See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321155583

Contradiction and Ambiguity in Non Place: Non Place

as a Transitional Spatial Concept

Chapter · June 2015

CITATION READS
1 361

1 author:

Erdem Üngür
Université Libre de Bruxelles
6 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Neglected Ideological Route: D-100 Highway as a Spatial Reproducer of Turkish Nationalist Martyrdom View
project

Monument Wars in the New Turkey: An Analysis of De/Construction of Monuments in Turkey after 2016 Coup d'État
Attempt View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Erdem Üngür on 15 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Contradiction and Ambiguity in Non-Place:
Non-Place as a Transitional Spatial Concept

Erdem Üngür

Abstract
This paper will investigate the validity and consistency of the discourse created
around French anthropologist Marc Augé’s concept ‘non-place’, considering its
internal ambiguities and the contradictions arousing from different critics about the
concept. Although Augé’s clear and logical definition of non-place seems like a
tautology, it’s one of the most popular concepts in the discipline of architecture
which is used as key theme in academic papers, workshops and theoric lessons
related with post/super/hyper modernity, cinema, urban planning and especially
with space in the general sense.
The understanding and use of the concept seems mainly divided in two opposite
absolute meanings. One of them positions Augé as an existentialist (in the
Heideggerian sense) and a sedentarist metaphysicist advocating place against
space, and the other one as a pioneer in the field of antropology breaking the
authority of place and showing new possibilities of space (in a Deleuzian way) in
the age of supermodernity. In addition to these, there is a research area dealing
with the ‘subjectivity problem’ of the notion and in relation there are
‘expansionists’, who doesn’t limit the non-places with transitional [transport,
transit, commerce, leisure] spaces.
This paper will try to show different oppositions and claim that the ambigious
and contradictory position of Marc Augé is caused by his transitional position
between postmodernity and over-modernity, by his requirements and restrictions
coming from the discipline of anthropology and the related contradictory
configuration of his theory. However, despite all the ambigious and contradictory
character, the concept of non-place can still be used as a theoretical tool to expose
and change the controlled spaces of late capitalism.

Key Words: Marc Augé, supermodernity, non-place, space, place, transitional

spaces

*****

1. Analysis of the Concept of Non-Place

The paper is structured in two main parts. The first one tries to make a general
analysis of the concept of non-place by defining over-modernity, investigating the
relationship between Augé’s anthropological place and Michel de Certeau’s
inverse theory and finally showing Augé’s effort to find a positive definition. The
2 Contradiction and Ambiguity in Non-Place
__________________________________________________________________
second part makes a categorized summary of interpretations and comments on non-
place in order to exhibit and understand the ambiguities and contradictions inherent
to the concept.

1.1.The Three Excesses of Over-Modernity

Augé’s hypothesis about non-place assumes that ‘supermodernity produces
non-places, meaning spaces which are not themselves anthropological places and
which, unlike Baudelairean modernity, do not integrate the earlier places: instead
these are listed, classified, promoted to the status of 'places of memory', and
assigned to a circumscribed and specific position’1. Here Augé puts over-
modernity2 against (Baudelairean) modernity which is an epoch of overlapping
temporal modes and multiple historical rhythms: an era in which the old and the
new, the past and the present, the ephemeral and the eternal, coexist in a condition
of relative autonomy even if not, or no longer, in a dialectical struggle. 3 Over-
modernity, on the other side, is characterized by three figures of excess: time
(overabundance of events), space (spatial overabundance) and individual (the
individualization of references). These are the main characteristics of our daily
metropolitan life: The agenda of the media is changing day by day. While we are
talking about the elections, we start to argue about terrorism and then we pass to
the economic crisis (and after that to a polar bear in a German Zoo). Everyday we
cross incredible distances from one edge of the city to another via public
transportation. We often buy food, electronics etc. transported from different
countries. Through internet we send and receive information all over the world. All
these things may be summarized with David Harvey’s space-time compression and
the excess of individualization is linked to this. According to Augé, with this
constant change we feel like inactive witnesses:

This reaction produces a feeling of discomfort, of crisis, which is

linked to the consciousness that each one of us can see
everything and do nothing. And this is just as true in the case of
the many individuals who have the conviction that it is up to
them to give a meaning to life and to the world.4

At this point non-place welcomes its neurotic traveler: You don’t have to
decide! You don’t have to belong somewhere! Just push that button or pass that
card and you don’t even have to talk with anyone! Frequentation of non-places
provides an experience of solitary individuality combined with non-human
mediation between the individual and the public authority. So, while
anthropological places create the organically social, non-places create solitary
contractuality. 5
After having determined the negative character of non-place, Augé tries to find
a positive definition for solitude, however his solution is like the best of the worst.
 Erdem Üngür 3
__________________________________________________________________
Bosteels interprets his solution as ‘being asked to embrace the absence of evil,
instead of pursuing the illusion of some good’, quoting from Augé’s earlier
ethnographic work on the Parisian subway: ‘the existence of an intersection
without gods, without passions, and without battles these days represents the most
advanced stage of society and prefigures the ideal of all democracy’. 6 However
before coming to this point it’s necessary to look at the notion of “anthropological
place” and Michel de Certeau’s reverse use of the terms space and place. We’ll see
that the ambiguous position of the concept of non-place is partly related with de
Certeau’s approach to space and place.

1.2. Anthropological Place and Michel de Certeau’s Inverse Theory

According to Augé ‘the distinction between places and non-places derives from
the opposition between place and space’.7 Although this is a controversial
opposition, in the ‘classical’ sense place is related with terms like topos, genius
loci and Dasein. It has essentialist and sedentarist connotations which can be traced
back to Aristotle and Plato. According to Foucault the medieval space was the
space of emplacement and it was opened up by Galileo’s constitution of an
infinitely open space.8 In other words, starting with Galileo and the seventeenth
century, extension was substituted for localization. So, space is a modern concept
and related with terms like abstract, homogeneous and isotropic. Yi-Fu Tuan
describes this ‘classical’ opposition in equilibrium: ‘what begins as
undifferentiated space becomes place as we get to know it better and endow it with
value. The ideas "space" and "place" require each other for definition. From the
security and stability of place we are aware of the openness, freedom, and threat of
space, and vice versa’.9 ‘Normally’, space is considered as a lifeless, abstract thing
and it’s transformed into a place with people’s practices.
However, de Certeau is putting these terms upside down. As Cresswell claims
‘confusingly de Certeau uses space and place in a way that stands the normal
binary on its head. To de Certeau place is the empty grid over which practice
occurs while space is what is created by practice’.10 Augé also mentions that space
for de Certeau is a ‘ “frequented place”, “an intersection of moving bodies”: it is
the pedestrians who transform a street (geometrically defined as a place by town
planners) into a space’.11 Augé shows three references for this reverse definition:
First one is Merleau-Ponty’s distinction between ‘geometrical space’ and
‘anthropological space. Second one is ‘words and the act of locution’ and third one
is ‘narrative’ as a transformer between places and spaces. After explaining de
Certeau’s inverse (and probably revolutionary) spatial approach, Augé asserts that
the ‘place’ he is talking about is not the same as de Certeau’s place:

A few terminological definitions are needed at this point. Place,

as defined here, is not quite the place de Certeau opposes to
space (in the same way that the geometrical figure is opposed to
4 Contradiction and Ambiguity in Non-Place
__________________________________________________________________
movement, the unspoken to the spoken word or the inventory to
the route): it is place in the established and symbolized sense,
anthropological place.12

So, it seems like Augé is mentioning the ‘classical’ definition of place, but he is
also claiming that anthropological place is including de Certeau’s ‘space’:

We include in the notion of anthropological place the possibility

of the journeys made in it, the discourses uttered in it, and the
language characterizing it. And the notion of space, in the way it
is used at present […] seems to apply usefully, through the very
fact of its lack of characterization, to the non-symbolized
surfaces of the planet.13

At this point, one starts to think that Augé hasn’t understood de Certeau’s
approach at all, because it seems like he’s using the old ‘classical’ place-space
opposition again. As Buchanan states:

This [Augé’s] version of the non-place may well be a strong

misreading of de Certeau […] In fact, insofar as the whole
theorization of it in Augé’s hands seems to turn on a kind
nostalgia for some mystical, pastoral type of collective existence,
it could even be said to obscure our understanding of de Certeau:
for it is precisely in order to express its collective, non-personal
nature, that de Certeau ascribes it a place.14

However one can read Augé’s sentences also as a pessimistic warning: In order
to transform (de Certeau’s) places into spaces, first of all we have to live in a place.
Over-modernity is producing non-places, which are not like the places before and
therefore do not have any chance to be transformed into spaces. Buchanan’s
another evaluation of non-place can be interpreted in this way:

[…] Augé takes this [de Certeau’s reversed theory] a step further
and develops an idea of the non- place, that is, a place which no
longer confers the affect of place, and in the process crushes the
creative and indeed anarchic spirit of de Certeau's notion of
space’. 15

This reading is more compatible with Augé’s definition of anthropological

place as the container of de Certeau’s space. However Augé tries to escape this
pessimistic view in the search of a positive definition for non-place.
 Erdem Üngür 5
__________________________________________________________________

1.3. Looking for A Positive Definition: An Ethnology of Solitude

As a result, we might be tempted to contrast the symbolized space of place with the non-symbolized
space of non-place. But this would hold us to the existing negative definition of non-places, which
Michel de Certeau's analysis of the notion of space may help us to improve upon.16

After having crushed the creative and anarchic spirit of de Certeau's notion of
space, Augé claims to use it again to find a positive definition for non-place. He
starts with de Certeau’s statement: ‘Names create non-places17 in places and turn
them into passages’.18 According to de Certeau, the relationship between the
direction of a walk and the meaning of word situate two sorts of apparently
contrary movements, one extrovert (to walk is to go outside), the other introvert (a
mobility under the stability of the signifier). For example, the street names given
by the state draw a framework related to a certain history or ideology, which
doesn’t have any relation to the social practice on the street. Augé has a better
explanation for this: ‘When Michel de Certeau mentions 'non-place', it is to allude
to a sort of negative quality of place, an absence of the place from itself, caused by
the name it has been given. Proper names, he tells us, impose on the place 'an
injunction coming from the other (a history.. )’.19 According to Augé, this rupture
from the environment is the specific character of a travel, in which the movement
adds the particular experience of a form of solitude. So, Augé claims that the
traveler’s space may be the archetype of non-place and affirms it with the
deduction that ‘the experience of non-place is a turning back on the self’. He
doesn’t mention the positive side of this ‘new behaviour’ but ends up with a
similar notion of freedom like de Certeau’s space: ‘Returning after an hour or so to
the nonplace of space, escaping from the totalitarian constraints of place, will be
just like a return to something resembling freedom’.
As mentioned before, Bosteels criticizes this restricted understanding of
freedom because of being only ‘a default option that would guarantee the
avoidance of the worst’.20 It doesn’t have the creative spirit of de Certeau's notion
of space and probably because of this it’s only something resembling freedom.

2. Interpretations and Comments on Non-Place

The understanding and use of the concept seems mainly divided in two
opposite absolute meanings. One of them positions Augé as an existentialist (in the
Heideggerian sense) and a sedentarist metaphysicist21 advocating place against
space (e.g. Buchanan, Okely, Tekin) and the other one as a pioneer in the field of
anthropology breaking the authority of place and showing new possibilities of
space in the age of over-modernity (e.g. Creswell and Buchanan). There is also a
third big and heterogeneous group of in-between (e.g. Buchanan, Osborne,
Bosteels), which interprets non-place as a concept of transition, which is therefore
ambigious and contradictory, however open to evolve. We can include into this
group the ones who deal with ‘subjectivity problem’ of the notion and in relation
6 Contradiction and Ambiguity in Non-Place
__________________________________________________________________
the ‘expansionists’, who doesn’t limit the non-places with transitional [transport,
transit, commerce, leisure] spaces (e.g. Merriman, Boren, Libera, Gregory).

2.1. Augé as an Existentialist/Sedentarist Metaphysicist

As an anthropologist and ethnologist, who researhed Alladian peoples of West
Africa in the first stage of his career, Augé has certain sensitivities to roots, culture
and identity: ‘To be born is to be born in a place, to be “assigned to residence”22. In
this sense the actual place of birth is a constituent of individual identity’. 23
According to Okely, birth place is a crucial marker for identity in a sedentarist
hegemony, however while Augé is sensitive to the prevailing hegemony, at the
same time he risks reifying these culturally and historically specific facts.24
Buchanan criticizes Augé more rigorously in relation with de Certeau: ‘In fact,
insofar as the whole theorisation of it [non-place] in Augé’s hands seems to turn on
a kind nostalgia for some mystical, pastoral type of collective existence, it could
even be said to obscure our understanding of de Certeau: for it is precisely in order
to express its collective, non-personal nature, that de Certeau ascribes it a place’. 25
Tekin also criticizes Augé because of being existentialist and sedentarist.
According to her, Augé refuses to see the ‘dark side’ of the tradition and also the
potentialities of the non-place.26 Although it’s true that Augé has a certain
inclination towards nostalgia, he’s also against it to find a new way to understand
the new spaces produced under over-modernity:

The world of over-modernity does not exactly match the one in

which we believe we live, for we live in a world that we have not
yet learned to look at. We have to relearn to think about space.27

2.2. Augé as a ‘Nomadic Metaphysicist’

“Nomadic metaphysics” in social and cultural theory values the “routes” of the
traveler and the nomad above the “roots” of place.28 In this sense it is the opposite
side of the sedentarist metaphysics. According to Creswell, Augé questions the
traditional place concept and argues that such places are receding in importance
and being replaced by non-places. 29 He also claims that Augé's use of the name
non-place does not have the same negative connotations as Relph’s
‘placelessness’30 and Augé's arguments force theorists of culture to reconsider the
theory and method of their disciplines.
In ‘Deleuze and Space’, Buchanan positions Augé in the generation of thinkers
(Debord, de Certeau, Deleuze, Foucault, and many others) which regard space
uninhabitable by definition and presents Augé as a destructive successor of de
Certeau:

Focusing on the proliferation of spaces whose function seems

only to be to facilitate our 'passing through', airports, train
 Erdem Üngür 7
__________________________________________________________________
stations, tram stops, and so forth Augé takes this a step further
and develops an idea of the non- place, that is, a place which no
longer confers the affect of place, and in the process crushes the
creative and indeed anarchic spirit of de Certeau's notion of
space.31

In seeing the traveler’s space as the archetype of non-place, Augé has the will
to value the “routes” of the traveler. However he is not able either to forget the
“roots” of place.

2.3. Augé as an Ambiguous Figure of a Transitional Spatial Concept

One can put Augé neither in a sedentarist nor in a nomadic position, but rather
in-between: ‘While Augé does not celebrate the advent of over-modernity –he is
not an enthusiast of the changes it has wrought, nor is he a romantic longing for
something lost, and he is appropriately sceptical of all types of nostalgia– he is not
able to critique it either’.32 If we consider the previous quotations from Ian
Buchanan, we can also conclude that he is not so sure how to categorize him.
Osborne also interprets Augé as ambiguous and ambivalent, relating it to the
disciplinal perspective of anthropology:

However, productive as I hope this idea will be shown to be,

Augé’s presentation of the concept of non-place is both
theoretically ambiguous and critically ambivalent. Theoretically,
it equivocates between an abstract and a dialectical conception of
negation. Critically, it oscillates between a backward-looking
romanticisation of the anthropological conception of place and a
forward-looking positive ‘ethnology of solitude’. This is the
result of the restrictions of the anthropological perspective.33

Besides this ambiguity, there are also contradictions about the subject of non-
place and the physical examples of it. One of the main arguments about non-place
is that a specific location being perceived as a non-place, can be perceived as a
place by another person and therefore there isn’t a reality called ‘non-place’,
independent from the subject. As Libera quotes from O'Beirne’s (2006) article
Mapping the Non-Lieu in Marc Augé's Writings, ‘his [Augé’s] sense of alienation
is a function of his generation, and that today’s youth may well see the station in
future years as a repository of their own history, identity and sense of social
belonging’.34 Merriman in the same way criticizes Augé because of overlooking
this historical fact:
8 Contradiction and Ambiguity in Non-Place
__________________________________________________________________
Augé tend to overlook the history of such ‘barometers of
modernity’ or supermodernity, for commentators have, in
previous decades and centuries, associated feelings of boredom,
dislocation, illegibility, excitement and shock with other
previously new transportation and communication technologies,
such as the railway in the nineteenth century.35

Gregory examines the same subject from another dimension and propounds that
different users in the same time may experience the same place in different ways:

For Augé it is the very fact that the non-place is uninhabitable

that gives it its defining characteristics. This position ignores the
workers within the malls; the security guards, cleaners and retail
staff, who have a very different experience of the mall from
consumers (likewise the toll collector on a freeway and the
receptionist at a motel).36

However Augé already asserts that places and non-places exist together and
one can be transformed into another and later claims that it depends on subject:
‘[…] Therefore it is possible to think that the same place can be looked upon as a
place by some people and as a non-place by others, on a long-term or a short-term
basis. For example, an airport space does not carry the same meaning for the
passenger boarding the plane and for the employee who is working there’.37
Another objection against non-place is that it’s restricted only with transitional
[transport, transit, commerce, leisure] spaces. According to Boren, non-places are
no longer restricted to the airports, highways, hotels, amusement parks or refugee
camps. People’s dwellings are also non-places since they are no longer the real
subjects of those places.38 Gregory also argues about the expansion of non-places:
‘Non-place did not die but rather that it is making its invisible presence felt in other
spaces: spaces that do not hold true to Augé’s original qualification for transit’. 39
Merriman also asserts that it is unnecessary to delineate a new species of place (i.e.
non-place) to account for the detachment, solitariness, boredom and distraction;
feelings which are just as likely to surface when one is at home or work.40

3. Conclusion
Augé’s ambiguous position may be explained with his transitional position
between postmodernity and over-modernity, with his requirement and restrictions
coming from the discipline of anthropology and the related contradictory
configuration of his theory. Because of its ambiguous character, non-place can be
positioned both in the sedentarist and nomadic metaphysics. Some academics also
relate it with Deleuze’s notion Any-Space-Whatever, which appears in his book
Cinema 1: The Movement Image, however this issue is quite complex and
 Erdem Üngür 9
__________________________________________________________________
according to Dr. William Brown, Deleuze has not referred to Marc Augé but to
Pascal Augér41. Even if it’s not connected directly with Deleuze, it can be read as a
sign of the concept’s ambiguity and elasticity. It’s neither a sedentarist, nor a
nomadic concept, but probably a transitional one which is in-between.
Despite all the oppositions, contradictions and ambiguities, I think one can still
take Augé’s non-place as an introductory notion to contemplate on the spaces of
over-modernity (or late capitalism). As Sharma states there has emerged another
theoretical trajectory concerned less with the fleetingness of place, than with the
spatialization of biopolitics and disciplinary confinement within the non-place. 42
Some of the ‘expansionists’ are also close to this issue. So, the concept of non-
place can still be used as a theoretical tool to expose and change the controlled
spaces of late capitalism. Once again, we don’t have to embrace the absence of
evil, instead of pursuing the good.

Notes
1
Marc Augé, Non-Places:Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, trans. John Howe (London/New York:
Verso, 1997), 78.
2
Augé’s original term is surmodernité, which might be better translated into English as over-modernity. In his speech with
Alan Read at the Institute of Contemporary Arts, London as part of Spaced Out II on 15th November 1995, Augé (2000)
says: “But the contemporary situation seems to me better explained by the word “supermodernity”, or perhaps I would
prefer to say “over-modernity”. I think in English one says “over-determination”, in the language of Freud or Lacan – and
what I want to say echoing these constructions is “over-modernity”. Bosteels (2003) also claims that “Augé’s original
term, surmodernité, at least indirectly seems to evoke some of what Georges Bataille had to say in 1968 about the prefix
sur- in the context of surrealism as much as in the case of Nietzsche’s philosophy of the Übermensch, in French
surhomme, or “overman”.
3
Bruno Bosteels, ‘Nonplaces: An Anecdoted Topography of Contemporary French Theory’, Diacritics, Vol. 33, No: 3/4,
(2003): 117-139.
4
Marc Augé, ‘Non-places’, in Architecturally Speaking: Practices of Art, Architecture, and the Everyday, ed. Alan Read
(London/New York: Routledge, 2000), 7-12.
5
Augé, Non-Place, 94.
6
Bosteels, Nonplaces, 117-139.
7
Augé, Non-Place, 79.
8
Michel Foucault, ‘Of Other Spaces, Heterotopias’ (1967).
9
Yi-Fu Tuan, Space And Place: The Perspective of Experience (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977), 6.
10
Tim Cresswell, Introduction to Theorizing Place, ed. Ginette Verstraete and Tim Cresswell, (Amsterdam/New York:
Rodopi, 2002), 11-32.
11
Augé, Non-Place, 79.
12
Ibid., 81.
13
Ibid., 82.
14
Ian Buchanan, Michel de Certeau: Cultural Theorist (London: SAGE, 2000), 62.
15
Ian Buchanan and Gregg Lambert, Introduction to Deleuze and Space, ed.Ian Buchanan and Gregg Lambert (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2005), 1-15.
16
Augé, Non-Place, 82.
17
It’s translated as "nowhere" in 1988 English edition.
18
Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendall (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1984), 104.
19
Augé, Non-Place, 85.
20
Bosteels, Nonplaces, 117-139.
21
A term produced by anthropologist Liisa Malkki. Tim Creswell (2002) puts this notion against “nomadic metaphysics”
which according to him includes also Marc Augé.
22
In the English version there is a footnote of the translator, which expresses the restrictive sense of place: ‘This expression
is used in French to mean “placed under house arrest”’.
23
Augé, Non-Place, 53.
24
Judith Okely, ‘Rootlessness against Spatial Fixing: Gypsies, Border Intellectuals and 'Others'’, in Managing Ethnicity:
Perspectives from Folklore Studies, History and Anthropology (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2000), 13-40.
25
Buchanan, Michel de Certeau, 62.
26
İlke Tekin, ‘Kentin Yeni Mekansal Durumları’, Arredamento 217, (2008): 51-57.
27
Augé, Non-Place, 35.
28
Cresswell, Introduction, 11-32.
29
Tim Cresswell, Place: A Short Introduction (UK: Blackwell , 2004).
30
Edward Relph’s Place and Placelessness (1976) seeks to delineate the essence of place and its importance to human
experience. He also attempts to distinguish between authentic, meaning-laden, place and inauthentic, meaningless
placelessness (Creswell, 2002).
31
Buchanan and Lambert, Introduction, 4.
32
Ian Buchanan, ‘Non-Places: Space in the Age of Supermodernity’, Social Semiotics, Vol. 9, No: 3, (1999): 393-398.
33
Peter Osborne, ‘Non-Places and the Spaces of Art’, The Journal of Architecture, Vol. 6, (2001): 183-194.
34
Chiara D. Libera, ‘From Non-Place To Place:A Study Of European Public Space As A Space Of Identity’ (Unpublished
master diss., Master Erasmus Mundus Crossways in European Humanities, 2010).
35
Peter Merriman, Driving Spaces: A Cultural-Historical Geography of England’s M1 Motorway (UK: Blackwell, 2007),
10.
36
Tim Gregory, ‘No Alarms and No Surprises: The Rise of the Domestic Non-Place’ (Unpublished PhD thesis, University
of New South Wales, 2009).
37
Augé, Non-places, 9-10.
38
Ayşe Boren, ‘Subjectivity and the Experience of Non-Places’ (Unpublished master thesis, Istanbul Bilgi University,
2008).
39
Tim Gregory, ‘The Rise of the Productive Non-Place: The Contemporary Office as a State of Exception’, Space and
Culture, 14(3), (2011): 244–258.
40
Merriman, Driving Spaces, 10.
41
“[…] Thus, Deleuze's idiosyncratic interpretation of Augé will transform the concept of the non-place from its innately
pessimistic presentation to the more optimistic outlook it receives in Deleuze's Cinema 1: the Movement Image, as the
any-space-whatever (espace quelconque). For the record, there has been some confusion over Deleuze's reading of the
concept for a couple of reasons […]” (Scannel, 2009). For detailed information about the confusion please follow the last
web-link in the Bibliography.
42
Sarah Sharma, ‘Baring Life and Lifestyle in the Non-Place’. Cultural Studies , Vol. 23, No 1, (2009):129-148.
Bibliography

Augé, Marc. Non-Places:Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. Translated by John Howe. London/New

York: Verso, 1997.
Augé, Marc. ‘Non-places’. In Architecturally Speaking: Practices of Art, Architecture, and the Everyday, edited by Read
Alan, 7-12. London/New York: Routledge, 2000.
Boren, Ayşe. ‘Subjectivity and the Experience of Non-Places’. Unpublished master thesis, Istanbul Bilgi University, 2008.
Bosteels, Bruno. ‘Nonplaces: An Anecdoted Topography of Contemporary French Theory’. Diacritics, Vol. 33, No: 3/4,
(2003): 117-139.
Buchanan, Ian. ‘Non-Places: Space in the Age of Supermodernity’. Social Semiotics, Vol. 9, No: 3, (1999): 393-398.
Buchanan, Ian. Michel de Certeau: Cultural Theorist. London: SAGE, 2000.
Buchanan, Ian and Lambert, Gregg. Introduction to Deleuze and Space, edited by Ian Buchanan and Gregg Lambert, 1-15.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005.
Cresswell, Tim. Introduction to Theorizing Place, edited by Ginette Verstraete and Tim Cresswell, 11-32.
Thamyris/Intersecting: Race, Sex, Place, No: 9. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 2002.
Cresswell, Tim. Place: A Short Introduction. UK: Blackwell , 2004.
de Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. Translated by Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1984.
Foucault, Michel. ‘Of Other Spaces, Heterotopias’ (1967).
Accessed June 20, 2012. <http://foucault.info/documents/heteroTopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en.html>.
Gregory, Tim. ‘No Alarms and No Surprises: The Rise of the Domestic Non-Place’. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of
New South Wales, 2009.
Gregory, Tim. ‘The Rise of the Productive Non-Place: The Contemporary Office as a State of Exception’. Space and
Culture, 14(3), (2011): 244–258.
Libera, Chiara D. ‘From Non-Place To Place:A Study Of European Public Space As A Space Of Identity’. Unpublished
master diss., Master Erasmus Mundus Crossways in European Humanities, 2010.
Merriman, Peter. Driving Spaces: A Cultural-Historical Geography of England’s M1 Motorway. UK: Blackwell, 2007.
Okely, Judith. ‘Rootlessness against Spatial Fixing: Gypsies, Border Intellectuals and 'Others'’. In Managing Ethnicity:
Perspectives from Folklore Studies, History and Anthropology, 13-40. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2000.
Osborne, Peter. ‘Non-Places and the Spaces of Art’. The Journal of Architecture, Vol. 6, (2001): 183-194.
Scannel, John. ‘Music And The ‘Any-Space-Whatever’: Translating existential chaos into artistic composition’.
Transforming Cultures eJournal, Vol. 4, No 1, (2009): 199-211. Viewed 21 June 2012
<http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/TfC/article/view/1065>
Sharma, Sarah. ‘Baring Life and Lifestyle in the Non-Place’. Cultural Studies , Vol. 23, No 1, (2009):129-148.
Stivale, Charles J. ‘Duelling Augé's - Pascal and Marc / Addendum from Les Roberts’
 Accessed June 21, 2012.
<http://www.langlab.wayne.edu/CStivale/D-G/DuellingAugé.html>.
Tekin, İlke. ‘Kentin Yeni Mekansal Durumları’, Arredamento 217, (2008): 51-57.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. Space And Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.
Erdem Üngür is Research Assistant at İstanbul Kültür University Faculty of Architecture. He received a master's degree in
architectural design from İstanbul Technical University in 2011. He’s continuing with his PhD in the same university. He is
interested in any subject related with space and place (e.g. the concept of space in Ottoman architecture or urban renewal
under late-capitalism).

View publication stats