Skip to content
1981
Taboo-Transgression-Transcendence in Art & Science
  • ISSN: 1477-965X
  • E-ISSN: 1758-9533

Abstract

Although disasters and political ecology problems continue to grow on a global scale, the states and their stakeholders still make decisions that can escalate risks and vulnerabilities. Within their populist discourse, they use political ecology imaginaries, which shape collectively held future visions and regulate desires and beliefs about values, norms and ways of life. Since imaginaries become an extension of control, it is critical to explore counter and alternative political ecology imaginaries for possible futures especially in disaster-prone countries. This study aims to explore alternative political ecology imaginaries and possible, future makings of contemporary artworks. Through the lens of feminist accounts in political ecology and science and technology studies (STS), this exploratory research is based on the qualitative analysis of five purposefully sampled contemporary artworks from Turkey, a disaster-prone country where political ecology risks and vulnerabilities are high and the imaginaries of the state and its stakeholders are extremely authoritative and popularized. Research methodology of the study mainly consists of a literature review, discourse analysis, field notes and participatory observation. The findings of the study contribute to disclose the transgressions around knowledge claims in political ecology studies. Counter and alternative political imaginaries of contemporary artistic research generate possible futures for more-than-human-worlds.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • The Department of Scientific Research Projects (BAP)
© 2025 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00144_1
2025-06-30
2026-04-10

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adanalı, Yaşar Adnan (2016), ‘From urban transformation to urban warfare: Kurdish cities under siege’, The Fumnambulist, 20 December, https://thefunambulist.net/magazine/05-design-racism/guest-columns-urban-transformation-urban-warfare-kurdish-cities-siege-yasar-adnan-adanali. Accessed 21 June 2024.
  2. Bankoff, Greg (2001), ‘Rendering the world unsafe: “Vulnerability” as western discourse’, Disasters, 25:1, pp. 19–35, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00159.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barad, Karan (2011), ‘‘Erasers and erasures: Pinch’s unfortunate “uncertainty principle”’, Social Studies of Science, 41:3, pp. 443–54, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711406317.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnes, Trevor J. and Duncan, James S. (eds) (1992), Writing Worlds: Discourse, Text and Metaphor in the Representation of Landscape, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Borgdorff, Henk, Peters, Peter and Pinch, Trevor (eds) (2020), Dialogues Between Artistic Research and Science and Technology Studies, New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429438875.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bryant, Raymond L. (1998), ‘Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: A review’, Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 22:1, pp. 79–94, https://doi.org/10.1177/030913339802200104.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Clement, Floriane, Harcourt, Wendy, Joshi, Deepa and Sato, Chizu (2019), ‘Feminist political ecologies of the commons and commoning’, International Journal of the Commons, 13:1, pp. 1–15, https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.972.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Collins, Timothy W. (2008), ‘The political ecology of hazard vulnerability: Marginalization, facilitation and the production of differential risk to urban wildfires in Arizona’s white mountains’, Journal of Political Ecology, 15:1, pp. 21–43, https://doi.org/10.2458/v15i1.21686.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Da Silva, Leonel and Au, Larry (2022), ‘The blind spots of sociotechnical imaginaries: COVID-19 scepticism in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States’, Science, Technology and Society, 27:4, pp. 611–29, https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221125217.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. De Angelis, Massimo (2010), ‘The production of commons and the “explosion” of the middle class’, Antipode, 42:4, pp. 954–77, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00783.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Elmhirst, Rebecca (2011), ‘Introducing new feminist political ecologies’, Geoforum, 42:2, pp. 129–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.006.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Escobar, Arturo (2015), ‘Commons in the pluriverse’, in D. Bollier and S. Helfrich (eds), Patterns of Commoning, Amherst, MA: The Commons Strategies Group, pp. 348–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Freedom House (2023), ‘Freedom on the net 2023: Turkey’, https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey/freedom-net/2023. Accessed 12 May 2024.
  14. Gibson-Graham, J. Katherine, Cameron, Jenny and Healy, Stephen (2016), ‘Commoning as a postcapitalist politics’, in A. Amin and P. Howell (eds), Releasing the Commons: Rethinking the Future of the Commons, New York: Routledge, pp. 192–212.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilson, Erinn (2011), ‘Vulnerability, ignorance, and oppression’, Hypatia, 26:2, pp. 308–32, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01158.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Global Forest Watch (2023), ‘Muğla – Turkey’, https://gfw.global/4jaeY2e. Accessed 12 June 2024.
  17. González-Hidalgo, Marien (2023), ‘Affected by and affecting forestfires in Sweden and Spain: A critical feminist analysis of vulnerability to fire’, Sociologia Ruralis, 63:3, pp. 729–50, https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12432.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Haraway, Donna J. (1988), ‘Situated knowledges: The science question in science and the privilege of partial knowledge’, Feminist Studies, 14:3, pp. 575–99, https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Haraway, Donna J. (1991), Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Haraway, Donna J. (2008), When Species Meet, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Haraway, Donna J. (2016), Staying With the Trouble, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Helfridge, Silke (2017), ‘Commoning: Dimensions of transformational force’, in K. Aßmann, M. Bader, R. Talevi, Raumlaborberlin and Urbane Künste Ruhr (eds), Explorations in Urban Practice: Urban School Ruhr Series, Barcelona: Dpr-barcelona, pp. 96–119.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hess, David (2014), ‘The future of sustainability reporting as a regulatory mechanism’, in D. Cahoy and J. Colburn (eds), Law and the Transition to Business Sustainability, Cham: Springer Publishing, pp. 125–39, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04723-2_7.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hess, David (2015), ‘Public as threats? Integrating science and technology studies (STS) and social movement studies (SMS)’, Science as Culture, 24:1, pp. 69–82, https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.986319.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hollender, Rebecca (2016), ‘A politics of the commons or commoning the political?: Distinct possibilities for post capitalist transformation’, SPECTRA, 1:5, https://spectrajournal.org/articles/74. Accessed 10 April 2025.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Jasanoff, Sheila (ed.) (2004), States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Jasanoff, Sheila (ed.) (2011), Reframing Rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jasanoff, Sheila (2015), ‘Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity’, in S. Jasanoff and S.-H. Kim (eds), Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Jasanoff, Sheila and Kim, Sang-Hyun (2009), ‘Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea’, Minerva, 47, pp. 119–46, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuokkanen, Rauna J. (2007), Reshaping the University: Responsibility, Indigenous Epistemes, and the Logic of the Gift, Vancouver: UBC Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Latour, Bruno (2005), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to the Actor-network Theory, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Logie, Sinan and Morvan, Yoann (2014), Istanbul 2023, Istanbul: İletişim.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. McGoey, Linsey (2012), ‘Strategic unknowns: Towards a sociology of ignorance’, Economy and Society, 41:1, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.637330.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Memo Akten Official Website (2021), ‘Distributed consciousness’, https://www.memo.tv/works/distributed-consciousness/. Accessed 23 June 2024.
  35. Miguel, Sergio, Pukkala, Timo and Yeşil, Ahmet (2014), ‘Integrating pine honeydew honey production into forest management optimization’, European Journal of Forest Research, 133:3, pp. 423–32, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-013-0774-2.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Mouffe, Chantal (2013), Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically, London: Verso Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Müller, Martin (2015), ‘Assemblages and actor-networks: Rethinking socio-material power, politics and space’, Geography Compass, 9:1, pp. 27–41, https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12192.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Nightingale, Andrea (2006), ‘The nature of gender: Work, gender and environment’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24:2, pp. 165–85, https://doi.org/10.1068/d01k.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. O’Riordan, Timothy and Timmerman, Peter (2001), ‘Risk and imagining alternative futures’, in J. Kasperson and R. Kasperson (eds), Global Environmental Risk, Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 429–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Robbins, Paul (2012), Political Ecology, 2nd ed., Chichester: Wiley and Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Meltem Şahin Official Website (2024), ‘My father said the red pines sulk’, https://www.meltemsahin.info/my-father-said-thered-pines-sulk. Accessed 7 January 2025.
  42. Sato, Chizu and Alarcón, Soto (2019), ‘Toward a postcapitalist feminist political ecology’s approach to the commons and commoning’, International Journal of the Commons, 13:1, pp. 36–61, https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.933.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. The Zero Point Project (2021), ‘Beeing hope’, https://thezeropointproject.com/content/beeing-hope. Accessed 11 June 2024.
  44. The Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (Türk Mühendis ve Mimar Odaları Birliği) (TMMOB) (2023), 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depremleri Raporu (TMMOB 6 February 2023, Kahramanmaras Earthquakes Report), Ankara: TMMOB, https://www.tmmob.org.tr/sites/default/files/tmmob_deprem_raporu_son_4agustospart-1.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Tohumcu, Aslı and Kutlu, Kutlukhan (eds) (2019), Istanbul 2099, Istanbul: Doğan Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Tschakert, Petra and Tuana, Nancy (2013), ‘Situated resilience: Reframing vulnerability and security in the context of climate change transformation’, in A. L. St. Clair, J. Dugard and S. Gloppen (eds), Climate Talk: Rights, Poverty and Justice, Claremont: Juta & Co. Ltd., pp. 75–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Tsing, Anna L., Bubandt, Nils, Gan, Elaine and Swanson, Heather (2017), Arts of Living on a Damaged Planet: Ghosts and Monsters of the Anthropocene, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Turkish Red Crescent (2021), Information Bulletin: Turkey Wildfires: 10.08.2021, Ankara: Turkish Red Crescent, https://reliefweb.int/report/turkey/information-bulletin-turkey-wildfires-10082021. Accessed 21 June 2024..
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Wisner, Ben, Piers Blaikie, Terry, Cannon and Ian, Davis (2004), At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Yetiskin, Ebru (2020), ‘Paratactic commoning: Collective knowledge production networking as political struggle’, Popular Communication, 18:3, pp. 216–32, https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2020.1781860.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Yiğit, İsmail (2019), ‘İstanbul 2099: Geleceğin Sisli Çöllerine 16 Ayrı Yolculuk’, Bilim Kurgu Kulübü, 10 March, https://www.bilimkurgukulubu.com/edebiyat/kitap-incelemeleri/istanbul-2099-gelecegin-sisli-collerine-16-ayri-yolculuk/. Accessed 22 June 2024.
  52. United Nations (2022), ‘Spreading like wildfire: The rising threat of extraordinary landscape fires’, Official Websites of United Nations Environment Programme, 21 February, https://www.unep.org/resources/report/spreading-wildfire-rising-threat-extraordinary-landscape-fires?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwj9-zBhDyARIsAERjds0uNigxzOOUwrzxTb3I5WRsi3dxKel_ICbcWbjXgqyd2gouVzim7OoaAqvNEALw_wcB. Accessed 23 June 2024.
/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00144_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): artistic research; commoning; control; futures; imaginaries; Turkey

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test