Urban Milieu: a space for manipulating subjectivity or a space for motivation for practices of counter-subjectivity

This research deals with urban issues. It describes the urban as the spatial practices that structure it. This process of problematization is motivated by the spatial structures of Kayseri and has developed a critical discourse that deals with value issues about its structures. Based on the relationship between humans and the environment, and subject and object, the effect of the values that manage practice is studied, and the [im]possibility of creating new urban experiences is discussed within this framework. In a certain empirical framework, this process of problematization has become a topic in the critical research on production of urban design practices, and questions about the object have become a fundamental issue about the subject that executes practice in the first place: "How does the human become the subject of certain experiences?" Therefore, the practices that are investigated in this research include not only societal and spatial issues, but also the production of subjects. This research aims to answer the question "How?" by developing a conceptual intermediary space that goes beyond the categories of components: Milieu. The research on milieu is a pure system of relationships that includes categorization of the self and a double contradiction. To emphasize close-knit juxtapositions, relationships and circumstances, the act of not being single becomes a strong concept that ultimately means being trans-individual. To develop this conceptualization, instead of an approach that only deals with the subject, experiences of the subject and the object of the experiences, this research focuses on an approach that is based on the subject and the object acting relationally. The theoretical framework of this research was developed in twentieth century post-war critical approaches. The context of this research, in relation with the problem of the research and in line with Nietzsche's thinking, is based on this critical approach: Our values are the determinant of our relation with reality, and, therefore, our practices. The conceptualization in question was developed around this idea of Michel Foucault's modern subjectification theory, milieu and the place of these concepts in the history of philosophy and science. Components and processes that unearth the human as the subject, and subjectification theory that emerges as both subject and the object simultaneously and relationally forms the fundamental approach and context of this conceptualization. Since every city has its own unique properties, the use of this conceptualized intermediary space for various evaluations depends on its diagrammatic nature. The diagram in this research was developed through the idea of the categories (interior and exterior, living and environment, humans and the environment, subject and object, etc.) that emerge from the central approach and that destroy correlative relationships through necessities, practices and values. The concept of milieu points to a theoretical difference on the establishment of the relationship between the living and its environment, as opposed to two separate traditions of thought on establishing experience. Directing the guiding power of the distant effect of these conceptual relations is a priority in the process of determining subjective experience through modern types of government. For this reason, milieu as a term for space is a key concept in Foucault's subjectification theory. From the perspective of Foucault, it is possible to analyse the question "How?" and the mutual relationship between spatial practices and then production of subject positions. This does not mean humans should accept absolute passivity. On the contrary, this research presents an opportunity to analyse the production of subjective experience through a critical approach. This opportunity is characterized as "counter-subjectivity and re-subjectivity". Therefore, in this research, the term, milieu or "ortam" in Turkish, is restructured to have other meanings and explain spatial practices. Accordingly, discussion about modernity and the Enlightenment as well as the critique of the fundamental distinction between the subject and the object constitutes the universe of this conceptualization of subjectification, and milieu and counter-subjectivity. Modernity is treated as a paradox at the center of the subject, and this research falls within the scope of two ideas that follow this paradox: subjectification [production of historical boundaries] and subjectivity [critique of boundaries]. Double meaning continues throughout the research: modernity grounded during the Enlightenment is treated not only as a space for unification, but also a condition of possibility for critique. The subjectification axis as a continuation of this paradox includes the production of normative historical boundaries and the influence of humans in life and in value systems. This is also related to Foucault's conceptualization of "governmentality" and "power relations". In this analysis, milieu emerges as a space for manipulation to determine tendencies. The subjectification axis reveals that a possible problematization, objectification and subjectification in the milieu is determined by certain practices, but, at the same time, is established and conditioned through historical events. In this research, the production of "new experience" is investigated in this regard. This perspective stipulates that historical normative boundaries are possible, but not an end, on the contrary, opportunities for producing different subjectivities. This opportunity is shaped by Kant's and Baudelaire's attitude of modernity, Foucault's conceptualization of historical critique as critical attitude and the philosophical effects of milieu. This also forms the axis of subjectivity. Within this theoretical framework, the relationship between subjectification and values, and the effects of this relationship on tangible practices are presented, and the possibility of practices of design is discussed. In this research, subjectivity is treated as an opportunity for the production of design practices and part of the discipline of architecture. Architecture as a space for modern knowledge and practice is a form of power in the process of determining the normative boundaries of subjectification, but, at the same time, is a creation area that makes a critical attitude possible. Therefore, architectural design is reconsider as a practice that should use a historical-critical attitude in the urban milieu. Thus, the possibility of design is related to the production of a subjective form of existence. Subjectivity and subjectification as two different axes are integrated together as parts of a concept through the idea of milieu. Milieu develops as a form of manipulation that guides subjective experience, but, at the same time, is developed as a practice of counter-subjectivity to create a motivational space for the production of design. To put it simply, the power of the urban environment [milieu] as a special form of existence imposes itself and the relationships that come with it and enforces interventions that determine practices. However, environment [milieu] still cannot be seen as an insignificant state of completion because of the determination of subjectivity through the action of the environment. The tension and interaction between the action of milieu and the search for subjectivity points to an unfinished state of nature, and the state of manipulation and motivation can reflect each other eternally. Subjectivity and subjectification as two different axes are integrated together as parts of a concept through the idea of milieu. Milieu develops as a form of manipulation that guides subjective experience, but, at the same time, is developed as a practice of counter-subjectivity to create a motivational space for the production of design. To put it simply, the power of the urban milieu as a special form of existence imposes itself and the relationships that come with it and enforces interventions that determine practices. However, milieu still cannot be seen as state of completion because of the determination of subjectivity through the action of the milieu. The tension and interaction between the "action of milieu" and the search for subjectivity points to an unfinished state of nature, and the state of manipulation and motivation can reflect each other eternally. The milieu meets the complicated urban practices that determine the self and the specific relationships that hold the self together. This is where the empirical space of this research meets the theoretical issues. These theoretical issues open up and contextualize the subordination processes to determine possible tendencies and urban processes that unearth problematization through certain analyses. However, at the same time, design emerges as a possible critical practice and the search for such a possibility is directly related to the motivation behind this research. Therefore, the question "How does the human become the subject, in other words, a producer of normality?" should be answered through the spatial practices of the city of Kayseri with the mediation of the conceptualization of milieu. With the approach of "diving deep down into the place where one is standing", one should first search the closest: Current spatial practices, processes and elements are explained along with value issues and the production of concepts and ideas. This is followed by a chronological discourse concerning spatial interventions in Kayseri's urban milieu. Significant historical events, which were strategic interventions in a normative system and possibly affected practices of power and science, are investigated through newspaper archives, government archives, annual records and photos. Reading Kayseri's urban milieu through specific historical conditions and interventions is possible, and this way of reading is used to explain the destruction in different time periods. The endpoint of this proposal is the regime of destruction, which is the point where the milieu becomes open to any kind of spatial intervention. With these interventions, it is claimed that the urban produces "disintegration" and "singularity" and a structure consisting of elements that are not relevant to each other. In fact, close-knit juxtapositions of the milieu are defined as a state of togetherness of temporal and spatial heterogeneous layers through certain relationships. The milieu is a place of trans-consistency through production of integration and tension of different spaces of power, as opposed to the state of being together. This means that the city of Kayseri is in a state of absence. In fact, through the concept of milieu, this state of absence is being conceptualized and presented as a tangible form of emptiness in the spatial fabric of the city. Thus, the result of manipulation of milieu values through similar spatial practices in different normative codes is determined as the destruction of the order of the milieu, and this leads to an increase in opportunities to open up "new" ideas and practices in the urban milieu. On the other hand, the subjectivity that is shaped around practices of design is an opportunity in Kayseri. This is a space of opportunity that is far from being universal or ideal or setting out rules and codes for re-production. It is in search of experimental design practices and a form of subjectivity and is far from the danger of being absolute. This means every subject is a turning point. In the field of architecture, which sees space as the most important element of the correlative world of the human, the condition of intervention is determined by elements defined as values and discussed through the practices of critical attitude and counter-subjectification. However, here, value does not belong to nature. Value is redefined as types of relationships that make up the milieu and the properties of components that have the potential to produce and re-make the conditions that create the subject. The tools to make subjectivity and design possible and space for subjectification are the same: values. These also consist of the conceptual context and the form of the milieu. As a result, there are no certain boundaries between categories when the urban is explained through the conceptualization of milieu. There is only a process of production. During this process, every intervention in the object determines the processes of creation of the subject and the practices that follow. The categorical ontological differentiation between the human and the environment and the subject and the urban is no longer valid, and this leads to the reconfiguration of the relationship between the subject and the urban: I am a product of the urban, and this urban is produced by me. Therefore, the human, who is ethically obsessed about the relationship with the self, intervenes in the environment through the same reflex. This kind of attitude necessitates tenderness. This tenderness that seems to be object-focused is directly related to the system of values that leads practices of the self and the existence of the subject. This means existential effort and responsibility are produced by the worry about the self. At this point, the tools of practices of design and conditions of intervention are described: the action of milieu, the specific tendency of the subject, subjectivity and the interaction and tension between subject and subjectivity. Milieu, here, turns into a performative that is re-produced at the beginning of every process of problematization. Milieu is separated from its own historical normative boundaries and, therefore, from strategic value categories that are determined and perpetuated by ways of doing. It exists by multiplying the urban where we currently reside. Thus, reality is reproduced against the normative boundaries, and milieu becomes a medium for new practices and different configurations. The real issue is to multiply the urban environment's possible production of counter-subjectivity and practices of design, against stable and resolved arrangements, and decide on the ways in which this multiplication can occur. This means existential effort and responsibility are produced by "the care of the self". At this point, the tools of practices of design and conditions of intervention are described: the action of milieu, the specific tendency of the subject –subjectivity- and the interaction and tension between subject and subjectivity. Milieu, here, turns into a performative that is re-produced at the beginning of every process of problematization: Milieu is separated from its own historical normative boundaries and, therefore, from strategic value categories that are determined and perpetuated by ways of doing. It exists by multiplying the urban where we currently reside. Thus, reality is reproduced against the normative boundaries, and milieu becomes a medium for new practices and different configurations. The real issue is to multiply the urban milieu's possible production of counter-subjectivity and practices of design, against stable and resolved arrangements, and decide on the ways in which this multiplication can occur.