renewal of their neighbourhood of profiteering and immoral enrichment on the backs of
the poor populace.

Gossip

The barbershop of Halil and Necmi was the perfect place to listen to gossip. There I could hang out, watch the barbers at work, and listen to their interactions with their male customers, neighbours or random passers-by. As a foreign woman sitting in the relatively small shop, I was certainly not invisible, and a bit of an oddity to customers who had never met me there before. It was nevertheless a place where I could listen to hours of casual conversations. Many customers enjoyed hearing bits of news and gossip from the neighbourhood while getting a haircut, a shave, or while waiting for their face mask to dry. Political debates happened, but were rarer, and discord amongst supporters of different political camps never amounted to more than friendly teasing and squabbling. However, much of the small talk centred around people everyone involved in these conversations was acquainted with, and amounted to what could be subsumed under gossip, which historian Chris Wickham (1998: 11) defines as “talking about other people behind their backs”. Such chitchat was never malicious, not in my presence at least, with one notable exception: when speaking about the project actors and in particular Beyoğlu mayor Ahmet Misbah Demircan, people did not feel the need to hold back. James Scott (1990: 142) argues that gossip, in his words “the most familiar and elementary form of disguised popular aggression”, is “designed to ruin the reputation of some identifiable person or persons”. This is what distinguishes gossip, “a discourse about social rules that have been violated”, from rumour, its close relative (ibid.). And while some argue that gossip is most often used as a discursive technique of social control amongst equals, other scholars have shown that gossip, especially in the form of malicious gossip and character assassination, can be a way to attack the reputation of the powerful and help create solidary links amongst a community against more powerful outsiders (Gilmore 1987; Scott 1990). Critics have pointed out that informal and indirect demonstrations of subversion such as gossip, cynicism or humour should be re-evaluated not as acts of resistance, but of compliance, since they are risk-free, ineffective, and ultimately contribute to the continuation of domination (Fleming and Spicer 2003; Contu 2008). However, my objective here is not to argue whether the exchange of gossip in Halil Usta’s shop was a display of resistance or a meek act of compliance. Rather, I would like to show how the neighbourhood badmouthing of one of the main agents of the urban renewal project constituted a subtle shift of the frame. By undermining the credibility and respectability of the stigmatisers, these anecdotes showed that they were unreliable narrators, and that the negative stories they told about Tarlabası were not to be unquestioningly trusted.

The Beyoğlu mayor came up as a topic of barber shop gossip on several occasions and were relayed with gleeful derision. Demircan was variously described as a fop, a mindless dandy [artist], as being under the thumb of prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. His outfit, his relatively long hair and demeanour during a televised neighbourhood walk, a talk show, or a press conference were regularly commented and ridiculed.
However, the juiciest piece of gossip about the local politician was that he had allegedly murdered a man as a child and on the behest of his criminal family. Demircan, the narrative went, grew up as a member of a Black Sea family clan that was part of the so-called “land mafia” [*arsa mafyası*] in Istanbul and deeply involved in illegal and illicit activities such as corruption and land theft.<fnref n="4" /> This allegation held a kernel of truth. The mayor’s uncle had been the well-known neighbourhood strongman, or *kabadayı*, Sultan Demircan, nicknamed “Grandfather Sultan” [*Dede Sultan*], an illustrious figure of Istanbul history who had allegedly been involved in organised crime.<fnref n="5" /> In 1973, he was shot in the head and killed, and the shots had reportedly been fired by his 8-year-old nephew (Hürriyet 1973). The notorious uncle’s relation to the Beyoğlu mayor was freely talked about by the Turkish press and considered common knowledge (Ay 2010). The men in the barber shop told me excitedly that Demircan, as a result of mafia rivalries, had been asked to kill a man and complied. There was no compassion for the supposed boy felon, only mockery and contempt: “And he did! You see, he is in fact a murderer, but he was a kid then, so they couldn’t put him in jail, that’s why he had to do it and not anyone else. In these families, they usually ask kids to do the murder, because they cannot be tried like adults. The stories we could tell you, you have no idea!”

Everyone present in the barber shop agreed with this story, while my ignorance of these “facts” was met with friendly incredulity. “Everybody knows this!” I was told. It was not the only bit of gossip about Demircan. Sometimes the barber shop patrons attacked the disliked mayor’s reputation by citing his father, prominent Islamic scholar Ali Rıza Demircan. He had written a book about sexuality and Islam, and regularly appeared on TV as an expert on the subject. Less ominous than the tale of gruesome murder, the gossip about the conservative man giving sex advice on television was often cause for hilariousness. In a way this took aim at the seniority and gravitas of the head of the Demircan family, and by extension the seniority and gravitas of the urban politics advanced by his son.

Scott (1990: 143) writes that gossip, even in the form of character assassination, “is a relatively mild sanction against the powerful” that may never reach the ears of its victims. It is furthermore crucial, even if gossip is nothing but a blunt weapon of resistance, that those who are being targeted must have a certain social standing (ibid.). For an elected politician who wishes to garner support for his ideas and policies from his constituents, a good image is arguably crucial. Not only the Tarlabaşı project, but also much of the administrative work in Beyoğlu under Demircan was focussed on a new, “cleaner”, and less stigmatised image. By symbolically tarnishing his reputation with these stories, especially before an “audience”, the gossipers in the barber shop were both ridiculing that

<footnote n="4">4 The “land” or “estate mafia” was the name for criminal groups that illegally controlled and sold land, often publicly owned, in the late 1980s and early 1990s (see Farsakoğlu: 1990).</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 Ryan Gingeras, drawing on the work of Roger Deal, writes that *kabadayı* culture stems from the elite Ottoman janissary corps, but that the name and image of the *kabadayı*, a neighbourhood strongman who used violence to keep other strongmen in check and exert control over “his” neighbourhood, was adopted by 20th-century members of organised crime (see Gingeras 2014). To this day there is a certain romanticism associated with the figure of the neighbourhood *kabadayı* as a “noble bandit” and “man of the people”.</footnote>
goal and questioning the sincerity of it. In so doing they turned the stigmatisation spotlight on those who accused them of not fitting in with social norms and laws.

Despite the conviction with which these pieces of gossip were relayed, I did not have the impression that any of the men really thought the Beyoğlu mayor was a killer. Rather, it seemed to me that this was a dramatization of a counternarrative meant to throw the mayor's reputation into question – after all, he really did have at least one famously criminal uncle and a dubious family history – an illustration to prove that the mayor's word did not weigh as heavy as one might think, since he was not the respectable politician he purported to be. It was a hint that maybe his view of the neighbourhood was not to be trusted, and that it was him, not Tarlabaşı or its residents, that stood accused of a criminal past and unseemly behaviour.

## Calling out project stakeholders

Several of the anecdotes in this book have described how residents were misled, misinformed, or lied to by project stakeholders, leading them to take disadvantageous or wrong decisions concerning their property, their legal efforts, or their tactics concerning looming evictions. Previous chapters have established that this disinformation was at least partly strategic, rooted in the territorial stigma surrounding the neighbourhood, and the related erasure of residents and their interests. It is very clear that people in Tarlabaşı were aware of the dishonesty of local authorities. While it was exceedingly rare that local residents verbally attacked project officials to their faces – though, as this chapter has documented, that did happen, too – they certainly voiced their anger “offstage”, behind the backs of powerholders (Scott 1990: 4). For example, Cemile accused the deputy mayor and the “fat lawyer” at the municipal information office of lying to her about planned demolitions. Similarly, Kurdish widow Esma explained that she had been cheated by municipal officials about her legal rights concerning her deceased husband’s apartment. Esma said that she had been called into the project office on Tarlabaşı Boulevard after her husband’s first wife had sold the apartment to the municipality in the summer of 2010. There she was asked to sign a document that Esma said she did not read beforehand because the municipal officials sitting across from her promised that nobody in Tarlabaşı would be victimised and that she therefore did not need to worry. When this turned out to be a lie, and she and her child were violently evicted from their home, Esma shared her frustration with her former neighbours Cemile and Alev:

> I didn't read [the documents] because they said that nobody would suffer. They said that they would make everyone [in Tarlabaşı] a house owner. They said they would give everyone a house. But they did not do anything for us. Nothing! Nobody is doing anything for us. Now they say that we have to see how to sort ourselves out. They lied to us. I trusted them, but they are liars.

Despite the municipality's extensive publicity campaign, Tarlabaşı residents maintained that the entire project was unlawful, and that the motives of project stakeholders were guided only by profiteering, nepotism, and corruption. Due to the lack of transparency and information, and the suspicion of residents of being cheated, many people felt that
the municipality was throwing sand in people's eyes. Too afraid of voicing their displea-
sure out loud, of "speaking truth to power" (Scott 1990: 1) for fear of repercussions, such
as expropriation, losing out on sales offers, or simply because the thought felt too in-
timidating, many residents resorted to badmouthing project stakeholders vis-à-vis their
friends and neighbours.

Second-hand furniture seller Cemal, during a conversation with some of his shop neighbours in the street, aired his anger toward project stakeholders and the government, accusing them of nepotism and tricking residents out of a fair share of the profits:

[The Tarlabaşı law] is an unjust law. Because the boss of the company who won the tender here is prime minister Erdoğan's relative. His son-in-law. Çalışk Holding or something. They passed a law just for his son-in-law in parliament, for him personally. He passed a law just for himself.[...] I think the municipality is trying to be clever. They say they'll give people from here apartments in Kayabaşı, so that they'll leave [Tarlabaşı], so that they'll go, because a big profit will be made here. Hill Street is just one street over from here. There they started building luxury boutique hotels. If they build luxury hotels there, that means something will happen here as well.

Many Tarlabaşı residents wondered how much profit the government, the municipal-
ity and the developing company GAP İnşaat would make, and by how much (not if) they
were being sold short. Property owners wondered if the proposed sales prices were pro-
portionate to the actual value of their real estate. The daily Radikal had reported that GAP
 İnşaat foresaw eye-watering profit margins. In one case, a five-storey listed building, ex-
propriated for a mere 761,000 TL, was projected to be sold for around 7.5 million US dol-
lar (Ince 2012). Such news was intensely debated amongst residents, and they cemented
the opinion that the renewal project was not about improving the neighbourhood, but
about profiteering. In several conversations, in the teahouse, the barber shop, or on the
street, I heard people telling each other that the municipality was "nothing but bunch of
liars and thieves without any honour". These expressions of anger were confined to the
neighbourhood, but they nevertheless showed that residents challenged the smothering
claim that they were "content" with the renewal project and had "no objections". No mat-
ter how toothless these small speech acts were, shared with neighbours and researchers
like me, they were a contestation of the invisibilisation and erasure of residents' voices.

Putting the blame where it belongs

Of course, some Tarlabaşı residents at least partly internalised the stigma of their neigh-
bourhood. While some attempted to deflect this taint onto their neighbours, others
accepted the negative narrative as fact and directed the blame for the bad reputation
against the neighbourhood, including themselves. However, people also called attention
to how outside actors contributed to, if not downright caused, the neighbourhood
stigmatisation and the victimisation of its inhabitants.

Tarlabaşı residents often talked about various state officials' misconduct, about the
widespread and visible police corruption, about nepotism, the shameless profiteering,
the excessive police violence and the seemingly contradictory fact that officers turned a
blind to existing crime. Tarlabaşı residents, especially trans* sex workers and Kurdish men, were regularly victims of harassment and mistreatment by law enforcement officers. Alev's fiancé Özgür, a Kurdish man in his early thirties from Mardin Province, was frequently accosted by the police in Tarlabaşı and adjacent streets, such as the checkpoints on Tarlabaşı Boulevard. He was often rudely asked for his ID card and the "purpose" of his being in the neighbourhood, on the street at a certain hour, or at all. His experience with regular police checks stood in sharp contrast to the lack of police oversight and intervention when it came to drug dealers, many of whom lingered on street corners and in front of empty buildings, especially at night.

The police? All they do here is take bribes. All the police are good for here is to take bribes. They throw a few rounds of teargas, and they take money. There is not a single honourable/upstanding [namuslu] person in that police station. As long as they get their money they don't care...you know those youngsters hanging out at the corner? They are there day and night, but nobody ever asks for their IDs. If I walk down the street now, [the police] will ask for my ID, or they'll take me to the station, or they'll put me in jail. That's what they do to poor people [gariban] like me. They ask me for my ID all the time. [...] But down at the corner there are always four or five young boys, villagers. They sell drugs, they sell marihuana, they steal. People who live here are scared to go past them. But what do you know, [the police] cooperates with them, in the evenings they eat and drink together, they have fun together. But wherever they find a poor person at night, leaving work and going home, they'll grab them and put them in jail because they say: what business do you have here at this hour? They should deal with [the drug dealers] first! The state does not concern itself with rich people, but they can do this to poor people. That's their justice. What can you do? How can you fight back against that?

Distrust in the police was a common issue in Tarlabaşı (Sakızlıoğlu 2014a: 190). After a the adoption of the 2005 misdemeanour law in 2005, discriminatory "stop and frisk" tactics became very common, and they often targeted Kurdish men and trans* sex workers (Human Rights Watch 2008a; Human Rights Watch 2008b; Amnesty International 2011b). Due to his own experience of countless unpleasant encounters with the police, Özgür could only make sense of the seemingly carefree existence of drug dealers in the neighbourhood by assuming that the police did not only turn a blind eye, but actually worked together with them. I asked him if he had ever actually seen the joint police-drug dealer "fun" he described, and he said that it was "obvious" to him that it could only be so. One might argue that Özgür was particularly averse to the police (Sahin and Akboga 2019), and that his was a singularly strong opinion based solely on his own negative experience of discrimination. But this was not the case, either. Chapter four in this book has shown that many residents felt that their neighbourhood was both underserved and overpoliced. And once, I witnessed an officer of the Istanbul motorcycle police unit colloquially referred to as "dolphins" (yunuslar) take a money bribe from one of the drug dealers that were hanging out around Tree Street. He drove up to him and took a small wad of bandnotes out of the dealer's trouser back pocket, quickly counted it, and drove on. It was an early winter evening, and it was already dark outside, but it happened only a few metres down from Halil Usta's brightly lit barber shop and in the sightline of a photographer
(who was holding his camera visibly in his hands) and me. When I told Halil Usta about what I had seen, he was not surprised at all, and said that “everybody in Tarlabaşı” knew that the police took bribes from local drug dealers, and that it happened all the time. It had been obvious that the police officer had felt safe enough to conduct this transaction right in front of us without worrying about us or the camera.

This overt indifference to, and in the above case, cooperation with drug dealers led people to argue that the police and by extension, the Turkish state, were in large part to blame for the state and the bad reputation of the neighbourhood. Alev's uncle Mahmut told me:

[Tarlabaşı] is a very beautiful neighbourhood in every sense. It's a bit run down, that's a different matter. And that's the state's fault. Gangs and stuff. If they would do something against that...but they act as if any crime is ok to do, as long as it's not political. They let [criminals] be, they even work together with them. One cannot blame the people who live here. The police are to blame. On the one hand they get a salary from the state, they live in government lodgings, they get cars, they can make use of all kinds of laws, and then they come here and walk around the streets and find ways to make money off these streets as well. Who do you think is to blame? The police of course! [...] We see it with our own eyes! But we can't complain about this! Who would we complain about this to? Their superiors! And what would the superiors do? Nothing. You can't change anything. [...] You cannot stand up against them. Unless you have someone very powerful behind you. That's the only way you can stand up to them.

He made it very clear that in his eyes the fault for the crime and insecurity in Tarlabaşı lay not with the residents, but with the police who did not do their job. Both non-resident outsiders and Tarlabaşı residents agreed that crime and disorder were a problem in the neighbourhood. However, whereas project stakeholders turned this bad reputation into a narrative supporting the renewal argument, residents argued that the opposite was true: if the police and the authorities would do their duty and provide safety and security, the neighbourhood could reach its full potential. This was also one of Erdal Aybek's arguments against the stigmatising narrative of the municipality. The former Tarlabaşı Association spokesman said:

So yes, ok, there is crime in Tarlabaşı. There are drug dealers. There are thieves and pickpockets. We all know that, it's true. That's what the municipality says. But you know, why would that be the residents' responsibility? Why are the residents now being punished for the police not doing their job? That Tarlabaşı is not very safe, that it is not all good, that is the municipality's and the government's fault. They do nothing against it.

Even if the accounts of widespread neglect and corruption were nothing but rumours, they would still provide a “counter-script to stigmatic representations” (Kirkness and Tijé-Dra 2017: 122). David Samper (2002: 23) writes that rumours “are an alternative means for people to express and gain some ownership over a perceived social problem.” The often-shared anecdotes about police misconduct and violence were one way that residents, who otherwise had no access to shaping the public narrative, participated in the claim-making process. Rumours that contest a hegemonic ideology or narrative
are a discursive tactic that gives people the opportunity to reject, and reframe, self-
deprecating views and stigma. Therefore, rumours can encourage “a community to
challenge hegemony at the social, everyday level” (ibid.: 20). Sharing these rumours
and anecdotes, especially with an outside observer was an expression of agency. Widely
shared anecdotes about police corruption and misconduct, as well as about the inability
or unwillingness of the police to provide security in the neighbourhood, turned the
blame away from residents and onto the authorities, providing the counternarrative
that the *real* criminals were in fact the municipality, the authorities, and the private
developer who occupied the sales offices on the other side of Tarlabaşı Boulevard.

The same was true for the dominant narrative that Tarlabaşı was a dilapidated, half-
ruined neighbourhood that urgently required outside intervention and large-scale re-
newal. As stated in earlier chapters, parts of Beyoğlu, and all of Tarlabaşı, were declared
an urban conservation area by the Cultural Heritage Preservation Board in 1993. This
meant that property owners were not allowed to renovate or modify their buildings in
any way without official permission. Any infringement could mean a high fine. As a re-
sult of that regulation many property owners did not undertake necessary repair work on
their buildings. Kurdish second-hand furniture dealer Maher, himself a tenant, argued
that it was therefore disingenuous for the municipality and other stakeholders to frame
Tarlabaşı as neglected. He also pointed out that their alleged goodwill was not believable,
since the profiteering in most large urban renewal projects in Istanbul was so obvious:

It's all so unjust...all of Istanbul requires renewal, seriously. For example, here, there
are buildings that are maybe twenty years old, and down the street there are houses
and shops that are more than one hundred years old. But they only demolish in places
where they hope to make money. They throw out the people in them. The only places
they are interested in are the ones that are profitable, everything else they don't touch,
no matter how old or dilapidated. [...] They never kept [this neighbourhood] clean, they
have never looked after it. It's in the centre of Istanbul and it looks like a garbage dump,
like a village in the middle of nowhere. Everyone should do their own painting, their
own repairs. But they never allowed that. Why? So that people would be fed up and
leave.

I met residents who had been fined several hundreds of Turkish Lira for painting rusted
balcony rails or the repair of a leaky roof. The Tarlabaşı Association, in their struggle to
oppose the renewal project as drawn up by the Beyoğlu Municipality and *GAP İnşaat*, re-
peatedly asked that homeowners should be given the opportunity to renovate their own
property in order to improve the neighbourhood. In fact, during the first ever meeting at
the municipality, mayor Demircan had promised to secure microcredits to do just that.
For many residents it was thus both deeply cynical and unacceptable to be blamed for the
bad physical state of their neighbourhood.

The same was true for the gradual dilapidation of the building stock in the time af-
ter the project announcement. With the start of demolitions in August 2010 and the ac-
celeration of evictions and departures, single apartments and entire buildings were left
abandoned as tenants began to move out. But this happened in a trickle. Many resi-
dents remained in their homes and their shops, either because they or their landlords
were still fighting evictions in court, or simply because they had nowhere else to go. The
buildings and apartments that *had* been sold became the responsibility of project stakeholders. However, these buildings were largely neglected. In some cases, this meant that squatters, often very poor Syrian refugees, started to occupy these unsafe spaces. It also meant that scavengers hoping to earn a few coins ripped into these buildings, dismantling wooden, metal, and other recyclable and sellable structures. Wooden beams, stairs, floors and windows made excellent firewood. By mid-2011, foragers were hard at work in all renewal area streets, noisily breaking out everything they thought to be profitable, leaving buildings in danger of collapse.

This intense scavenging left behind rows of semi-ruins that had gaping black holes where windows and doors used to be. Some residents likened the sight to a “warzone”, complaining that this made their neighbourhood “look terrible” to passers-by on the main Tarlabaşı Boulevard and to passengers of taxis and the *dolmuş* who drove up Tree Street, an important arterial road that connected Dolapdere to Taksim. Many believed that the municipality was allowing this to happen, partly to put pressure on residents and accelerate the eviction process, and partly to bolster the stigmatising discourse they employed to justify renewal. Halil Usta, who at that point still spent almost every day in Tarlabaşı and who was watching the rapid change in the neighbourhood, was worried about safety and the image that a semi-ruined neighbourhood projected to outsiders, and the effect this negative image would have on solidarity with Tarlabaşı residents.

Look at this, it looks so bad. The municipality owns these buildings now, they should make sure that people don't scavenge and that it is safe for us. Children play on the streets. People are walking past these buildings. What if something falls down? It looks like a warzone here. The municipality does this to make Tarlabaşı look worse. Because of the project. Anyone who walks past will think: what kind of bad place is this? Everyone already thinks that Tarlabaşı is a bad place. They will say that it is good that they will demolish it.

At least one building did collapse as a result of the removal of the heavy metal beams and wooden structures that had stabilised it. The small three-storey house simply caved in one afternoon, only a few months after its former occupant had been evicted. Luckily nobody was hurt, but children did play on the street all the time. Many blamed the municipality for not taking care of the buildings they had bought. Project stakeholders did employ a welder who sealed apartments that were empty, but they did not pay much attention as to what happened after the welder had left.

Rumours of deliberately infrequent garbage collection in Tarlabaşı that had started as early as 2008 resurfaced during the time of my fieldwork. The situation had deteriorated by then. In streets where the majority of buildings lay abandoned, garbage was not collected at all anymore. Bags of refuse were piling up inside empty buildings and on the streets, and during the summer months this growing heap of debris led to an increase in vermin and a horrific stench that beleaguered those who still lived in the vicinity or who had to pass through. As garbage disposal was the responsibility of the municipality, residents interpreted the authorities' failure to clean the streets as yet another form of weaponised indifference designed to punish residents unwilling or unable to leave, and to literally turn Tarlabaşı into the “garbage dump” it had been described as by project
stakeholders and the mainstream media. Alev, whose family left late in 2011 when many buildings were already abandoned, put the blame squarely onto the municipality.

What is this? It's disgusting. People throw their trash into the streets, and the municipality just leaves it there. They do that on purpose. It's the municipality's responsibility to send garbage trucks. We tell them but they don't. What can we do? Is this our fault? We live here, we have to walk on these streets every day. There are rats, there are microbes, the children will get sick. They want Tarlabaşı to look like this, but it's not our responsibility, and not our fault. The municipality should clean the streets.

Alev knew that the garbage on nearby Istiklal Avenue was collected several times a day by the Beyoğlu Municipality. She stressed that waste management and street cleaning was the responsibility of the municipality, thereby offering a counter frame to the stigmatising narrative.

## Graffiti

Graffiti, in the way of slogans, signals, or indicating labels applied with a paintbrush or a spray can or hasty scribbles applied with pens, pieces of rock or coal, were a common sight in Tarlabaşı. These wall writings included political statements, profanities, names of people, or sometimes signs not to drop garbage in a certain place.<fnref n="6" /> Twice I saw graffiti that expressed pride in the bad image of the neighbourhood: “This is Tarlabaşı, it’s not just for anyone”, and: “This is Tarlabaşı, not just anyone can enter”. Paul Kirkness and Andreas Tijé-Dra (2017: 120) state that such hyperbolic claims, along with the performance of “being gangster” or belonging to “a ghetto”, made by residents of tainted spaces, “can be perceived as small acts of affirmative transgression, appropriation and speaking back to depictions that are made outside the stigmatised neighbourhood”. However, once I witnessed a very personal, very targeted version of using graffiti as a way to relay a message to those that had victimised Tarlabaşı.

In the end of October 2011, Alev and her family had to move out of their apartment after compulsory purchase proceedings had been finalised. Several of her cousins, uncles as well as her fiancé Özgür were helping them to carry furniture, bags, and boxes into a small lorry they had rented for the move. It was hard work, and while Alev and most of the men were lifting and carrying various items down the four flights of the narrow stairs, Alev's sister-in-law was cooking and serving lunch, tea, and coffee to the group of men who had come to help.

<footnote n="6">6 These signs very often aimed to shame those that did not comply with messages like: “Those that throw their garbage down here are bastards” etc.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>Moving out of Tree Street</figcaption></figure>

Photo by Jonathan Lewis

Alev was visibly emotional. Flitting through the apartment, she directed the move and paid attention that everything was being wrapped and handled appropriately. As room after room was emptied, Alev began to write slogans across the now bare walls of her former home. She used pencils and pens since she had nothing else at her disposal. For a moment, she also took to the walls with an electric screwdriver she had used to dismantle the furniture. She was only able to inflict limited damage using this tool, to the mocking laughter of her younger male cousins who said she should use a drill in order to cause more serious destruction, and soon joined her to scribble onto the walls. She was both sad and angry about being forced out of her home despite the legal fight she had put up. Inflicting this damage, limited and as it was, was both an outlet for that anger and a way to send the message to the municipality that she did not leave the house to them voluntarily.

The graffiti were all written in large font and included the crossed-out initials of then prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, “RTE”, the statement “I am Alev”, and the strong curses “May the hand of those that deny our rights break” and “May you get no benefit from it” [*Haram olsun*]. I will elaborate on the significance of this latter statement further down in this section. One of these slogans, written in Kurmanji Kurdish (It’s enough! [*Edi bese!*]), was a well-known political slogan of revolt, and by using it, Alev connected her personal grievance to the larger Kurdish political movement against state discrimination and for minority rights. In this sense, the political meaning could be read as a double protest that only a limited public, those that understood Kurmanji Kurdish and were familiar with the Kurdish rights movement, was able to fully understand.

However, the use of the Kurdish language is in itself an act of protest (Clark, 2016: 250). A Turkish monolingual audience would understand that a certain text object, like Alev’s slogan, was Kurdish, but they would not necessarily understand the intended (po-
litical) indexicality of that text object. Choosing to write in Kurdish “does the actual work of establishing boundaries that limit the access available to a bystander public gaze, while also ensuring that bystanders can register those boundaries, notice their lack of access-to-meaning and sense their exclusion” (ibid.). Alev had no way of knowing who, if anyone, would ever see what she had written. It was unclear to me whether she thought that Kurdish construction workers would see the graffiti before the demolition of the building, or whether she thought that any officials or executives from the municipality or GAP Inşaat would read what she had to say.

Research has shown that political graffiti as a communicative tool is especially important for those who have been marginalised, excluded from structures of social, economic, and political power and who do not have access to institutionalised forms of political participation, or who do not believe that mainstream politics will bring about the desired change. As such, political graffiti can function as a discursive form of political activism and of resistance to prevailing systems of power and control (Jaffe et. al. 2012: 3; Waldner and Dobratz 2013: 387; Li and Prasad 2018: 496).

Alev chose to write these slogans across the walls of her former apartment because she was angry, but also because she was not able to communicate these thoughts elsewhere. She wanted to convey a message that the addressee had otherwise refused to hear, and she chose to use political language to bring her criticism of the renewal project and those responsible for it across.

Graffiti, as a transgressive performance in space, have often been interpreted as public text objects. Some scholars distinguish between public and private graffiti, defining the latter as anonymous inscriptions indoors, such as inside prisons or universities (Abel and Buckley 1977; Schwartz and Dovidio 1984). However, the prevailing assumption is that all graffiti, public or private, aims to be read. In that sense, it did not matter that Alev chose to write on the walls inside the apartment and not, say, on the walls outside of the building. Bruner and Kelso (1980: 241), in their study of gendered semiotics of graffiti, allege that “although written in the privacy of a toilet stall, the writing of graffiti is an essentially social act. [...] To write graffiti is to communicate; one never finds graffiti where they cannot be seen by others”. Graffiti, therefore, “whether written by pen, spray can, or paintbrush, it is always public and displayed on someone else’s property” (Wilson 2008). Alev had no way of knowing who would see the slogans she wrote, or if anyone would see them at all. However, she made her voice heard in a context where those in power refused to hear and listen to her. With the graffiti, some of which literally asserted her presence, Alev “writes herself into existence” (Carrington 2009: 420).

The evening of the same day, after all the furniture had been unloaded in the new apartment on the other side of Dolapdere Street, Alev returned to the empty, old apartment with two of her male cousins, to complete and add to the writings of the afternoon. They also smashed a few windows. Alev said that she wanted to vent her anger, and maybe even more importantly, show that she had not left the apartment to the municipality voluntarily and that she did not approve of the displacement.
## A teargas cartridge

In the height of summer 2011, Cemile and Ramazan lived out of cardboard boxes in their old home, waiting for someone from the municipality to take their keys from them and evict them from their house. The atmosphere was sombre. Cemile suffered from an infected toenail, and her big toe was wrapped in a bandage, making it difficult for her to walk. One day, while looking for something in her boxes, she pulled out a plastic bag. She held it up to me and her husband and started laughing.

What's in that bag? Oh look, do you remember this? It's our bomb! It's the bomb [the police] threw into our house. Let's leave it here for them, as a souvenir. They can keep that. I'll leave that behind here for them.

Inside the bag was an empty tear gas cartridge, a hollow silver cylinder that was open on one end, with blue letters on the sides. It had landed in the family's living room during 1 May demonstrations a couple of years prior, setting the living room curtains on fire and engulfing the entire room in a thick, biting fog. The police had never come to apologise for shooting the cartridge through the open living room window, and despite some neighbours urging them to do so, the family had never tried to press charges. For Cemile and Ramazan, this carelessness by the riot police had been another sign that they and their safety in the neighbourhood did not really matter. Cemile draped the open bag with the cartridge on the floor of the almost empty apartment, as "a souvenir" for the municipal delegation they were waiting for. It was not entirely clear if Cemile had kept the cartridge as a keepsake, or as potential evidence in case she did change her mind. However, with her eviction imminent and all communication with the municipality and the developers ruptured, she felt it could serve as a message she was going to leave behind for them.

## Helal olmasın

One day in November 2011, second-hand furniture seller Cemal, lute maker Kerem Usta, and Kurdish real estate agent, Burhan, all came together in the barber shop on Tree Street in one of the last get-togethers that I was able to witness there. Kerem Usta had not been to the barber shop in months (he usually got his shaves in his suburb). Halil Usta was in his element, administering shaves, trims, waxing, masks and massages. The summer "heroin rice pudding"<fnref n="7" /> bust in the pudding shop on Tarlabaşı Boulevard provided hilarious gossip, but in general the mood was rather low. Most of the other residents and shop owners in the street had already left, and Halil Usta only came to Tarlabaşı intermittently now. He said that being in his shop had "lost all taste". The area around the barbershop looked desolate and ruined. While getting haircuts and shaves, the other

<footnote n="7">7 Burhan claimed that the owner of the shop had sold a "special" rice pudding that came with a serving of heroin on the side for customers in the know. The newspapers spoke of cocaine (Kaya, 2011). The shop had subsequently been shut down, and, since it was inside the renewal zone, it was going to be demolished in any case.</footnote>
men wondered what would happen next. Halil Usta was angry. The municipality had vic-
timised the neighbourhood, he said, throwing everyone out of their houses for no ap-
parent reason, as it did not look like constructions would start anytime soon. Now, he
said, the neighbourhood was left to rot, and property owners like Cemal were left with-
out any rental income, and without a new home to move into. As a tenant, he felt like he
had no recourse to any assistance from anyone, and due to evictions, he had lost most of
his customers and his income, without the possibility to plan his next move. Since he had
invested in and paid for a new PVC window and a door for his rental shop, he was angry
that he would not get anything for either when his landlord sold the entire building to
the developer. He asked the men in his shop what he should do, and Cemal replied that
he should "break and take" them.

H: But I won't be able to sell them, it's worth nothing.

C: That's not the point. You should break out and take all of it, the metal [parts], too. You should take the wood and burn it.

The expression Cemal used to justify his advice, that would arguably only mean more
work for Halil Usta, was *helal olmasın*: this phrase, loosely translated as "not waiving one's
rights", or "not forgiving another person's mistakes against oneself"<fnref n="8" />. Since Halil Usta
was not able to communicate his pain and discontent directly to project stakeholders, the
breaking and scavenging of parts of his shop, even if it would not provide any financial
gain, would be a message to the municipality that the transaction was made without his
consent and without his blessing.

Similar in meaning to the much stronger, more curse-like *haram olsun* scribbled by
Alev on the empty walls of her former home, the angrily uttered *helal olmasın* was an ex-
pression I heard quite often in relation to people being evicted from their house in Tar-
labaşı if they felt that they had been cheated, lied to, and betrayed by the municipality.
Following the unannounced visit by the police at the house of Cemile and Ramazan dur-
ing the month of Ramadan in 2011, Ramazan used a crowbar and a large hammer to break
and pry the PVC window frames and the balcony door out of the walls. His intervention
made them unusable and broke pieces out of the brick walls that lay strewn about the
floors and caused hindrance while Cemile and Ramazan were still living in the apart-
ment. But Ramazan had been angry and said that he just did not want to leave these new
windows that they had bought and were still paying instalments for at the time, to the
developer. Later on, he explained that he could not forgive them taking their house, and
making him feel duped, and, as he said, "like an idiot": "I swear that I want them to feel
like idiots themselves. *Allah* should make them feel like idiots, too. I swear that I will not
forgive them for mistakes they have committed against me! [Yemin ederim hakkim *helal
olmasın onlara!*]" He and Cemile used the phrase *helal olmasın* many times during the last

<footnote n="8">8 The more commonly used expression is "helal olsun", a phrase often used in a business transaction, for example meant to seal a consensual exchange. The Turkish "helal" is derived from the Arabic "halal" and refers to "legitimate", "rightful". The speaker is not active, which means that the outcome is dependent on something or someone outside of oneself. The expression has a deeply moral aspect.</footnote>
days in their apartment, and the (self-)destruction wreaked upon the apartment was a
desperate message to the municipality that had, at that point, long ceased to listen or
care.

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /><figcaption>*Welding shut an evicted building*</figcaption></figure>

Photo by Jonathan Lewis

Other residents who were evicted scavenged wood and metal as a way not to leave entirely empty handed. Kemal had rented an additional small lorry to be able to transport the stacks of firewood he took from the house when he left it: chopped up wooden floors, beams, and the old staircase that, he argued, would be more use to him in his new home where he only had a small oven for heating. Kemal also took as much of the metal appliances and plumbing as he managed to pry loose in the house that at the time did not belong to his landlord anymore, but to the municipality. Such transgressive spatial practices were a way to defy, or in the case of Kemal, make use of the invisibility that the stigmatisation of Tarlabaşı had relegated its residents to.

The stigmatisation of Tarlabaşı had an impact on the ways that Tarlabaşı residents could make themselves heard, and, as we have seen, it often made it impossible to shape and circulate their own narrative. However, residents did not just accept being silenced. As project stakeholders and the non-resident community refused to hear what they had to say about their displacement and their dispossession, they deployed various symbolic struggles to pierce through the discursive wall that smothered their voices. They used verbally expressed their anger, even if they almost never did so to the faces of project stakeholders. These struggles were speech acts that remained small and toothless, but it is nevertheless important to notice them and pull them apart in order to analyse and understand how residents reacted to territorial stigma and how they navigated their era sure. People deployed counternarratives, gossip and name calling. They also deployed material struggles, such as the inscription of messages, or leaving behind a certain object
that, at the very least, meant to express their disdain. As we have seen from the anecdote
of Kemal's failed eviction, the crack in the seamless façade of the municipal discourse
also revealed a highly interesting dissonance between the legal contract, the only con-
tract that project stakeholders said they found binding, and the social contract, the social
norms and expectations that underlie interactions in the neighbourhood and in Turkish
society. The question of how this incongruity is impacted by stigma is one that still has
to be answered.

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>*Leaving nothing behind*</figcaption></figure>

Photo by Jonathan Lewis
<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>
Displaced

The last weeks in the apartment were a time of restless, anxious waiting for Cemile and Ramazan. Following the unannounced police visit, Cemile felt ill with disappointment and anger. The couple had found a small rental apartment a few streets over from Tree Street, but the place was in dire need of renovation before they were able to move. They had been given an eviction date on which they were supposed to turn over their keys to a project delegation similar to the one that had come in early July, but that day came and went without anyone from *GAP Inşaat* or the municipality showing up at their door.
Ramazan commented:

> They don't even call. They were supposed to come at ten thirty. When they say they don't come, they come. When they say they will come, they don't. It makes no sense. We have finally resigned to having to leave the house, and now they don't come.

Cemile did not feel "resigned", however. As much as it was possible with her infected toe and due to the stress palpitations and the intense summer heat, she paced the apartment, opening and closing boxes, deciding what objects she would be able to take with her when the municipal lorry did finally turn up to move their things. Sinking down on the upturned sofa, she exclaimed:

> *Vallah*, they can keep them. They can put a match to them and burn all of it. I'll leave all of it here. There is nothing I can do anymore, I am tired. I have no more tears left from all the crying. I can barely see clearly anymore. I will hand them my keys and leave all of it. They can lock it in here, or they can throw it all away. Or you know what? I can just throw it all out onto the street from the window and burn it all there. There isn't much left anyway.

One of the main objectives of this research has been to capture and describe the pain felt by Tarlabaşı residents facing the loss of their homes and their neighbourhood. In many ways, this pain was without recourse, and expressions of desperations like the one above shows how residents who felt helpless, utterly disenfranchised and dispossessed, expressed that pain. Psychiatrist Mindy Fullilove (2004: 11) has described the relocation of residents after the demolition of their homes as a "root shock", defined as the "traumatic stress reaction to the destruction of all or part of one's emotional ecosystem". It
can leave deep psychological and emotional scars. In his study of the suffering that residents of West Boston endured as a result of being forcibly evicted from the neighbourhood, Marc Fried (1969) has written about the consequences of “grieving for a lost home”. J. Douglas Porteous and Sandra E. Smith (2001) have described victims’ experiences of anxiety, stress, and desperation caused by “domicide”, the planned, deliberate destruction of homes that are in the way of corporate, political or bureaucratic projects.

A growing amount of research has focussed on various aspects of urban renewal, displacement and gentrification in Turkey in recent years (Esen and Lanz 2005; Ünsal and Kuyucu 2010; Ünsal 2013; van Dobben Schoon 2014; Sakızlıoğlu 2014b; Zengin 2014; Islam and Sakızlıoğlu 2015; Yetiskul and Demirel 2018; Rivas-Alonso 2021). This book aimed to focus on details of territorial stigmatisation, how it was exploited by powerful actors in a state-led renewal project, and how residents managed that stigma. Departing from discussions centred around the “strengths and shortcomings of the analytic concept of territorial stigmatisation” (Kirkness and Tijé-Dra 2017: 252), one of the contributions to the literature consists in expanding the focus on the symbolic consequences of territorial stigma, and the material impacts on residents in the immediate run-up to evictions and demolitions.

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>Cemile and Ramazan's apartment after eviction</figcaption></figure>

Photo by Jonathan Lewis

The Beyoğlu Municipality and other state and corporate actors involved in the Tarlabası renewal project promoted and fomented existing spatial stigma in the neighbourhood in order to legitimise and justify a highly controversial large-scale urban intervention, arguing that the demolition of hundreds of homes in central Istanbul would improve the district “for everyone”. Paul Kirkness and Andreas Tijé-Dra (2017: 253) point out that urban capitalism profits from everyday depictions of stigmatised neighbourhoods in the media, in advertisement, as well as through political discourse, “everyday hearsay”
that produce, maintain, fuel, and reinforce spatial disrepute. The analysis of the domi-
nant media discourse, of marketing and PR materials, and officials' statements in this
book showed how a state-led urban renewal project in Turkey exploited and fuelled state-
led stigmatisation. Such dominant images and representations play a crucial role in the
social construction of urban geographies of stigmatisation, which has tangible, material
effects on residents. On the one hand, these representations render stigmatised neigh-
bourhoods hyper-visible, creating urban spaces that are imagined as sensationally dirty,
immoral, and dangerous no-go zones by the non-resident community. It follows that
non-residents rarely if ever set foot in these areas, which leaves most image and knowl-
edge production to “experts” (Bourdieu et al. 1994; Kirkness 2013), which fuels further
marginalisation, prevents outside solidarity, and fosters consent with neoliberal urban
policies. On the other hand, dominant representations of a stigmatised neighbourhood
erase their residents, and makes them vanish behind a “discursive wall of negative tropes”
(Carter 2010: 12–13). In the case of Tarlabaşı, this meant that residents were largely ex-
cluded from decisions of how their neighbourhood was seen and represented, as well as
from decisions pertaining to the physical alterations of their homes and livelihoods. Tar-
labaşı, therefore, became a neighbourhood that was hidden in plain sight, a poor district
in central Istanbul that was partly, and illegally, destroyed by the municipal and state au-
thorities while the stories and words of residents remained mostly unheard. Metaphor-
ically speaking, territorial stigma was the curtain behind which authorities were free to
abuse residents, while non-residents trusted and “knew” that this curtain was there for
good reason, and the screams coming from behind it were not worth listening to.

In recent years, scholars of territorial stigmatisation have insisted that it is these
voices that need to be recorded and amplified in order to understand how residents of
stigmatised neighbourhoods manage and oppose this stigma (Jensen and Christensen
2012; Kirkness 2014; Kirkness and Tijé-Dra 2017; Fattah and Walters 2020). Contrary
to the claims of Loïc Wacquant, Tarlabaşı residents did not uniformly internalise the
stigma, and they did not all want to leave the neighbourhood. A significant number of
residents expressed a deep attachment to Tarlabaşı formed through various symbolic
and material bonds they had built up over time. This attachment was rooted in a Turkey-
specific form of an urban social network – the *mahalle*. And while these ties did not
necessarily translate into pride in the neighbourhood (though that did happen, too),
residents were clear about the importance of this built social environment consisting of
neighbourly relations, business ties, and access to aspects of an urban social contract
that were specific to Tarlabaşı and could not be transferred elsewhere. This book concen-
trated on symbolic practices of managing and opposing stigma, on the manifold ways
that Tarlabaşı residents questioned, distorted, or challenged their neighbourhood’s
bad reputation. In the context of the Tarlabaşı renewal project, struggles against stig-
matisation were also struggles against the displacement that this state-led and state-
produced stigma tried to justify. While these struggles remained ultimately toothless
against dispossession, it is important to carefully analyse them in order to understand
how territorial stigmatisation operates. This book aimed, therefore, to draw back the
curtain, and train the gaze on the suffering of those hidden behind it.

Much work remains to be done. In this book I analysed the intersectionality of terri-
torial stigma and its symbolic and material consequences for residents, which raises the
question how these aspects play out for minority groups in Tarlabaşı whom I did not have ethnographic access to. It would be really interesting to have the perspective from inside the sizable Romani community in the neighbourhood, but for reasons of access, that was not something I was able to do. However, I would be very curious to see how that point of view completes the picture of how territorial stigma influenced how residents dealt with the renewal project. In the same way, it would be crucial to find out how communities that found refuge in Tarlabaşı, such as the considerable number of migrants from various African countries, dealt with intersectionality and stigma. For residents without a legal status in Turkey, the invisibilisation of their place of residence might have provided useful cover. However, this requires a different ethnographic focus and a different methodological approach than those I have chosen to pursue in my thesis.

In 2017, the Council of State [Danıştay] confirmed an earlier ruling by the same court that the Tarlabaşı renewal was not, as the application of Law No. 5366 suggested, in the best interest of the public, and cancelled the entire project (Doğan2017). However, between the first court ruling, the appeals, and the final verdict, neither demolitions nor constructions were halted by project stakeholders. The Beyoğlu mayor dismissed earlier court orders as a formality (Can 2020: 145). As of 2021, four years after the final ruling, the project is still under construction and planned to be finalised by 2022. It would be interesting to analyse how legality, illegality, and stigma intersect in the Tarlabaşı Renewal Project, and how the disregard for the court order is connected to the social construction of a stigmatised neighbourhood. In the same way, it is important to analyse to what extent the stigma obscures such government practices in the eyes of the non-resident community.

During my fieldwork and my life in Tarlabaşı, I regularly came across urban activists involved in anti-gentrification and anti-displacement struggles elsewhere in Istanbul who expressed in various ways, such as derogatory comments or simply silence on the issue, that Tarlabaşı was not a neighbourhood that was “worth” fighting for. Often, they reproduced the same stigmatising discourse dominant in the mainstream media or public policies. This shows that further research is needed into how intersecting stigmas of a tainted social identity and territorial disrepute influence non-resident activism against contentious urban interventions.

My focus on intersectionality and spatial stigma in Tarlabaşı leads to the question how territorial stigmatisation plays out in areas where the community is not broken down into small minority groups, for example in predominantly Kurdish cities in the southeast of Turkey. Of course, those are completely different ethnographic sites, but this problematic poses an interesting question since a lot of locations in the predominantly Kurdish provinces have been subjected to state-led dispossession and violence in recent years. Between 2015 and 2016, entire urban areas were wiped off the map during sieges that the Turkish state laid to Kurdish districts and neighbourhoods as part of the violent conflict between Kurdish militants and state security forces. Some of them have subsequently been rebuilt as luxury housing sites that are out of reach for their former inhabitants. How do intersectionality and stigma play out in an area that is more uniformly Kurdish, and what are the lines along which solidarity takes shape – or not – in a situation where Kurds are not a minority group in the local community? Which fault lines exist in a majority Kurdish geography that suffers a deep territorial stigma for its
Kurdishness? How do reactions to stigmatisation play out in areas where intersectionality is not as fragmented as it was in Tarlabaşı, and where local residents might have the tools to reject the capacity of the Turkish mainstream discourse to distort their self-perception. Due to a focus on the collective Kurdish experience in Tarlabaşı, this book also opens a window into further research of trauma as a result of state repression and displacement, especially in predominantly Kurdish areas in the southeast of Turkey that have remained underrepresented both in academia and journalism.

The reason these are all important questions is because we ought to be interested in how and why people resist, and how and why people do not resist when they have been stigmatised in the name of neoliberal dispossession, something that happens all the time, and in many different contexts. What kind of conditions create the capacity to effectively resist these kinds of forces? How can people challenge, oppose, or even stop these forces? The question of how stigmatisation and the resulting invisibilisation provide cover for severe human rights abuses, hidden while in plain sight, remains in urgent need of answering.

## Gone

Halil Usta and Necmi Usta were amongst the last to leave on Tree Street. By October 2012, they had found and rented another shop further down the street. The semi-basement room required a lot of repair work and some renovation, and both barbers hoped to be able to stay put in their old shop until they were finished preparing the new one. However, by that time Necmi Usta was already working in a barbershop in a military hotel [ordu evi] four days a week, and only came to see customers in Tarlabaşı on Thursdays. Halil Usta rarely came anymore at all. He felt dejected and alone in a street where all his former friends and neighbours had left. The coffeehouse at the corner had long since closed down. The chicken döner restaurant of his friends Ekin and Seray was gone, too, and they mostly spoke on the phone now, since the couple lived in Sultanbeyli, a gecekondu neighbourhood on the Asian side of the city. When I saw Halil Usta in early 2013, he said:

> I have not come here in a very long time. I don't come here anymore, not even during the holidays [bayram]. What is left here? There is no café, either, and [the owner] has not opened another one. If he does open another one further down the street, that would be no use to me either. Everyone's gone anyway. And the café needs to be close to the barbershop, in case that customers come.

After that, Halil Usta took on a job as parking lot attendant in his suburb of Bostancı. Necmi Usta said that he had problems with his health and a “bad foot” and could not stand up for long times anymore.

Years later, in a 2019 visit to Istanbul, Halil Usta told me that he did not want to come to Tarlabaşı anymore at all, and he had not, because it made him too sad and reminded him of everything that had been lost.
<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>View from Cemile's apartment after eviction</figcaption></figure>

Photo by Jonathan Lewis

After days of waiting for the municipality to come and evict them, Cemile and Ramazan moved into a rental apartment on nearby Hill Street, a little closer to Taksim Square, in August of 2011. They had invested into repainting the small two-bedroom place, and Cemile had spent weeks scrubbing and cleaning the run-down kitchen and the toilet that doubled as a shower. For a while she continued to visit the women from her old building who now lived scattered all over Beyoğlu, but these visits trickled to a halt after a while. In June 2013, during my reporting on the Gezi Park protests in Istanbul, I met Cemile walking in the park. It was the height of the movement, and the park had been transformed into an activist campsite, filled with tents and information stands, a library, a community garden, a teahouse, medical facilities, and free food stands. Various activists and political groups sat together in discussion, there was music and a general euphoric atmosphere that had not yet been dampened by the clearance of the adjacent occupied Taksim Square earlier that week.

Despite the diversity and plurality of groups and characters in the park, Cemile looked a little out of place, but she was ecstatic.

I was curious and I wanted to come and see what Gezi Park was like now. It's really nice, isn't it? I wanted to convince the other women in my Qur'an reading group to join me, I can't wait to tell them about all this. All these kids! Can you believe this? That many people? They should have done this earlier, when the municipality came to demolish my house.

Cemile pulled a small white dust mask from her purse and held it up to me, saying that she had come prepared. Ever since the teargas cartridge had landed in her living room, she was afraid of violent police interventions. That fear was not enough to keep her away. A few years later, Cemile was evicted from her rental apartment in Hill Street by investors
who wanted to turn the entire building into an apartment hotel, a type of tourist accommodation that was shooting up all over Beyoğlu at the time, driving up prices and displacing residents. Cemile and Ramazan had to move in with their daughter, waiting for the completion of the renewal project.

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>Project billboards burned during 2013 Gezi protests</figcaption></figure>

Photo by Jonathan Lewis

Müge left her home in Bird Street to move back with her family in Izmir for a while. The informal brothel, the teahouse, and the cobbler's workshop were all evicted. Finally, the entire street was fenced up before demolitions. When she had to leave her home in September 2011, Müge had wanted to move to Bahçeşehir, a middle class residential neighbourhood on the western outskirts of the city, where she had made a downpayment on a flat in a gated community [site]. She had to pay 310 TL every month and hoped to move into the new flat with Gülay and eventually, her mother from Izmir. However, she had problems paying her instalments on time, and for a while faced serious money issues that she struggled, and ultimately failed, to solve, which meant that she defaulted on her mortgage and had no place to live in Istanbul.

I did not see Müge for a long time, and she did not answer or return my phone calls. In 2017, I saw her on the street, but almost did not recognise her: she looked pale and emaciated, her hair was matted, and her clothes ripped and dirty. She did not recognise me and was unable to focus. Müge, who had always been so meticulous about her appearance and her manners, looked dishevelled. Gülay, who had moved into a place closer to Taksim Square together with other single women, later told me what had happened. Apparently Müge had fallen into a severe depression and started to take drugs. Gülay said that she tried to pry her friend away but failed, and Müge's mental and physical health deteriorated further. By the time I had seen her, Gülay said that "nobody was able to talk to her
anymore", that she had gotten "violent", and that she mostly lived on the streets. Burcu continued to work in Tarlabaşı, on the opposite side of Tarlabaşı Boulevard, but constant police and zabıta controls made this increasingly difficult. The network of trans* women in Bird Street had been dispersed.

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /><figcaption>Waiting for eviction</figcaption></figure>

Photo by Jonathan Lewis

Alev married and moved with her husband Özgür into a spacious three-bedroom apartment a few streets from her parents and her brother's family in Hacıahmet, a neighbourhood very close to Tarlabaşı where many Kurdish families live. Alev stayed in touch with the women from her old building as much as possible, and for a while both Cemile or Fikriye, her former upstairs neighbour, regularly came to visit. She kept working in the textile workshop. Her husband sold water, tissues, and other necessities on Taksim Square. They worked hard to make themselves comfortable and hoped to give her parents the opportunity to visit their old village in Mardin province. Alev and Özgür invested in new furniture, a flatscreen TV. During the Gezi Park protests, he volunteered in one of the makeshift clinics. When I visited her in 2016, she had two children, and said that they were happy. When we talked about Tarlabaşı, the anger and the sadness about what had happened were very close to the surface:

> They promised us that nobody would be victimised, but they victimised all of us. They threw all of us out into the street. What are laws in Turkey worth if they allow this? [...] First listen to the people, to what they have to say. Speak about personal freedoms, unemployment and poverty first, and then about giant construction projects.

Six days after his failed eviction, Kemal moved out. His sister had found an affordable basement apartment in the suburb of Bayrampaşa for him, and Kemal said that the local
district governor's office there would grant him some financial assistance. The munici-
pality hired a small lorry for him that fit most of his belongings, but Kemal had to take
the public bus to get to his new home in Bayrampaşa. On the way to the bus station on
Tarlabaşı Boulevard, he hugged his neighbours and friends good-bye.

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>Kemal and Sarı</figcaption></figure>

Photo by Jonathan Lewis

For a while, Kemal came to visit. In his old Tarlabaşı home he had looked after a gaggle of five street cats, for whom he had put out food, and, if he had a little money, pieces of meat he bought at the butcher shop. In February 2012, I met him in the teahouse where he was playing cards with Halil Usta, second-hand furniture seller Maher, and the teahouse owner. Two months later I visited him in his new apartment in one of the many high-rises in his new neighbourhood.

I knew everyone in Tarlabaşı, they all helped me out. Here nobody helps me. And [various charities] came to my house there, now I moved, and I have not been able to notify them. [In Tarlabaşı], a friend of mine registered me with them, and I don't know how to do that. [...] It's difficult here. I go to the market but can't buy anything. [...] My neighbours are good people, but I don't know them well. It's not like Tarlabaşı. Here, nobody knows each other's names.

As the months passed, his visits to Tarlabaşı trickled to a halt. Kemal was distressed to have left the cats behind, especially his favourite, “Sarı” [The yellow one], who had glued himself to Kemal’s leg each time he came to visit his old street. A neighbour who had looked after the tomcat could not do so any longer as her court case against the munici-pality was concluded, and she had to leave. Kemal said that he felt guilty for abandoning Sarı, but his new landlord did not allow for cats in the house.
<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>
References

Aalbers, M. B. (2019). *Financial Geography III: The Financialization of the City*, *Progress in Human Geography* 44(3), 595–607.

Aalbers, M. B. (2006). 'When the Banks Withdraw, Slum Landlords Take Over': The Struc-
turation of Neighborhood Decline through Redlining, Drug Dealing, Speculation
and Immigrant Exploitation. *Urban Studies* 43(7), 1061–1086.

Abel, E. L. and Buckley, B. E. (1977). *The handwriting on the wall. Toward a sociology and psychology of graffiti*. Westport and London: Greenwood Press.

Acar, Y. G. (2019). Village Guards as “In Between” in the Turkish-Kurdish Conflict: Re-Ex-
amining Identity and Position in Intergroup Conflict. *Journal of Social and Political Psy-
chology* 7(2), 925–940.

Acemoğlu, D. and Murat, Ü. (2015). The ups and downs of Turkish growth 2002–2015: Political dynamics, the European Union and the institutional slide. *NBER Working Paper Series*, 21608. New York, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Açıkgöz, E. (2007). Biz Tarlabaşı'nı, Evimizi Seviyoruz. *Arkitera*, 9 July. URL: htt
ps://v3.arkitera.com/h18239-biz-Tarlabaşını-evimizi-seviyoruz.html [last accessed
09.08.2021].

Adaman, F. (2011). Is Corruption a Drawback to Turkey's Accession to the European Union? *South European Society and Politics* 16(2), 309–321.

Akfirat, S., Polat F. and Unsal, Y. (2016). How the Poor Deal with Their Own Poverty: A Social Psychological Analysis from the Social Identity Perspective. *Social Indicators Research* 127(1), 413–433.

Akşam (2014). Tarlabaşı'nın metruk binaları dönüşümle 40 kat değerlendi. *Akşam*, 8 March. URL: https://www.aksam.com.tr/ekonomi/Tarlabaşının-metruk-binalari-donusumle-40-kat-degerlndi/haber-290351 [last accessed 07.01.2019].

Alagöz, G. (2016). Komşunun konut açığını kapatacak. *Hürriyet*, 7 September. URL: htt
p://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/komsunun-konut-acigini-kapatacak-40218895
last accessed 14.12.2018

Alexander, J. M. (2005). *Pedagogies of Crossing. Meditations on Feminism, Sexual Politics, Memory, and the Sacred*. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Allen, C. (2008). *Housing Market Renewal and Social Class*. London: Routledge.

Allport, G. W. and Postman, L. (1947). *The Psychology of Rumor*. New York: Henry Holt.
Altinay, A. G. (2004). *The Myth of the Military-Nation: Militarism, Gender, and Education in Turkey*. New York and Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Amnesty International (2011a). Urgent Action: Families facing forced eviction in Turkey. *Amnesty International*, July 15. URL: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR44/007/2011/en/ [last accessed 06.05.2021].

Amnesty International (2011b). Turkey: 'Not an illness nor a crime'. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people demand equality. *Amnesty International*, 21 June. URL: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR44/001/2011/en/ [last accessed 16.09.2021].

Anadolu Ajansı (2015). Kentsel dönüşümle fiyatlar 50 kat arttı. *Anadolu Ajansı*, 15 January. URL: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/ekonomi/kentsel-donusumle-fiyatlar-50-kat-artti/83997 [last accessed 12.12.2018].

Anastassiadou, M. (2012). *Les Grecs d'Istanbul au XIXe siècle, Histoire socioculturelle de la communauté de Péra*. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

Antonsich, M. (2010). Searching for Belonging – an Analytical Framework *Geography Compass* 4(6), 644–659.

Araújo, S.H. and da Costa, E.B. (2017). From social hell to heaven? The intermingling processes of territorial stigmatisation, agency from below and gentrification in Varjão, Brazil. In: *Negative Neighbourhood Reputation and Place Attachment. The Production and Contestation of Territorial Stigma*. Eds. P. Kirkness and A. Tijé-Dra. New York: Routledge.

Arthurson, K. (2004). From stigma to demolition: Australian debates about housing and social exclusion. *Journal of Housing and the Built Environment* 19 (3), 255–270.

Arthurson, K., D. Rogers and Darcy, M. (2012). Territorial stigma: ‘Housos’ and the representation of disadvantage in the media. *Proceedings of ‘Emerging and Enduring inequalities’, the Australian Sociological Association Annual Conference: TASA 2012*. St Lucia, Queensland, Australia, 26–29 November 2012.

Arthurson, K., Darcy, M. and Rogers, D. (2014). Televised Territorial Stigma: How Social Housing Tenants Experience the Fictional Media Representation of Estates in Australia. *Environment and Planning A* 46(6), 1334–1350.

Ashforth, B. E. and Kreiner, G. E. (1999). 'How Can You Do It?': Dirty Work and the Challenge of Constructing a Positive Identity. *The Academy of Management Review* 24(3), 413–434.

Atalay, C. (2018). Tarlabası Hukuk Mücadelesi ve Sonuçları. In: *Tarlabası. Bir Kent Mücadelesi*. Eds. H. Akarca and R. Doğan. Istanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi.

Atkinson, R. and Jacobs, K. (2010). Damned by Place, then by Politics: Spatial Disadvantage and the Housing Policy-research Interface. *International Journal of Housing Policy* 10(2), 155–171.

August, M. (2014). Challenging the rhetoric of stigmatization: The benefits of concentrated poverty in Toronto's Regent Park. *Environment and Planning A* 46(6), 1317–1333.

Auyero, J. (1999). 'This is a lot like the Bronx, isn't it?' Lived experiences of marginality in an Argentine slum. *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 23(1), 45–69.

Avci, O. (2008). Rantsal bölüşüm tadında kentsel dönüşüm. *Birgün*, 15 January. URL: https://www.birgun.net/haber-detay/rantsal-bolusum-tadinda-kentsel-donu sum-38338.html [last accessed 14.12.2018].
Ay, D. (2019). Diverging community responses to state-led urban renewal in the context of recentralization of planning authority: An analysis of three urban renewal projects in Turkey. *Habitat International* 91, 1–11.

Ay, S. (2005). Sıkıntılar var ama ortaya sanat eseri gibi bir Beyoğlu çıkacak. *Sabah*, 10 December. URL: https://www.sabah.com.tr/yazarlar/cumartesi/ay/2005/12/10/sikin tilar_var_ama_ortaya_sanat_eseri_gibi_bir_be [last accessed 20.09.2021].

Ay, S. (2010). Tetik çeken amca ile tespih çeken bir baba büyüttü. *Sabah*, 14 March. URL: https://www.sabah.com.tr/gundem/2010/03/14/tetik-ceken_amca_ile_tespih _ceken_bir_baba_buyuttu [last accessed 03.7.2019].

Ayata, B. and Yükseker, D. (2005). A Belated awakening. National and international re-
sponses to the internal displacement of Kurds in Turkey. *New Perspectives on Turkey* 32,
5-42.

Bahar, S. (2010). İstanbul'un kalbi yenileniyor. *Sabah*, 28 February. URL: https://www.sabah.com.tr/pazar/guncel/2010/02/28/istanbulun_kalbi_yenileniyor [last accessed 14.12.2018].

Banaji, M. R. and Prentice, D. A. (1994). The self in social contexts. *Annual Review of Psychology* 45, 297–332.

Bareilles, B. (1918). *Constantinople, Ses Cités Franques et Levantines (Péra – Galata – Banlieue)*. Paris: Editions Bossard.

Barth, F. (ed.) (1969). *Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference*. London: Allen & Unwin.

Bartu, A. (2000). Eski Mahallelerin Sahibi Kim? Küresel Bir Çağda Tarihi Yeniden Yazmak. In: *Istanbul: Küresel ile Yerel Arasında*. Ed. Ç. Keyder. Istanbul: Metis.

Bartu-Candan, A. and Kolluoğlu, B. (2008). Emerging Spaces of Neoliberalism: A Gated Town and a Public Housing Project in İstanbul. *New Perspectives on Turkey* 39, 5–46.

Baumeister, R. F. (1986). *Public self and private self*. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Beach, D. and Sernhede, O. (2011). From Learning to Labour to Learning for Marginality: School Segregation and Marginalization in Swedish Suburbs. *British Journal of Sociology of Education* 32 (2), 257–274.

Beckett K. and Herbert, S. (2001). *Banished: The New Social Control in Urban America*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Behar, C. (2003). *A Neighborhood in Ottoman Istanbul: Fruit Vendors and Civil Servants in the Kasap Ilyas Mahalle*. Albany: State University of New York.

Beverley, J. (1999). *Subalternity and Representation*. Durham: Duke University Press.

Beyoğlu Belediyesi (2013). *Tarlabaşı Yenileme Projesi 2013*. [Online Video]. 28 January 2013. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhsbR6UnIrM [last accessed 13.12.2018].

Beyoğlu Gazetesi (2006). Demircan'ın basın atağı. *Beyoğlu Gazetesi*, 25 February. URL: http://www.ahmetmisbahdemircan.com/files/uploads/basin/Beyoğlu_25.02.06.jpg [last accessed 07.01.2019].

Bhavnani, R., Findley, M. G. and Kuklinski, J. H. (2009). Rumor Dynamics in Ethnic Violence. *The Journal of Politics* 71(3), 876–892.

BIA Haber Merkezi (2010a). Tarlabaşı'ndan Yıkıma Direnen Sesler: Teslim Olmayacağım. *Bianet*, 27 August. URL: https://bianet.org/bianet/cevre/124403-Tarlabaşı-ndan-yiki ma-direnen-sesler-teslim-olmayacagim/ [last accessed 16.08.2021].
BIA Haber Merkezi (2010b). Tarlabaşı'nda Yasadışı Yıkım, Direnen İnsanları Korkutmak İçin. *Bianet*, 27 August. URL: https://m.bianet.org/biamag/azinliklar/124426-Tarlabaşı-nda-yasadisi-yikim-direnen-insanlari-korkutmak-icin [last accessed 18.10.2019].

Biner, Z. Ö. (2012). Documenting 'Truth' in the Margins of the Turkish State. In: *Law against the State. Ethnographic Forays into Law's Transformations*. Eds. J. Eckert, B. Donahoe and C. Strümpell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Birdsall-Jones, C. (2013). The Bronx in Australia: The Metaphoric Stigmatization of Public Housing Tenants in Australian Towns and Cities. *Journal of Urban History* 31 (2), 315–330.

Birgün (2010). Dozerler Tarlabaşı'na girdi. *Birgün*, 27 August. URL: https://www.birgun.net/haber/dozerler-Tarlabaşı-na-girdi-54889 [last accessed 27.11.2019].

Biryol, U. (2007). *Gurbet Pastası: Hemşinliler, Göç ve pastacılık*. Istanbul: İletişim.

Blanchette, T.G. and da Silva, A. P. (2011). Prostitution in contemporary Rio de Janeiro. In: *Policing Pleasure: Sex Work, Policy, and the State in Global Perspective*. Eds. S. Dewey and P. Kelley. New York and London: New York University Press.

Blokland, T. (2008). 'You got to remember you live in public housing': Place-making in an American housing project. *Housing, Theory and Society* 25(1), 31–46.

Bonds, A. and Inwood, J. (2015). Beyond white privilege. Geographies of white supremacy and settler colonialism. *Progress in Human Geography* 40(6), 715–733.

Boran, M and Akçiğ, N. (2006). Beyoğlu'nu güzelleştirdikçe sanata destek vermiş oluyoruz. *Evrensel*. URL: http://www.ahmetmisbahdemircan.com/files/uploads/basin/g/unluk_evrensel_22.12.06.jpg. [last accessed 13.12.2018].

Bourdieu, P. (1991). *Language and Symbolic Power*. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P., Wacquant, L. and Garage, S. (1994). Rethinking the state. Genesis and structure of the bureaucratic field. *Sociological Theory* 12(1), 1–18.

Bourgois, P. (1990). Confronting Anthropological Ethics: Ethnographic Lessons from Central America. *Journal of Peace Research* 21(1), 43–54.

Bourgois, P. (1995). *In Search of Respect. Selling Crack in El Barrio*. Cambridge, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Boym, S. (2007). *Nostalgia and its discontents*. The Hedgehog Review 9(2), 7–18.

Brekhus, W. (1998). A sociology of the unmarked: redirecting our focus. *Sociological Theory* 16(1), 34–51.

Bresnahan, M. and Zhuang, J. (2016). Detrimental Effects of Community-Based Stigma. *American Behavioral Scientist* 60(11), 1283–1292.

Brown, J. (1997). *The self*. East Sussex: Psychology Press.

Browne, I. and Misra, J. (2003). The Intersection of Gender and Race in the Labor Market. *Annual Review of Sociology* 29(1), 487–513.

Bruner, E. and Kelso, J. (1980). Gender differences in graffiti: a semiotic perspective. *Women's Studies International Quarterly* 3(2), 239–252.

Buğra, A. and Savaşkan, O. (2014). *New capitalism in Turkey: The relationship between politics, religion and business*. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Burns, P. A. and Snow, R.C. (2012). The built environment & the impact of neighborhood characteristics on youth sexual risk behavior in Cape Town, South Africa. *Health and Place* 18(5), 1088–1100.
Butler, A. (2020). *Toxic Toxeth: Understanding press stigmatization of Toxeth during the 1981 uprising*. *Journalism* 21(4), 541–556.

Cairns, K. (2018). *Youth, temporality, and territorial stigma: Finding good in Camden, New Jersey*. *Antipode* 50(5), 1224–1243.

Çakır, B. (2009). *Bilirkişi Tarlabaşı'nda İnsan Olup Olmadığını İnceledi*. *Bianet*, 27 April. URL: https://bianet.org/kurdi/toplum/117889-bilirkisi-Tarlabaşı-nda-insan-olup-olmadigini-inceledi and http://www.yapi.com.tr/haberler/bilirkisi-Tarlaba%C5%9F%C4%Bında-insan-olup-olmadigini-inceledi_73830.html [last accessed 14.12.2018].

Çakır, R. and Bozan, I. (2009). *Mahalle baskısı: var mı? yok mu?* Istanbul: Doğan Kitap.

Caldeira, T. P. R. (2000). *City of walls: Crime, segregation, and citizenship in São Paulo*. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Camp, J. T. and Heatherton, C. (2016). *Policing the planet. Why the Policing Crisis Led to Black Lives Matter*. London and New York: Verso.

Can, A. (2020). *A Recipe for Conflict in the Historic Environment of Istanbul: The Case of Tarlabaşı*. *ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies* 19(1), 131–162.

Carrier-Moisan, M.-E. (2015). ‘Putting femininity to work’: Negotiating hypersexuality and respectability in sex tourism, Brazil. *Sexualities* 18(4), 499–518.

Carrington, V. (2009). I write, therefore I am: texts in the city. *Visual Communication* 8(4), 409–425.

Carter, D. M. (2010). *Navigating the African Diaspora. The Anthropology of Invisibility*. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Celal, M. (2016). Beyoğlu'nun geleceği karanlık mı? *Cumhuriyet*, 10 August. URL: http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/koseyazisi/582031/Beyoğlu_nun_gelecegi_karanlik Mi_.ht ml [last accessed 13.12.2018].

Çelik, A. B. (2005). I miss my village!: Forced Kurdish migrants in Istanbul and their representation in associations. *New Perspectives on Turkey* 32, 137–163.

Çelik, Z. (1994). Urban Preservation as Theme Park. The Case of Sogukcesme Street. In: *Streets. Critical Perspectives on Public Space*. Eds. Z. Çelik, D. Favro and R. Ingersoll. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Çetin, A. (2010). Bir Kavramın Kısa Tarihi: Mahalle Baskısı. *Mukaddime* 3, 81–92.

Çetin, Z. and Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (2016). *The Dynamics of the Queer Movement in Turkey before and during the Conservative AKP Government*. Working Paper, Research Group EU/Europe 2016/01, Berlin: SWP Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.

Cingöz, Y. (2008) Tarlabaşı'nda endişe yoğun. *Radikal*, 20 January. URL: http://www.rad ikal.com.tr/turkiye/Tarlabaşında-endise-yogun-837830/ [last accessed 14.12.2018].

Clark, M. (2016). *Kurdish Linguistic Disobedience in Turkey*, Doctoral Thesis, University of Chicago.

Clear, T. R. (2007). *Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Clifford, J. and Marcus, G. E. (Eds.) (1986). *Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography*. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Cohen, N. (2013). Territorial stigma formation in the Israeli city of Bat Yam, 1950–1983: Planning, People and Practice. *Journal of Historical Geography* 39, 113–124.

Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. *American Psychologist*, 64(3), 170–180.
Collins, P. H. (2000). *Black Feminist Thought*. New York: Routledge.

Contreras, R. (2017). There's no sunshine: Spatial anguish, deflections, and intersectionality in Compton and South Central. *Environment and Planning D: Society and Space* 35(4), 656–673.

Contu, A. (2008). Decaf resistance: On misbehavior, cynicism and desire in liberal workplaces. *Management Communications Quarterly* 21, 364–379.

Coşkun, Y. (2013). Housing-Construction Market Risks in Turkey: Over-Rated or Under-Estimated? *Housing Finance International* 26(4), 47–55.

Coutin, S. B. (2003). Illegality, Borderlands, and the Space of Nonexistence. In: *Globalization Under Construction: Governmentality, Law, and Identity* (NED-New Edition). Eds. Perry, R. W. and Maurer, B. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cox, D. (2016). Syria's Gypsy refugees find sanctuary in an Istanbul ghetto – but for how long? *The Guardian*, 6 June. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jun/02/syrias-gypsy-refugees-sanctuary-istanbul-turkey-ghetto-how-long-will-last [last accessed 14.12.2018].

Crenshaw, K. W. (1995). The intersection of race and gender. In: *Critical Race Theory: the Key Writings That Formed the Movement*. Eds. K.W. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, K. Thomas New York: The New York Press.

Cuny, C. (2018). Residents' responses to 'territorial stigmatization': Visual research in Berlin. *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research*. 43(5), 888–913.

De Feyter, S. (2015). 'They are like crocodiles under water': rumour in a slum upgrading project in Nairobi, Kenya. *Journal of Eastern African Studies* 9(2), 289–306.

De Koning, A. and Vollebergh, A. (2019). Ordinary Icons: Public discourses and everyday lives in an anxious Europe. *American Anthropologist* 121(2), 390–402.

De León, J. (2015). *The Land of Open Graves. Living and Dying on the Migrant Trail*. Oakland: University of California Press.

De Meis, C. (1999). Subjectivity, social suffering, liminality and suicide among prostitutes in Brazil. *Urban Anthropology* 28(1), 65–101.

De Meis, C. (2002). House and street: Narratives of identity in a liminal space among prostitutes in Brazil. *Ethos* 30(1/2), 3–24.

De Souza, R. (2019). *Feeding the Other: Whiteness, Privilege, and Neoliberal Stigma in food pantries*. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.

Dean, J. and Hastings, A. (2000). *Challenging images: Housing Estates, Stigma and Regeneration*. Bristol, The Policy Press.

Demiralp, S. (2016). The 'New Turkey'? Urban Renewal and Beyond. *Sociology of Islam* 4(3), 215–235.

Derville, G. (1997). La Stigmatisation des 'Jeunes de Banlieue'. *Communication et Langages* 113, 104–117.

Devereux, E., Haynes, A. and Power, M.J. (2011). At the Edge: Media Constructions of a Stigmatised Irish Housing Estate. *Journal of Housing and the Built Environment* 26(2), 123–142.

Dikeç, M. (2002). Police, politics, and the right to the city. *GeoJournal* 58(2-3), 91–98.

Doğan, R. (2017). Adalet geç geldi: Tarlabaşı yenileme projesi yargı kararıyla iptal. *Diken*, 31 October. URL: https://www.diken.com.tr/adalet-gec-geldi-Tarlabaşı-yenileme-p rojesi-yargi-karariyla-iptal/ [last accessed 07.09.2021].
Dorlach, T. (2019). Retrenchment of Social Policy by Other Means: A Comparison of Agricultural and Housing Policy in Turkey. *Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis* 21(3), 270–286.

Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Praeger.

Duin, L. van, Tzaninis, I., Snel, E. and Lindo, F. (2011). Marginality and Stigmatization: Identifying with the Neighbourhood in Rotterdam. Paper presented at the *Annual RC21 Conference: The Struggle to Belong: Dealing with Diversity in 21st Century Urban Settings*. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 2011.

Dünya İnşaat (2005). Beyoğlu Belediye Başkanı Demircan: Tarlabaşı'nda yıpranmış. URL: http://www.dunyainsaat.com.tr/haber/Beyoğlu-belediye-baskani-demircan-Tarlaba%C5%9F%C4%Bında-yipranmis-t/1332 [last accessed 14.12.2018].

Durkheim, E. (1965). What Is a Social Fact? In: *The Rules of Sociological Method*, Ed. G. Catlin. New York: The Free Press.

Eckert, J. (2012). Rumours of Rights. In: *Law against the State. Ethnographic Forays into Law's Transformations*. Eds. J. Eckert, B. Donahoe and C. Strümpell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eckert, J., Biner, Z., Donahoe, B. and Strümpell, C. (2012). Introduction: Law's Travels and TTransformations, In: *Law against the State. Ethnographic Forays into Law's Transformations*. Eds. J. Eckert, B. Donahoe and C. Strümpell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenlohr, P. (2011). The Anthropology of Media and the Question of Ethnic and Religious Pluralism. *Social Anthropology* 19 (1), 40–45.

Eksner, H.J. (2013). Revisiting the ‘ghetto’ in the New Berlin Republic: Immigrant youths, territorial stigmatisation and the devaluation of local educational capital, 1999–2010. *Social Anthropology* 21(3), 336–355.

Eldem, E. (2013). Istanbul as a Cosmopolitan City. Myths and Realities, In: *A Companion to Diaspora and Transnationalism*. Eds. A. Quayson and G. Daswani. Oxford: Blackwell.

Emlakdream – Emlak Haberleri (2014). *Tarlabaşın 360 Basin Toplantısı*. [Online video]. 17 November 2014. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohvL9EcAHTc [last accessed 13.12.2018].

Enlil, Z.M. (2011). The Neoliberal Agenda and the Changing Urban Form of Istanbul. International Planning Studies 16(1), 5–25.

Enloe, C. (1990). *Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics*. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ercan Sahin, N., Aslan, F. and Emiroglu, O.N. F. (2020). Health status, health behaviours and healthcare access of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender populations in Turkey. *Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences* 34(1), 239–246.

Ercan, S. (2005). En popüler semtin ‘stk’ sever başkanı. *Elele Dergisi*. URL: http://www.ahmetmisbahdemircan.com/files/uploads/basin/elele_dergi_mayis05.jpg [last accessed 07.01.2019].

Erdoğan, N. (2007). Yok-Sanma: Yoksulluk-Mâduniyet ve ‘Fark Yaraları’. In: *Yoksulluk Haleri*. Türkiye’de Kent Yoksulluğun Toplumsal Görünümleri*. Eds. A. Bora, K. Can, A. Çiğdem, N. Erdoğan, Ö. Laçiner, E. Ocak, M. Şen. Istanbul: İletişim.
Erenman, Ö., Eryoldaş, A. and Çorapçioğlu, K. (2008). *Bilirkişi Raporu Dosya No. 2008/1606*. Expert report prepared for the 3. Istanbul Administrative Court: Istanbul.

Ergun, N. (2004). Gentrification in Istanbul. *Cities* 21(5), 391–405.

Erman, T. (1998). Becoming ‘Urban’ or Remaining ‘Rural’: The Views of Turkish Rural-to-Urban Migrants on the ‘Integration’ Question. *International Journal of Middle East Studies* 30(4), 541–561.

Erman, T. (2001). The politics of squatter (*gecekondu*) studies in Turkey: The changing representations of rural migrants in the academic discourse. *Urban Studies* 38(7), 983–1002.

Erman, T. (2013). Gecekondu. In: *Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE*. Eds K. Fleet, G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas, E. Rowson. URL: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/bro wse/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3 [last accessed 19.09.2021].

Ersan, V. (2013). *1970’lerde Türkiye Solu*. Istanbul: İletişim.

Esen, B. and Gümüşcü, Ş. (2018). Building a comparative authoritarian regime: State-business relations in the AKP’s Turkey. *Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies* 20(4), 349–72.

Esen, O. (2005). Learning from Istanbul. Die Stadt Istanbul: Materielle Produktion und Produktion des Diskurses. In: *Self Service City: Istanbul*. Eds. O. Esen und S. Lanz. Berlin: b-books Verlag.

Esen, O. and Lanz, S. (eds.) (2005.) *Self Service City: Istanbul*, Berlin: b-books Verlag.

Espeland, R. H. (2011). Autochthony, rumor dynamics, and communal violence in western Uganda. *Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice* 55(3), 18–34.

Farsakoğlu, F. (1990). İstanbul Satişta: Gecekondu tacirleri 3 yeni bölgeyi pazarlamaya açtı. *Milliyet*, 26 March. URL: https://emlakkulisi.com/1990-yilinda-gecekondu-tacir leri-3-yeni-bolgeyi-pazarlamaya-acmis/357389 [last accessed 03.07.2019].

Fattah, K. N. and Walters, P. (2020). 'A good place for the poor!' Counternarratives to territorial stigmatisation from two informal settlements in Dhaka. *Social Inclusion*, 8(1), 55–65.

Feltwell, T., Vines, J., Salt, K., Blythe, M., Kirman, B., Barnett, J., Brooker, P., Lawson, S. (2017). Counter-discourse Activism on Social Media: The Case of Challenging ‘Poverty Porn’ Television. *Computer Supported Cooperative Work: An International Journal* 26(3), 345–385.

Fenster, T. (2005). Gender and the city: The different formations of belonging. In: *A companion to feminist geography*. Eds. L. Nelson and E. Saeger. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fikret-Pasa, S., Kabasakal, H. and Bodur, M. (2001). Society, organizations, and leadership in Turkey. *Applied Psychology: An International Review* 50, 559–589.

Fleming, P. and Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance. *Organization* 10, 157–179.

Frankenberg, R. (1993). Growing Up White: Feminism, Racism and the Social Geography of Childhood. *Feminist Review* 44(44), 51–84.

Fried M. (1969) Grieving for a lost home: Psychological costs of relocation. In: *Urban Review: The Record of Controversy*. Ed. J. Wilson. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Fullilove, M. (2004). *Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighbourhoods Hurt America*. New York: Ballantine Books.
Gallagher, L. (2011). 'He Had Always Believed That There Were Two Sorts of Women: The Decent Ones and the Rest': The Female Body, Dirt, and Domesticity in Pat Barker's Union Street. *Contemporary Women's Writing* 5(1), 36–51.

Garbin, D. and Millington, G. (2012). Territorial Stigma and the Politics of Resistance in a Parisian *Banlieue*: La Corneuve and Beyond. *Urban Studies* 49(10), 2067–2083.

Gebetaş, K. (2006). Beyoğlu, yatirimlarin gözdesi oluyor. *Natura Dergi*. URL: http://www.ahmetmisbahdemircan.com/files/uploads/basin/natura_subat06.jpg [last accessed 13.12.2018].

Geertz, C. (1973). *The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays*. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Geiselhart, K. (2017). Call it by its proper name! Territory-ism and territorial stigmatisation as a dynamic model: The case of Old Naledi. In: *Negative neighbourhood reputation and place attachment: The production and contestation of territorial stigma*. Eds. P. Kirkness and A. Tijé-Dra). New York: Routledge.

Ghertner, D. A. (2008). Analysis of new legal discourse behind Delhi's slum demolitions. *Economic and Political Weekly* 43(20), 57–66.

Ghertner, D. A. (2010). Calculating without numbers: Aesthetic governmentality in Delhi's slums. *Economy and Society* 39(2), 185–217.

Gilbert, M. (2010). Place, space, and agency: Moving beyond the homogenous 'ghetto'. *Urban Geography* 31(2), 148–152.

Giles, J. (1992). 'Playing Hard to Get:' Working-Class Women, Sexuality and Respectability in Britain, 1918-40. *Women's History Review* 1(2), 239–255.

Gilmore, D. (1987). *Aggression and Community: Paradoxes of Andalusian Culture*. New Haven, Yale University Press.

Gingeras, R. (2014). *Heroin, Organized Crime, and the Making of Modern Turkey*. London: Oxford University Press.

Glass, R. (1964). London: Aspects of Change. London: MacGibbon & Kee.

Glasze, G., Putz, R., Germes, M., Schirmel, H. and Brailich, A. (2012). 'The Same But Not The Same': The Discursive Constitution of Large Housing Estates in Germany, France and Poland. *Urban Geography* 33(8), 1192–1211.

Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. *Psychiatry* 18(3), 213–231.

Goffman, E. (1959). *The presentation of self in everyday life*. New York: Penguin Books.

Goffman, E. (1963). *Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity*. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Goldstein, D.M. (2012). *Outlawed. Between Security and Rights in a Bolivian City*. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Goldstein, D.M. (2016). Owners of the Sidewalk. Security and Survival in the Informal City. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Gönen, Z. and Yonucu, D. (2012). Legitimizing Violence and Segregation: Neoliberal Discourses on Crime and the Criminalization of Urban Poor Populations in Turkey. In: *Lumpencity: Discourses of Marginality | Marginalizing Discourses*. Eds. A. Bourke, T. Dafnos and M. Kip. Ottawa: Redquill Books.

Graham L.F., Padilla, M.B., Lopez, W.D., Stern, A.M., Peterson, J., Keene, D.E. (2016). Spatial Stigma and Health in Postindustrial Detroit. *International Quarterly of Community Health Education* 36(2), 105–113.
Gray, N. and Mooney, G. (2011). Glasgow's new urban frontier: 'Civilising' the population of 'Glasgow East'. *City* 15(1), 4–24.

Greenhill, K. M., and Oppenheim, B. (2013). Rumour Adoption and Diffusion in Conflict Zones: Evidence from Southeast Asia. Paper presented at the *Annual Meeting for the International Studies Association*, San Francisco, April 2013.

Grollmann, E. A. (2012). Multiple Forms of Perceived Discrimination and Health among Adolescents and Young Adults. *Journal of Health and Social Behavior* 53(2), 199–214.

Güleç, S. (2013). Tarlabaşı'na amiral gemisi. *Taraf*. URL: http://www.ahmetmisbahdemircan.com/files/uploads/basin/taraf1308.jpg [last accessed 14.12.2018].

Gunay, Z. (2010). Conservation versus Regeneration?: Case of European Capital of Culture 2010 Istanbul. *European Planning Studies* 18(8), 1173–1186.

Güner, E. (2021). Rethinking Whiteness in Turkey Through the AKP's Foreign Policy in Africa South of the Sahara. *Middle East Research and Information Project* 299. URL: https://merip.org/2021/08/rethinking-whiteness-in-turkey-through-the-akps-foreign-policy-in-africa-south-of-the-sahara/ [last accessed 20.08.2021].

Gunter, M. M. (1998). Susurluk: The connection between Turkey's intelligence community and organized crime. *International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence* 11(2), 119–141.

Gürel, M. Ö. (2009). Defining and living out the interior: the 'modern' apartment and the 'urban' housewife in Turkey during the 1950s and 1960s. *Gender, Place and Culture* 16(6), 703–722.

Habertürk (2014). Tarlabaşı'nda restorasyon değil devrim yapıyoruz. *Habertürk*, 1 December. URL: http://www.haberturk.com/gundem/haber/1014582-Tarlabaşında-restora syon-degil-devriyapiyoruz [last accessed 12.12.2018].

Hackworth J. and Smith, N. (2001). The changing state of gentrification. *Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie* 92(4), 464–477.

Haig, G. (2004). The invisibilisation of Kurdish: the other side of language planning in Turkey. In: *Die Kurden: Studien zu ihrer Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur*. Eds. S. Conermann and G. Haig. Schenefeld: EB-Verlag.

Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J.N., and Roberts, B. (1978). *Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order*. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Hallgrimsdottir, H.K., Phillips, R., Benoit, C. (2006). Fallen Women and Rescued Girls: Social Stigma and Media Narratives of the Sex Industry in Victoria, B.C., from 1980 to 2005. *Canadian Review of Sociology* 43(3), 265–280.

Hancock, L. and Mooney, G. (2013). 'Welfare ghettos' and the 'broken society': Territorial stigmatization in the contemporary UK. *Housing, Theory and Society* 30(1), 46–64.

Harris, P. J. (2003). Gatekeeping and remaking: The politics of respectability in African-American women's history and Black feminism. *Journal of Women's History*, 15(1), 212–220.

Hartigan, J. (1997). Establishing the Fact of Whiteness. *American Anthropologist* 99(3), 495–505.

Hastings A. and Dean, J. (2003). Challenging images: Tackling stigma through estate regeneration. *Policy & Politics* 31(2), 171–184.

Hastings, A. (2004). Stigma and Social Housing Estates: Beyond Pathological Explanations. *Journal of Housing and the Built Environment* 19(3), 233–254.
Higginbotham, E.B. (1993). *Righteous Discontent: Women's Movement in the Black Baptist Church, 1880-1920*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Holloway, S. and Mulherin, S. (2004). The Effect of Adolescent Neighborhood Poverty on Adult Employment. *Journal of Urban Affairs* 26(4), 427-454.

Horgan, M. (2018). Territorial stigmatization and territorial destigmatization: A Cultural Sociology of Symbolic Strategy in the Gentrification of Parkdale (Toronto). *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 42(3), 500-516.

Hull, M. (2012). *Government of Paper. The Materiality of Bureaucracy in Urban Pakistan*. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Human Rights Watch (2008a). 'We Need a Law for Liberation': Gender, Sexuality, and Human Rights in a Changing Turkey. *Human Rights Watch*, May. URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/turkey0508webwcover.pdf [last accessed 29.07.2021].

Human Rights Watch (2008b). "Closing Ranks against Accountability: Barriers to Tackling Police Violence in Turkey", *Human Rights Watch*, 5 December. URL: https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/12/05/closing-ranks-against-accountability/barriers-ta-ckling-police-violence-turkey [last accessed 29.07.2021].

Hürriyet (1973). Sultan Demircan Öldürüldü. *Hürriyet*. URL: http://www.gecmisgazete.com/haber/sultan-demircan-olduruldu-12674?tamBoyut [last accessed 03.07.2019].

Hürriyet (2010). Berhan Şimşek: Tarlabaşı'ndaki rant projesinin peşini bırakmayacağuz. *Hürriyet*, 11 August. URL: https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/berhan-simsek-Tarlabaşındaki-rant-projesinin-pesini-birakmayacagiz-15536253 [last accessed 18.01.2021].

Hürriyet Daily News (2014). Central Istanbul district Beyoğlu needs 25,000 new buildings, mayor says. *Hürriyet Daily News*, 18 November. URL: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/central-istanbul-district-Beyoğlu-needs-25000-new-buildings-mayors-ays-74492 [last accessed 07.01.2019].

Ince, E. (2011a). Claudia Apartmanı'ndan görünen Tarlabaşı. *Radikal*, 10 August. URL: http://www.radikal.com.tr/hayat/claudia-apartmanindan-gorunen-Tarlabaşı-10594 [last accessed 30.10.2019].

Ince, E. (2011b). 'Şanzelize'de Jirayr Amcâ'ya yer yok. *Radikal*, 15 December. URL: http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/sanzelizede-jirayr-amcaya-yer-yok-1072535/ [last accessed 11.03.2021].

Ince, E. (2011c). 'Jirayr Amcâ'ya Şanzelize'de ev. *Radikal*, 17 December. URL: http://www.radikal.com.tr/hayat/jirayr-amcaya-sanzelizede-ev-1072761/ [last accessed 19.10.2020].

Ince, E. (2012). 'Kamu yararına' milyon dolarlık ofisler. *Radikal*, 9 September. URL: http://www.radikal.com.tr/ekonomi/kamu-yararına-milyon-dolarlık-ofisler-1099694/[last accessed 11.10.2019].

İnsan Kaynagini Gelistirme Vakfi (2011). Seks İşçileri ve Yasalar. Türkiye'de seks iscilerine etkileri ve öneriler. URL: https://amargigroupistanbul.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/text1.pdf [last accessed 17.01.2021].

İşeri, G. (2008). Kent sürgünleri: Tarlabaşı. *Birgün*, 27 July. URL: https://www.birgun.net/haber/kent-surgunleri-Tarlabaşı-41938 [last accessed 02.10.2019].
Islam T. and Sakızlıoğlu, B. (2015). The making of, and resistance to, state-led gentrification in Istanbul, Turkey. In: *Global Gentrifications: Uneven development and displacement*. Eds. L. Lees, H.B. Shin, E. López-Morales. Malden: Polity Press.

Istanbul (2012). Tarlabası örnek olacak. *Istanbul Dergisi*. URL: http://www.ahmetmisbah.demircan.com/files/uploads/basin/istanbul_31032012.jpg [last accessed 14.12.2018].

Jacobs K, Arthurson, K., Cica, N., Greenwood, A. and Hastings, A. (2011). *The Stigmatisation of Social Housing: Findings from a Panel Investigation*. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Final Report No. 166. Melbourne, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited. URL: https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/166 [last accessed 18.09.2021].

Jaffe, R., Rhiney, K. and Francis, C. (2012). 'Throw Word': Graffiti, Space and Power in Kingston, Jamaica. *Caribbean Quarterly* 58(1), 1–20.

Jensen S.Q., Prieur, A., Skjott-Larsen, J. (2021). Living with Stigma: Spatial and Social Divisions in a Danish City. *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 45(1), 186–196.

Jensen, S.Q. and Christensen, A. (2012). Territorial stigmatization and local belonging: A study of the Danish neighbourhood Aalborg East. *City* 16(1-2), 74–92.

Jensen, T. and Tyler, I. (2015). 'Benefit broods': The cultural and political crafting of anti-welfare common sense. *Critical Social Policy* 35(4), 470–491.

Jensen, T. (2014). Welfare, commonsense, poverty and doxosophy. *Sociological Research Online* 19(3), 277–283.

Jones, C. and Novak, T. (1999). *Poverty, welfare and the disciplinary state*. London: Routledge.

Joshi, Y. (2012). Respectable Queerness. *Columbia Human Rights Law Review* 43(2), 415–467.

Junnilainen, L. (2020). Place Narratives and the Experience of Class: Comparing Collective Destigmatization Strategies in Two Social Housing Neighborhoods. *Social Inclusion* 8(1), 44–54.

Kalaycıoğlu, S. and Rittersberger-Tılıç, H. (2002). Yayısal Uyum Programlarıyla Ortaya Çıkan Yoksullukla Baş Etme Stratejileri. In: *Kentleşme, Göç ve Yoksulluk* ed. A. A. Dikmen. Ankara 7. Ulusal Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi, Imaj.

Kaler, A. (2009). Health interventions and the persistence of rumour: the circulation of sterility stories in african public health campaigns. *Social Science & Medicine* (1982) 68(9), 1711–1719.

Kallin, H. and Slater, T. (2014). Activating Territorial Stigma: Gentrifying Marginality on Edinburgh's Periphery. *Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space* 46(6), 1351–1368.

Kalnoky, B. (2009). *Istanbulvs Räuberhöhle. Die Welt*, 4 October. URL: https://www.welt.de/welt_print/politik/article4727131/Istanbulvs-Räuberhoehle.html [last accessed 14.12.2018].

Kapferer, J. N. (1990). *Rumors: Uses, Interpretations, and Images*. London: Transaction Publishers.

Kapilashrami, A., Hill, S. and Meer, N. (2015). What can health inequalities researchers learn from an intersectionality perspective? Understanding social dynamics with an inter-categorical approach. *Social Theory and Health* 13(3-4), 288–307.

Kaptan, Ö. (1994). *Beyoğlu. Kısa geçmişi, argosu*. Istanbul: Iletişim.
Karaman, O. and Islam, T. (2012). On the Dual Nature of Intra-Urban Borders: The Case of a Romani Neighborhood in Istanbul. *Cities*, 29(4), 234–243.

Katz, M. (1989). *The Undeserving Poor. From the War on Poverty to the War on Welfare*. New York: Pantheon.

Kavas, S. (2019). The Gendered Division of Housework and Fertility Intention in Turkey. *Genus*, 75(1), 1–25.

Kawachi, I. and Berkman, L.F. (2003). *Neighborhoods and health*. New York, Oxford University Press.

Kaya, C., Yagiz, B.Y. and Yagiz, B. (2011). Design in Informal Economies: Craft Neighborhoods in Istanbul. *Design Issues*, 27(2), 59–71.

Kaya, G. (2008). Tarlabaşı vatandaşın görüşleriyle şekilleniyor. *Türkiye Gazetesi*, 10 July. URL: https://v3.arkitera.com/h31475-Tarlabaşı-vatandasin-gorusleriyle-sekilleniyo r.html [last accessed 23.03.2021].

Kaya, S. (2011). Beyoğlu'nda beyaz muhallebide kokain servisi. *Hürriyet*, 11 June. URL: https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/Beyoğlunda-beyaz-muhallebide-kokain-servisi-18007569 [last accessed 31.07.2021].

Kearns A., Kearns, O. and Lawson, L. (2013). Notorious places: Image, reputation, stigma. The role of newspapers in area reputations for social housing estates. *Housing Studies* 28(4), 579–598.

Keene, D.E. and Padilla, M.B. (2014). Spatial stigma and health inequality. *Critical Public Health* 24(4), 392–404.

Keith, M. (2005). *After the Cosmopolitan: Multicultural Cities and the Future of Racism*. London: Routledge.

Kentsel A.Ş. (2008). *Tarlabaşı Stratejik Sosyal Plan 2008–2010*. URL: https://www.kents elstrateji.com/wp-content/uploads/E-08_TarlabaşıStratejikSosyalPlan.pdf [last ac- cessed 17.08.2021].

Keyder, Ç. (2005). Social exclusion in Istanbul. *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 29(1), 124–134.

Kipfer S. and Petrunia, J. (2009). ‘Recolonization’ and public housing: A Toronto case study. *Studies in Political Economy* 83(1), 111–139.

Kirişçi, K. (1998). Turkey. In: *Internally displaced people: A global survey*. Ed. J. Hampton. London: Earthscan Publications.

Kirkness, P. (2014). The cités strike back: Restive response to territorial taint in the French banlieues. *Environment and Planning A* 46(6), 1281–1296.

Kirkness, P. and A. Tijé-Dra (2017b). Voices from the quartiers populaires: Belonging to stigmatised French urban neighbourhoods. In: *Negative Neighbourhood Reputation and Place Attachment. The Production and Contestation of Territorial Stigma*. Eds. P. Kirkness and A. Tijé-Dra. New York: Routledge.

Kirkness, P. and Tijé-Dra, A. (eds.) (2017a). *Negative Neighbourhood Reputation and Place At- tachment. The Production and Contestation of Territorial Stigma*. New York: Routledge.

Kirsch, S. (2002a). Rumour and Other Narratives of Political Violence in West Papua. *Crit- tique of Anthropology* 22(1), 53–79.

Kirsch, S. (2002b). Anthropology and Advocacy: A Case Study against the Campaign of the Ok Tedi Mine. *Critique of Anthropology* 22(2), 175–200.
Köksal, S. (2005). Das Schloss der Feenkönigin. 'Zugezogene' und 'Etablierte' Istanbuls im Visier türkischer Literatur. In: *Self Service City: Istanbul*. Eds. O. Esen und S. Lanz. Berlin: b-books Verlag.

Kolling, M. (2019). Becoming favela: Forced Resettlement and Reverse Transitions of Urban Space in Brazil. *City & Society* 31(3), 413–435.

Kornberg D. (2016). The structural origins of territorial stigma: Water and racial politics in metropolitan Detroit, 1950s-2010s. *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 40(2), 263–283.

Koven, S. (2004). *Slumming: sexual and social politics in Victorian London*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kudla, D. and Courey, M. (2019). Managing territorial stigmatization from the 'middle': The revitalization of a post-industrial Business Improvement Area. *Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space* 51(2), 351–373.

Kulesza, M., Matsuda, M., Ramirez, J.J., Werntz, A.J., Teachman, B.A., and Lindgren, K.P. (2016). Towards greater understanding of addiction stigma: intersectionality with race/ethnicity and gender. *Drug and Alcohol Dependence* 169, 85–91.

Kuray, Z. (2008). Belediye Tarlabaşı'nı açık çöplüğe çevirdi. *Birgün*, 22 August. URL: https://www.birgun.net/haber/belediye-Tarlabaşı-ni-acik-copluge-cevirdi-42346 [last accessed 02.10.2019].

Kurban, D., Yükseker, D., Celik, A.B., Ünalan, T. and Aker, A.T. (eds.) (2007). *Coming to Terms with Forced Migration: Post-Replacement Restitution of Citizenship Rights in Turkey*. Istanbul: TESEV.

Kuyucu T. and Ünsal, Ö. (2010). 'Urban transformation' as state-led property transfer: an analysis of two cases of urban renewal in Istanbul. *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 47(7), 1479–1499.

Kwesell, A. and Jung, J.Y. (2019). A multidimensional analysis of stigma: Findings from a qualitative study of Fukushima residents following Japan's 2011 nuclear disaster. *Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research* 2(2), 233–258.

Lamont, M. (2000). *The Dignity of Working Men*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lamont, M., Silva, G.M., Welburn, J.S., Guetzkow, J., Mizrachi, N., Herzog, H., Reis, E. (2016). *Getting Respect: Responding to Stigma and Discrimination in the United States, Brazil, and Israel*. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Lanz, S. (2005). Wenn du es in Istanbul schaffst, schaffst du es überall. Über Städter und Anti-Städter, Dorf und Metropole. In: *Self Service City: Istanbul*. Eds. O. Esen und S. Lanz. Berlin: b-books Verlag.

Lanz, S. (2015). Pluralistisches Theoretisieren der Stadt und ihrer Verknüpfungen mit dem Kolonialen. Replik. *Sub*|*Urban*. *Zeitschrift Für Kritische Stadtforschung* 3(1), 119–128.

Leary, M.R. and Kowalski, R.M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two component models. *Psychological Bulletin* 107(1), 34–47.

Lees L., Slater, T., Wyly, E. (2008). *Gentrification*. London: Routledge.

Lelandais, G.E. (2014). Space and identity in resistance against neoliberal urban planning in Turkey. *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 38(5), 1785–1806.
Letsch, C. (2011). Turkish Roma make way for property developers in historic Istanbul district. *The Guardian*, 9 November. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/09/sulukule-roma-housing-row-istanbul [last accessed 13.11.2020].

Letsch, C. (2013). Kurdish guards fear for jobs and lives when Turkey and PKK make peace. *The Guardian*, 22 May. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/22/turkey-kurds-guards-peace [last accessed 21.09.2021].

Levitas, R. (2005). *The Inclusive Society?* London: Macmillan.

Li, E.P.H. and Prasad, A. (2018). From Wall 1.0 to Wall 2.0: Graffiti, Social Media, and Ideological Acts of Resistance and Recognition Among Palestinian Refugees. *American Behavioral Scientist* 62(4), 493–511.

Link B.G. and Phelan, J.C. (2014). Stigma Power. *Social Science & Medicine* (1982) 103, 24–32.

Link, B.G. and Phelan, J.C. (2001). Conceptualizing Stigma. *Annual Review of Sociology* 27(1), 363–385.

Lister, R. (2004). *Poverty*. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Liu, S. and Blomley, N. (2013). Making news and making space: Framing Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. *The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien* 57(2), 119–132.

Loyd J.M. and Bonds, A. Where Do Black Lives Matter? Race, Stigma, and Place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. *Sociological Review* 66(4), 898–918.

MacDonald R., Shildrick, T., Webster, C., Simpson, D. (2005). Growing Up in Poor Neighbourhoods: The Significance of Class and Place in the Extended Transitions of 'Socially Excluded' Young Adults. *Sociology* 39(5), 873–891.

MacDonald, R., Shildrick, T. and Furlong, A. (2013). In search of ‘intergenerational cultures of worklessness’: Hunting the yeti and shooting zombies. *Critical Social Policy* 34(2), 199–220.

Maessen, E. (2017). Reading Landscape in Beyoğlu and Tarlabaşı: Engineering a ‘Brand New’ Cosmopolitan Space, 1980–2013. *International Journal for History, Culture and Modernity* 5(1), 47–67.

Maestri, G. (2017). Extensive territorial stigma and ways of coping with it: The stigmatisation of the Roma in Italy and France. In: *Negative Neighbourhood Reputation and Place Attachment. The Production and Contestation of Territorial Stigma*. Eds. P. Kirkness and A. Tijé-Dra. New York: Routledge.

Magnarella, P.J. (1973). The Reception of Swiss Family Law in Turkey. *Anthropological Quarterly* 46(2), 100–116.

Marcus, A. (2007). *Blood and Belief: the PKK and the Kurdish Fight for Independence*. New York and London: New York University Press.

Mckenzie, L. (2012). A Narrative from the Inside, Studying St Anns in Nottingham: Belonging, Continuity and Change. *The Sociological Review* 60(3), 457–475.

Mee, K. and Wright, S. (2009). Geographies of belonging. *Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space* 41(4), 772–779.

Metzger, J. (2000). Planned Abandonment: The Neighborhood Life-Cycle Theory and National Urban Policy. *Housing Policy Debate* 11(1), 7–40.

Miles, A. (2009). Shocked by Slumdog's Poverty Porn. *The Times*, 14 January. URL: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/columnists/article2048284.ece [last accessed 04.05.2021].
Mills, A. (2006). Boundaries of the nation in the space of the urban: landscape and social memory in Istanbul. *Cultural Geographies* 13(3), 367–394.

Mills, A. (2007) Gender and *Mahalle* (Neighborhood) Space in Istanbul. *Gender, Place and Culture* 14(3), 335–354.

Mills, A. (2010). *Streets of Memory. Landscape, Tolerance, and National Identity in Istanbul*. Athens and London: The University of Georgia Press.

Morley, D. (2001). Belongings: Place, space and identity in a mediated world. *European Journal of Cultural Studies* 4(4), 425–448.

Morris, S.M. (2014). *Close Kin and Distant Relatives: The Paradox of Respectability in Black Women's Literature*. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Müftüler-Baç, M. and Keyman, F. (2012). The era of dominant party politics. *Journal of Democracy* 23(1), 85–99.

Müller, M. (2016). *The Punitive City. Privatized Policing and Protection in Neoliberal Mexico*. London: Zed Books.

Mutluer, N. (2011a). Disposable Masculinities in Istanbul. In: *Global Masculinities and Manhood*. Eds. R.L. Jackson and M.Balaji. Urbana, Chicago, and Springfield: University of Illinois Press.

Mutluer, N. (2011b). *Tactics in between: Gendered citizenship and everyday life of internally displaced men in Tarlabaşı, Istanbul*. Doctoral Thesis, Central European University Budapest.

Nagel, J. (1998). Masculinity and Nationalism: Gender and Sexuality in the Making of Nations. *Ethnic and Racial Studies* 21(2), 242–269.

Nayak, A. (2019). Re-scripting Place: Managing Social Class Stigma in a Former Steel-Making Region. *Antipode* 51(3), 927–948.

Nédélec, P. (2017). The stigmatisation of Las Vegas and its inhabitants. The other side of the coin. In: *Negative Neighbourhood Reputation and Place Attachment. The Production and Contestation of Territorial Stigma*. Eds. P. Kirkness and A. Tijé-Dra. New York: Routledge.

NTV (2004). Erdoğan: Kaçak yapılara acımayın. NTV, 14 August. URL: http://arsiv.ntv.co.m.tr/news/282454.asp?om=-2AS [last accessed 09.08.2021].

NTV (2010). 'Tesadüflerin cirit attığı bir proje değil!' NTV, 26 August. URL: https://www.ntv.com.tr/ekonomi/tesadüflerin-cirit-attigi-bir-proje-degil,UzQJ6ctkwU-MwcAR047]A [last accessed 20.09.2019].

Öktem, K. (2011). *Angry Nation. Turkey since 1989*. London and New York: Zed Books.

Öniş, Z. (2019). Turkey Under the Challenge of State Capitalism: The Political Economy of the Late AKP Era. *Southeast European and Black Sea Studies* 19(2), 201–225.

Ördek, K. (ed.) (2016). *Türkiye'de Trans*\* Olmak: Dislanma, Ayrımcılık ve Şiddet. Ankara, Kırmingiz Şemsiye Cinsel Sağlık ve İnsan HaklarixDernegi.

Osborn, M. (2008). Fuelling the Flames: Rumour and Politics in Kibera. *Journal of Eastern African Studies* 2(2), 315–327.

Osterlund, P.B (2017). Asır: Meze Master. *Culinary Backstreets*, 2 January. URL: https://culinarybackstreets.com/cities-category/istanbul/2017/asir/ [last accessed 14.12.2018].

Özbek, M. (2010). The Regulation of Prostitution in Beyoğlu (1875–1915). *Middle Eastern Studies* 46(4), 555–568.
Öztürk, E. (2012). Dönüştüremeyen 2014'te gider. *Akşam*, 21 May. URL: https://www.aksam.com.tr/guncel/donusturemeyen-2014te-gider--117068h/haber-117068 [last accessed 12.12.2018].

Özyegin, G. (2000). *Untidy Gender: Domestic Service in Turkey*. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Palmer C., Ziersch, A., Arthurson, K. and Baum, F. (2004). Challenging the stigma of public housing: Preliminary findings from a qualitative study in South Australia. *Urban Policy and Research* 22(4), 411–426.

Patillo, M. (2009). Revisiting Loïc Wacquant's Urban Outcasts. *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 33(3), 858–864.

Paton, K. (2014). *Gentrification: A Working-Class Perspective*. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate.

Paton, K. (2018). Beyond legacy: Backstage stigmatisation and ‘trickle-up’ politics of urban regeneration. *The Sociological Review* 66(4), 919–934.

Paton, K. and Cooper, V. (2016). It's the State, Stupid: 21st Gentrification and State-Led Evictions. *Sociological Research Online*, 21(3), 134–140.

Paton, K., McCall, V. and Mooney, G. (2016). Place revisited: Class, stigma and urban restructuring in the case of Glasgow's Commonwealth Games. *The Sociological Review* 65(4), 578–594.

Patton, M.J. (2007). AKP Reform Fatigue in Turkey: What has happened to the EU Process? *Mediterranean Politics* 12(3), 339–358.

Pearce, J. (2012). The 'Blemish of Place': Stigma, Geography and Health Inequalities: A Commentary on Tabuchi, Fukuhara and Iso. *Social Science and Medicine* 75(11), 1921–1924.

Pereira V.B., J. Queirós (2014). 'It's Not a Bairro, is It?': Subsistence Sociability and Focused Avoidance in a Public Housing Estate. *Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space* 46(6), 1297–1316.

Pérouse, J.-F. (2004). Deconstructing the gecekondu. *European Journal of Turkish Studies* [Online] 1.

Pérouse, J.-F. (2010). Les migrations kurdes à Istanbul. Un objet de recherche à reconstruire. *Études rurales* 2(186), 169–180.

Peyton, J. and Dyce, M. (2017). Colony on Main: history and the ruins of imperialism in Vancouver's restaurant frontier. *Cultural Geographies* 24(4), 589–609.

Pfeil, G. (2012). Sarax and the City. In: *The Anthropology of Ignorance*. Eds. C. High, A.H. Kelly and J. Mair. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pfeil, G. (2020). *Sarax and Sutura: Alms and the value of discretion in Dakar, Senegal*. Doctoral Thesis, University of Chicago.

Pinkster, F.M. (2016). Narratives of neighbourhood change and loss of belonging in an urban garden village. *Social & Cultural Geography* 17(7), 871–891.

Pinkster, F.M., Ferier, M.S. and Hoekstra, M.S. (2020). On the stickiness of territorial stigma: diverging experiences in Amsterdam's most notorious neighbourhood. *Antipode* 52(2), 522–541.

Pino, N. and Wiatrowski, M. (2006). *Democratic policing in transitional and developing countries*. Basingstoke, Ashgate.
Pitcan, M., Marwick, A.E., boyd, d. (2018). Performing a Vanilla Self: Respectability Politics, Social Class, and the Digital World. *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication* 23(3), 163–179.

Porteous, J.D. and Smith, S. (2001). *Domicide: The Global Destruction of Home*. London, McGill-Queens University Press.

Posta (2007). Beyoğlu Türkiye'nin kültür merkezi yapacağım. *Posta*. URL: http://www.ahmetmisbahdemircan.com/files/uploads/basin/posta_09.09.2007.jpg [last accessed 12.12.2018].

Queirós, J. and Pereira, V.B. (2018). Voices in the revolution: Resisting territorial stigma and social relegation in Porto’s historic centre (1974–1976). *The Sociological Review* 66(4), 857–876.

Radikal (2008). Tarlabaşı'nda sona doğru... *Radikal*, 12 January. URL: http://mimdap.org/2008/01/tarlabathynda-sona-dodhru/ [last accessed 18.09.2021].

Raj, J. (2019). Rumour and gossip in a time of crisis: Resistance and accommodation in a South Indian plantation frontier. *Critique of Anthropology* 39(1), 52–73.

Rampton, J., McAteer, N. Mozuraityte, N., Levai, M., Akçali, S. (2011). Ex-Post Evaluation of 2010 European Capitals of Culture Final report for the European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture. *Ecorys*, August 2011. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/culture/resources/document-library [last accessed 20.05.2021].

Reay, D. and Lucey, H. (2000). 'I don't really like it here but I don't want to be anywhere else': Children and inner city council estates. *Antipode* 32(4), 410–428.

Republic of Turkey Law 5326, (2005). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5326.pdf [last accessed 12.02.2021].

Republic of Turkey Law 5366, (2005). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5366.pdf [last accessed 18.09.2021].

Republic of Turkey, Law 5327, Article 184 (2004). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5237.pdf [last accessed 23.05.2021].

Rivas-Alonso, C. (2021). *State-led gentrification and time in Okmeydanı, Istanbul: Resisting uncertainties through everyday solidarities*. Doctoral Thesis, Leicester University.

Rivers-Moore, M. (2010). But the kids are okay: Motherhood, consumption and sex work in neo-liberal Latin America. *The British Journal of Sociology* 61(4), 716–736.

Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Inside rumor: A Personal Journey. *The American Psychologist* 46(5), 484–496.

Roth, M.P., and Sever, M. (2007). The Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) as Criminal Syndicate: Funding Terrorism Through Organized Crime, a Case Study. *Studies in Conflict and Terrorism* 30(10), 901–920.

Ruggiero, V. (2007). Marginal economies and collective action. *City* 11(3), 391–398.

Rüzgâr, A. (2018). Tarlabaşı: Koruma Kültüründe Bir Dönüm Noktası. In: Tarlabaşı. Bir Kent Mücadelesi. Eds. H. Akarca and R. Doğan. Istanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi.

Sabah (2014). Tarlabaşı 50 kat değerlendi. *Sabah*, 19 November. URL: https://www.sabah.com.tr/emlak/2014/11/19/Tarlabaşı-50-kat-degerlendi [last accessed 14.12.2018].

Sabancıoğlu, M. (2003). Jacques Pervititch and his insurance maps of Istanbul. *Dubrovnik Annals* 7, 89–98.
Safransky, S. (2014). Greening the urban frontier: Race, property, and resettlement in Detroit. *Geoforum* 56, 237–248.

Sahin, O. and S. Akboga (2019). Ethnic identity and the perception of the police in Turkey: the case of Turks and Kurds. *Policing and Society* 29(8), 985–1000.

Sakızlıoğlu, B. (2014a). *A Comparative Look at Residents' Displacement Experiences: The Cases of Amsterdam and Istanbul*. Doctoral Thesis, Utrecht University.

Sakızlıoğlu, B. (2014b). Inserting Temporality into the analysis of displacement: Living under the threat of displacement. *Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie* 105(2), 206–220.

Sakızlıoğlu, B. and Uitermark, J. (2014). The Symbolic Politics of Gentrification: the restructuring of Stigmatized Neighborhoods in Amsterdam and Istanbul. *Environment and Planning A* 46:6, 1369–1385.

Samper, D. (2002). Cannibalizing Kids: Rumor and Resistance in Latin America. *Journal of Folklore Research* 39(1), 1–34.

Sanford, V. (2006). Introduction. In: *Engaged Observer. Anthropology, Advocacy, and Activism*. Eds. V. Sanford and A. Angel-Ajani. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: Rutgers University Press.

Sanford, V. and Angel-Ajani, A. (eds.) (2006). *Engaged Observer. Anthropology, Advocacy, and Activism*. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London, Rutgers University Press.

Santos, A. M. S. (2021). Violence, Rumor and Elusive Trust in Mocímboa da Praia, Mozambique, *Social Analysis* [online], 1–23.

Sarı, G. (2007). Belediye Başkanı Ahmet Misbah Demircan: Beyoğlu Işığını kaybetmeyecek. *Haberist*. URL: http://www.ahmetmisbahdemircan.com/files/uploads/basin/haberist_01.02.07.jpg [last accessed 07.01.2019].

Sarıoğlu, E. (2013). Gendering the Organization of Home-based work in Turkey: Classical versus Familial Patriarchy. *Gender, Work & Organization* 20(5), 479–497.

Sarıoğlu, E. (2013). Gendering the Organization of Home-based Work in Turkey: Classical versus Familial Patriarchy. *Gender, Work and Organization* 20(5), 479–497.

Scambler, G. (2018). Heaping Blame on Shame: ‘Weaponising Stigma’ for Neoliberal Times. *The Sociological Review* 66(4), 766–782.

Schiffauer, W. (2015). *Schule, Moschee, Elternhaus*. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Schultz Larsen, T. (2014). Copenhagen's West End a 'Paradise Lost': The political production of territorial stigmatization in Denmark. *Environment and Planning A* 46(6), 1386–1402.

Schwartz, M. J. and Dovidio, J. F. (1984). Reading between the Lines. Personality Correlates of Graffiti Writing. *Perceptual and Motor Skills* 59(2), 395–398.

Scott, J. (1985). *Weapons of the Weak. Everyday forms of peasant resistance*. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Scott, J. (1990). *Domination and the Arts of Resistance. Hidden Transcripts*. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Secor, A. (2004). 'There is an Istanbul That Belongs to Me': Citizenship, Space, and Identity in the City. *Annals of the Association of American Geographers* 94(2), 352–368.

Selek, P. (2001). *Maskeler, Süvariler, gacilar*. Ülker Street: Bir Alt Kültürün Dışlanma Mekanı. Istanbul: Aykırı Araştırma Yayıncılık.

Selek, P. (2009). *Sürüne sürüne erkek olmak*. Istanbul: Iletişim.
Sennet, R. and Cobb, J. (1972). *The Hidden Injuries of Class*. Cambridge, London, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Sernhede, O. (2011). School, Youth Culture and Territorial Stigmatization in Swedish Metropolitan Districts. *Young* 19(2), 159–80.

Shibutani, T. (1966). *Improvised news: a sociological study of rumor* (Ser. The advanced studies in sociology). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Shildrick, T. (2019). Lessons from Grenfell: Poverty Propaganda, Stigma and Class Power. *The Sociological Review* 66(4), 783–798.

Shildrick, T. and R. MacDonald (2013). Poverty talk: How people experiencing poverty deny their poverty and why they blame the poor. *The Sociological Review*, 61(2), 285–303.

Şimşek, A. (2002). Mahallenin hayaletleri. *Istanbul Dergisi* 40, 97–101.

Sisson A. and Maginn, P.J. (2018). ‘Reclaiming Northbridge’: Urban (dis)order and territorial stigmatisation in Perth’s nighttime economy precinct. *Urban Policy and Research* 36(2), 123–137.

Sisson, A. (2020). Territory and territorial stigmatisation: On the production, consequences and contestation of spatial disrepute. *Progress in Human Geography* 45(4), 1–23.

Siyah Pembe Üçgen (2012). *80’lerde Lubunya Olmak*. Izmir: Siyah Pembe Üçgen Tarih Dizisi.

Skeggs, B. (1997). *Formations of Class & Gender. Becoming Respectable*. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, Sage.

Slater T. (2004). North American gentrification? Revanchist and emancipatory perspectives explored. *Environment and Planning A* 36(7), 1191–1213.

Slater, T. (2014). The myth of ‘Broken Britain’: Welfare reform and the production of ignorance. *Antipode* 46(4), 948–969.

Slater, T. (2015). Territorial Stigmatisation: Symbolic Defamation and the Contemporary Metropolis. In: *The Handbook of New Urban Studies*. Eds. J. Hannigan, G. Richards. London, Sage Publications.

Slater, T. (2017). Territorial stigmatisation, gentrification and class struggle: An interview with Tom Slater. In: *Negative Neighbourhood Reputation and Place Attachment. The Production and Contestation of Territorial Stigma*. Eds. P. Kirkness and A. Tijé-Dra. New York: Routledge.

Slater, T. (2018). The invention of the ‘sink estate’: Consequential categorisation and the UK housing crisis. *The Sociological Review*, 66(4), 877–897.

Slater, T. and Anderson, N. (2012). The Reputational Ghetto: Territorial Stigmatisation in St. Paul’s, Bristol. *Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers* 37(4), 530–546.

Smets, P. and Kusenbach, M. (2020). New Research on Housing and Territorial Stigma: Introduction to the Thematic Issue. *Social Inclusion* 8(1), 1–7.

Smith, N. (1979). Toward a theory of gentrification. A back to the city movement by capital not people. *Journal of the American Planning Association* 45(4), 538–548.

Smith, N. (1996). *The new urban frontier. Gentrification and the revanchist city*. London and New York: Routledge.

Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy. *Antipode* 34(3), 427–450.
Solmaz, E. (2012). Tarlabaşı adam olmaz diyenler çok şaşıracak. *Vatan*, 26 August. URL: http://www.gazetevatan.com/Tarlabaşı-adam-olmaz-diyenler-cok-sasiracak-733432-pazar-vatan/ [last accessed 12.12.2018].

Soyaltin, D. (2017). Public sector reforms to fight corruption in Turkey: a case of failed Euroization? *Turkish Studies* 18(3), 439–458.

Speed, S. (2006). Indigenous Women and Gendered Resistance in the Wake of Acteal: A Feminist Activist Research Perspective. In: *Engaged Observer. Anthropology, Advocacy, and Activism*. Eds. V. Sanford and A. Angel-Ajani. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: Rutgers University Press.

Spivak, G.C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In: *Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture*. Eds. C. Nelson and L. Grossberg. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Stallybrass, P. and White, A. (1986). *The Politics and Poetics of Transgression*. New York: Cornell University Press.

Star (2012). Tarlabaşı zehirlenmiş prenses simdi onu tedavi ediyoruz. *Star*, 17 December. URL: https://www.taksim360.com.tr/tr/medya/basin-arsivi?y=2012 [last accessed 18.09.2021].

Stewart, P. J. and Strathern, A. (2003). *Witchcraft, Sorcery, Rumors and Gossip*. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stoler, A.L. (1992). ‘In Cold Blood’: Hierarchies of credibility and the politics of colonial narratives *Representations* 37(37), 151–189.

Süsoy, Y. (1987). Soğukçeşme platoları tarihi surları rezil etti. *Milliyet*, 27 September 1987, 5.

Tabak, S. (2013). Dönüşümün oscarı Tarlabaşı 360’in *Sabah*. URL: http://www.ahmet.misbahdemircan.com/files/uploads/basin/sabah_27092013.jpeg [last accessed 13.12.2018].

Taksim, 360 Office/residence online catalogue. Available online at: http://www.taksim360.com.tr/en (accessed 12 February 2021).

Tamdoğan-Abel, I. (2002). Osmanlı döneminden günümüz Türkiyesine ‘bizim mahalle’. *Istanbul Dergisi* 40, 66–70.

Tarlabasi Istanbul (2012, June 24). David Harvey Interview: Tarlabasi Istanbul [Video]. Vimeo. http://davidharvey.org/2012/06/video-interview-with-Tarlabaşı-istanbul/ [last accessed 06.12.2021].

Temizkan, M. (2012). Beyoğlu'nda dönüşüm Talimhane ile başladı sokak sokak yayılacak. *Hürriyet Emlak*. URL: http://www.ahmetmisbahdemircan.com/files/uploads/basin/hurriyet_emlak_29042012.jpg [last accessed 07.01.2019].

Tice, D.M., Butler, J.L., Muraven, M.B., and Stillwell, A.M. (1995). When modesty prevails: Differential favorability of self-presentation to friends and strangers. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology* 69(6), 1120–1138.

Toklucu, M. (2015). Kuaför Sabri Bilgilendiriyor. In: *Bir Berber Bir Berbere...* Eds. T. Bora and A. Erkoçak, Istanbul: Iletişim.

Tomlinson, M., Walker, R. and Williams, G. (2008). The relationship between poverty and childhood well-being in Great Britain. *Barnet Papers in Social Research*. Oxford: Department of Social Policy and Social Work.
TVT research project (2016). *Trans Murder Monitoring results: TMM IDAHOT 2016 Update. Transrespect versus Transphobia Worldwide*. URL: http://transrespect.org/en/trans-murder-monitoring/tmm-resources/ [last accessed 01.02.2023].

Tyler, I. (2013). *Revolting Subjects. Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain*. London and New York: Zed Books.

Tyler, I. and Slater, T. (2018). Rethinking the sociology of stigma. *The Sociological Review Monographs* 66(4), 721–743.

Uitermark J., J.W. Duyvendak, R. Kleinhans (2007). Gentrification as a governmental strategy: social control and social cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam. *Environment and Planning A* 39(1), 125–141.

Ulueren, Ş.D. (2006). Belediye olarak akıllı kent projesiyle Türkiye'de bir ilki gerçekleştiriyoruz. *Seramik*. URL: http://www.ahmetmisbahdemircan.com/files/uploads/asin/seramik_mart_nisan06.jpg [last accessed 07.01.2021].

Ünlü, A., Alkışer, Y. and Edgü, E. (2000). Fiziksel ve Sosyokültürel Değişim Bağlamında Beyoğlu'nda Suç Olgusunun Değerlendirilmesi. *ITU-Project No: 1094*, Istanbul.

Ünlühısarcıklı, Ö. (2001). Training on the job in Istanbul: A study of skills acquisition in carpentry and car-repair workshops. *International Review of Education – Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft – Revue Internationale de l'Education* 47(5), 443–458.

Ünsal, Ö. (2010). 'TOKİ'nin Daha Fazla Özgürleşmeye İhtiyacı Var M1?' *Yeni Mimar* 87. Istanbul: Depo Yayıncılık.

Ünsal, Ö. (2013). *Inner-city Regeneration and the Politics of Resistance in Istanbul: A Comparative Analysis of Sulukule and Tarlabaşı*. Doctoral Thesis, City University London.

Ünsal, Ö. and Kuyucu, T. (2010). Challenging the Neoliberal Urban Regime: Regeneration and Resistance in Basibüyük and Tarlabaşı. In: *Orienting Istanbul. Cultural Capital of Europe?* Eds. D. Göktürk, L. Soysal, I. Türeli. London and New York: Routledge.

Valentine, G. (2008). Living with Difference: Reflections on Geographies of Encounter. *Progress in Human Geography* 32(3), 323–337.

van Bruinessen, M. (1998). Shifting national and ethnic identities: The Kurds in Turkey and the European Diaspora. *Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs* 18 (1), 39–52.

van Dobben Schoon, D. (2014). 'Sulukule is the gun and we are its bullets': Urban renewal and Romani identity in Istanbul. *City* 18(6), 655–666.

van Gent W., Hochstenbach, C., Uitermark, J. (2017). Exclusion as urban policy: The Dutch 'act on extraordinary measures for urban problems'. *Urban Studies* 55(11), 2337–2353.

Varas-Díaz N., Serrano-García, I., Toro-Alfonso, J. (2005). AIDS-Related Stigma and Social Interaction: Puerto Ricans Living With HIV/AIDS. *Qualitative Health Research* 15(2), 169–187.

Verdouw J and Flanagan, K. (2019). 'I call it the dark side': Stigma, social capital and social networks in a disadvantaged neighbourhood. *Urban Studies* 56(16), 3375–3393.

Vitale, A.S. (2017). *The end of policing*. London and New York: Verso.

Wacquant, L. (2007). Territorial Stigmatization in the Age of Advanced Marginality. *Thesis Eleven* Number 91(1), 66–77.

Wacquant, L. (2008). *Urban Outcasts*. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Wacquant, L. (2009a). The body, the ghetto and the penal state. *Qualitative Sociology* 32(1), 101–129.
Wacquant, L. (2009b). *Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity*. Durham: Duke University Press.

Wacquant, L. (2010). Urban Desolation and Symbolic Denigration in the Hyperghetto. *Social Psychology Quarterly* 73(3), 215 – 219.

Wacquant. L., Slater, T. and Pereira, V. (2014). Territorial Stigmatization in Action. *Environment and Planning A* 46(6), 1270–1280.

Waldner, L.K. and Dobratz, B.A. (2013). Graffiti as a form of contentious political participation. *Sociology Compass* 7(5), 377–389.

Ward, J. (2008). *Respectably queer: Diversity culture in LGBT activist organizations*. Nashville, Vanderbilt University Press.

Warr, D. (2005a). There goes the neighbourhood: The malign effects of stigma. Paper prepared for 2nd State of Australian Cities National Conference. 30 November – 2 December, 2005, Griffith University, Brisbane.

Warr, D. (2005b). Social networks in a discredited neighbourhood. *Journal of Sociology* 41(3), 285–308.

Warren, K.B. (2006). Perils and Promises of Engaged Anthropology: Historical Transitions and Ethnographic Dilemmas. In: *Engaged Observer. Anthropology, Advocacy, and Activism*. Eds. V. Sanford and A. Angel-Ajani. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: Rutgers University Press.

Wassenberg, F. (2004). Editorial: Large social housing estates: From stigma to demolition? *Journal of Housing and the Built Environment* 19(3), 223–232.

Watt, P. (2006). Respectability, roughness, and race. *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 30(4), 776–796.

White, J. and Gündüz, E. (2021). *Turkish Kaleidoscope. Fractured lives in a time of violence*. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

White, R. and Habibis, D. (2005). *Crime and Society*. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Wickham, C. (1998). Gossip and Resistance among the Medieval Peasantry. *Past & Present* 160, 3–24.

Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G.L. (1982). Broken Windows: the police and neighbourhood safety. *The Atlantic Monthly*, March 1982 Issue. URL: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/ [last accessed 18.09.2021].

Wilson, J.Z. (2008). Racist and Political Extremist Graffiti in Australian Prisons, 1970s to 1990s. *The Howard Journal* 47(1), 52–66.

Wolcott, V.W. (2013). *Remaking respectability: African-American women in interwar Detroit*. Chapel Hill: UNC Press Books.

Woźniak, U. (2018). The Mahalle as Margin of the State: Shifting Sensitivities in Two Neighbourhood Spaces of Istanbul. *Anthropology of the Middle East* 13(2), 79–94.

Wright, S. (2016). Conceptualising the active welfare subject: Welfare reform in discourse, policy and lived experience. *Policy and Politics*, 44, 235–252.

Yapi.com.tr (2010). Emine Erdoğmuş’tan A. Misbah Demircan’a Açık Mektup. Yapi.com.tr, 6 September. URL: http://www.yapi.com.tr/haberler/emine-erdogmustan-a-misbah-demircana-acik-mektup_82443.html [last accessed 13.12.2018].

Yapi.com.tr (2015). Ahmet Misbah Demircan Prof. Eugene Kohn’a Beyoğlu Projelerini Anlattı. Yapi.com.tr, 14 March. URL: http://www.yapi.com.tr/haberler/ahmet-misb
ah-demircan-prof-eugene-kohna-Beyoğlu-projelerini-anlatti_129370.html [last accessed 13.12.2018].

Yapıcı, M. (2018). Neoliberalizmin 40 Yıllık Şantiyesi. In: *Tarlabaşı. Bir Kent Mücadelesi*. Eds. H. Akarca and R. Doğan. Istanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi.

Yardımcı, Ö. (2020). State Stigmatisation in Urban Turkey: Managing the “Insurgent” Squatter Dwellers in Dikmen Valley. *Antipode* 52(5), 1519–1538.

Yeğen, M. (1996). The Turkish State Discourse and the Exclusion of Kurdish Identity. *Middle Eastern Studies* 32(2), 216–229.

Yeğen, M. (1999). The Kurdish Question in Turkish State Discourse. *Journal of Contemporary History* 34(4), 555–568.

Yeni Akit (2014). Beyoğlu'nun geleceğini inşa ediyoruz. *Yeni Akit Gazetesi*. URL: http://www.ahmetmisbahdemircan.com/files/uploads/basin/Yeni_Akit_23032014.jpg [last accessed 12.12.2018].

Yeni Şafak (2013). Tarlabaşı projesi Türkiye ikincisi. *Yeni Şafak*, 1 April. URL: https://www.yenisafak.com/gundem/Tarlabaşı-projesi-turkiye-ikincisi-506357 [last accessed 18.09.2021].

Yetiskul E. and Demirel, S. (2018). Assembling gentrification in Istanbul: The Cihangir neighbourhood of Beyoğlu. *Urban Studies* 55(15), 3336–3352.

Yongmie, N.J. (2013). Psycho-social dimensions of poverty: When poverty becomes shameful. *Critical Social Policy* 33(3), 514–531.

Zhang, Y. (2017). This is my 'Wo': Making home in Shanghai's lower quarter. In: *Negative Neighbourhood Reputation and Place Attachment*. The Production and Contestation of Territorial Stigma. Eds. P. Kirkness and A. Tijé-Dra. New York: Routledge.

Zhu X. and R. Smith (2016). Advancing Research on the Spread of Stigmatizing Beliefs With Insights From Rumor Transmission. *American Behavioral Scientist* 60(11), 1342–1361.

Zorba, G.K. (2012). Istanbul'un özeti Beyoğlu, Türkiye, 17 December. Available online at: https://v3.arkitera.com/h59176-istanbulun-özeti-Beyoğlu.html (accessed 13 December 2018).
Cultural Studies

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

Gabriele Klein

**Pina Bausch's Dance Theater**

Company, Artistic Practices and Reception

2020, 440 p., pb., col. ill.

29,99 € (DE), 978-3-8376-5055-6

E-Book:

PDF: 29,99 € (DE), ISBN 978-3-8394-5055-0

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

Markus Gabriel, Christoph Horn, Anna Katsman, Wilhelm Krull, Anna Luisa Lippold, Corine Pelluchon, Ingo Venzke

Towards a New Enlightenment –
The Case for Future-Oriented Humanities

October 2022, 80 p., pb.

18,00 € (DE), 978-3-8376-6570-3

E-Book: available as free open access publication

PDF: ISBN 978-3-8394-6570-7

ISBN 978-3-7328-6570-3

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

Sven Quadflieg, Klaus Neuburg, Simon Nestler (eds.)

**(Dis)Obedience in Digital Societies**

Perspectives on the Power of Algorithms and Data

March 2022, 380 p., pb., ill.

29,00 € (DE), 978-3-8376-5763-0

E-Book: available as free open access publication

PDF: ISBN 978-3-8394-5763-4

ISBN 978-3-7328-5763-0
Cultural Studies

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

Ingrid Hoelzl, Rémi Marie

**Common Image**

Towards a Larger Than Human Communism

2021, 156 p., pb., ill.

29,50 € (DE), 978-3-8376-5939-9

E-Book:

PDF: 26,99 € (DE), ISBN 978-3-8394-5939-3

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

Anna Maria Loffredo, Rainer Wenrich,
Charlotte Axelsson, Wanja Kröger (eds.)

**Changing Time – Shaping World**

Changemakers in Arts & Education

September 2022, 310 p., pb., col. ill.

45,00 € (DE), 978-3-8376-6135-4

E-Book: available as free open access publication

PDF: ISBN 978-3-8394-6135-8

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>

Olga Moskatova, Anna Polze, Ramón Reichert (eds.)

**Digital Culture & Society (DCS)**

Vol. 7, Issue 2/2021 –

Networked Images in Surveillance Capitalism

August 2022, 336 p., pb., col. ill.

29,99 € (DE), 978-3-8376-5388-5

E-Book:

PDF: 27,99 € (DE), ISBN 978-3-8394-5388-9