 360, one of Istanbul’s first state-led urban transformation projects still in construction since 2006. Homing in on the protracted landscape of construction, I am concerned with how urban experts in Taksim 360, who do not entirely concur with the seemingly determined trajectory of urban transformation in Tarlabaşı, put inevitability to work. I ask: what makes urban experts stay with a project that might not materialize? The answer lies in what I call “counterfactual future-thinking”: a way of articulating the future in relation to what might have happened—an articulation that comes particularly handy when the gap between inevitable visions and everyday experiences of urban projects seems irreconcilable. Counterfactual future-thinking allows urban experts to navigate the tensions between suspension and inevitability. It offers a way to urban experts to bridge their quotidian experiences of urban projects with their future visions, which become hazier in their attainability. I argue that counterfactuals emanating from protraction are lenses through which we can understand what inevitability actually does, rather than dismiss it as a farse disconnected from urban expertise on the ground.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48303,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment and Planning D-Society & Space\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"637 - 655\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment and Planning D-Society & Space\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758231158376\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning D-Society & Space","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758231158376","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, I follow two urban experts, a Turkish construction site manager and a Kurdish foreman, working in Taksim 360, one of Istanbul’s first state-led urban transformation projects still in construction since 2006. Homing in on the protracted landscape of construction, I am concerned with how urban experts in Taksim 360, who do not entirely concur with the seemingly determined trajectory of urban transformation in Tarlabaşı, put inevitability to work. I ask: what makes urban experts stay with a project that might not materialize? The answer lies in what I call “counterfactual future-thinking”: a way of articulating the future in relation to what might have happened—an articulation that comes particularly handy when the gap between inevitable visions and everyday experiences of urban projects seems irreconcilable. Counterfactual future-thinking allows urban experts to navigate the tensions between suspension and inevitability. It offers a way to urban experts to bridge their quotidian experiences of urban projects with their future visions, which become hazier in their attainability. I argue that counterfactuals emanating from protraction are lenses through which we can understand what inevitability actually does, rather than dismiss it as a farse disconnected from urban expertise on the ground.
期刊介绍:
EPD: Society and Space is an international, interdisciplinary scholarly and political project. Through both a peer reviewed journal and an editor reviewed companion website, we publish articles, essays, interviews, forums, and book reviews that examine social struggles over access to and control of space, place, territory, region, and resources. We seek contributions that investigate and challenge the ways that modes and systems of power, difference and oppression differentially shape lives, and how those modes and systems are resisted, subverted and reworked. We welcome work that is empirically engaged and furthers a range of critical epistemological approaches, that pushes conceptual boundaries and puts theory to work in innovative ways, and that consciously navigates the fraught politics of knowledge production within and beyond the academy.