IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v46y2014i6p1369-1385.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Symbolic Politics of Gentrification: The Restructuring of Stigmatized Neighborhoods in Amsterdam and Istanbul

Author

Listed:
  • Nur Bahar Sakizlioglu

    (Urban and Regional Research Center, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584CS Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Justus Uitermark

    (Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Amsterdam School for Social Science Research, Oudezijds Achterburgwal 185, 1012 DK Amsterdam, the Netherlands; and Department of Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Since gentrification entails significant negative social consequences, one important question is why residents of neighborhoods on the verge of gentrification often do not effectively oppose the process. Why do residents not resist? And, if they resist, why are they not effective? To answer these questions, we attend to the symbolic politics of the gentrification: that is, the ways in which process is framed and experienced. We examine the dynamics of symbolic power as affixed to stigmatized neighborhoods in two radically different contexts: Istanbul and Amsterdam. In spite of stark differences between the cases (with gentrification in Istanbul being more ruthless and contentious), there are also striking similarities in how symbolic politics played out. In both cases the promoters of gentrification adopted a strategy of ‘divide and rule’ as they differentiated the residents into various groups and fed into territorial, ethnic and class stigmatization. The promoters of gentrification in both cases also strategically used time: they first exhausted residents by having them wait anxiously for a prolonged period of time, and then put intense pressure on them to make them accept they had to leave. Both strategies—‘divide and rule’ as well as the timing of interventions—undermined or preempted effective resistance against gentrification.

Suggested Citation

  • Nur Bahar Sakizlioglu & Justus Uitermark, 2014. "The Symbolic Politics of Gentrification: The Restructuring of Stigmatized Neighborhoods in Amsterdam and Istanbul," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(6), pages 1369-1385, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:46:y:2014:i:6:p:1369-1385
    DOI: 10.1068/a45638
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a45638
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a45638?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tom Slater, 2004. "North American Gentrification? Revanchist and Emancipatory Perspectives Explored," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(7), pages 1191-1213, July.
    2. Tom Slater, 2006. "The Eviction of Critical Perspectives from Gentrification Research," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 737-757, December.
    3. John Lovering & Hade Türkmen, 2011. "Bulldozer Neo-liberalism in Istanbul: The State-led Construction of Property Markets, and the Displacement of the Urban Poor," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 73-96, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew Harris, 2008. "From London to Mumbai and Back Again: Gentrification and Public Policy in Comparative Perspective," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(12), pages 2407-2428, November.
    2. Lance Freeman, 2009. "Neighbourhood Diversity, Metropolitan Segregation and Gentrification: What Are the Links in the US?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(10), pages 2079-2101, September.
    3. Lance Freeman, 2008. "Comment on ‘The Eviction of Critical Perspectives from Gentrification Research’," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 186-191, March.
    4. Mathieu Van Criekingen, 2009. "Moving In/Out of Brussels' Historical Core in the Early 2000s: Migration and the Effects of Gentrification," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(4), pages 825-848, April.
    5. Geoffrey De Verteuil, 2011. "Evidence of Gentrification-induced Displacement among Social Services in London and Los Angeles," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(8), pages 1563-1580, June.
    6. Cuz Potter & Danielle Labbé, 2021. "Gentrification or …? Injustice in large-scale residential projects in Hanoi," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(12), pages 2456-2472, September.
    7. Matthias Bernt, 2012. "The ‘Double Movements’ of Neighbourhood Change: Gentrification and Public Policy in Harlem and Prenzlauer Berg," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(14), pages 3045-3062, November.
    8. Trina Hamilton & Winifred Curran, 2013. "From “Five Angry Women†to “Kick-ass Community†: Gentrification and Environmental Activism in Brooklyn and Beyond," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(8), pages 1557-1574, June.
    9. Kevin Ward & Colette Fagan & Linda McDowell & Diane Perrons & Kathryn Ray, 2010. "Class Transformation and Work-Life Balance in Urban Britain: The Case of Manchester," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(11), pages 2259-2278, October.
    10. Andrejs Skaburskis, 2010. "Gentrification in the Context of ‘Risk Society’," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(4), pages 895-912, April.
    11. Josep M Campanera & Paul Higgins, 2011. "Quality of Life in Urban-Classified and Rural-Classified English Local Authority Areas," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(3), pages 683-702, March.
    12. Marguerite van den Berg, 2018. "The discursive uses of Jane Jacobs for the genderfying city: Understanding the productions of space for post-Fordist gender notions," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(4), pages 751-766, March.
    13. Tim Butler, 2007. "Re‐urbanizing London Docklands: Gentrification, Suburbanization or New Urbanism?," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 759-781, December.
    14. Winifred Curran, 2018. "‘Mexicans love red’ and other gentrification myths: Displacements and contestations in the gentrification of Pilsen, Chicago, USA," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(8), pages 1711-1728, June.
    15. Shenjing He, 2012. "Two Waves of Gentrification and Emerging Rights Issues in Guangzhou, China," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(12), pages 2817-2833, December.
    16. Jean-Paul D. Addie, 2009. "Constructing Neoliberal Urban Democracy in the American Inner-city," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 24(6-7), pages 536-554, September.
    17. Ingmar Pastak & Eneli Kindsiko & Tiit Tammaru & Reinout Kleinhans & Maarten Van Ham, 2019. "Commercial Gentrification in Post‐Industrial Neighbourhoods: A Dynamic View From an Entrepreneur’s Perspective," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 110(5), pages 588-604, December.
    18. Bereitschaft, Bradley, 2020. "Gentrification and the evolution of commuting behavior within America's urban cores, 2000–2015," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    19. Seth Schindler & Jonathan Silver, 2019. "Florida in the Global South: How Eurocentrism Obscures Global Urban Challenges—and What We Can Do about It," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(4), pages 794-805, July.
    20. Gordon MacLeod, 2013. "New Urbanism/Smart Growth in the Scottish Highlands: Mobile Policies and Post-politics in Local Development Planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(11), pages 2196-2221, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:46:y:2014:i:6:p:1369-1385. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.