Chicago School of Sociology representative Robert E. Park describes urban society as a mosaic of little worlds which touch xbut do not penetrate. On the other hand, Lewis Mumford defines the city as a geographic web, an economic organization, an institutional process, a stage for social action, and an aesthetic symbol of collective unity. According to him, the city fosters art and is art; it creates theater and is theater. The city exists as the stage where people, through their conflicting and cooperative personalities, events, and groups, focus their endeavors.
Both urban definitions shed light on cities by considering them together with their spaces and societies, providing insights into the world of the 21st century. The notion that “the city is within the city” particularly points to a significant realm. In the 21st century, understanding, interpreting, and living in cities requires a certain skill, and thus, those who understand cities succeed. This form of success encompasses all dimensions—social, political, and economic.
The fact that today we talk more about cities than nation-states, and that international organizations choose cities as their sanctuaries, points to a significant realm by revealing the hidden meaning and nature of cities amidst the global phenomenon of “urban inflation.” From health to sports, culture to science, and strategy to international relations, the city comes to the fore.
Karl Marx, when attempting to define his own era, stated, “The commodity of the age is money.” A commodity encompasses items intended for commercial production and consumption. According to Marx’s definition, the commodity is “the most fundamental cell of society.” Particularly with the development of advertising and the cultural industry, the commodity has expanded to include various conceptual definitions. It would not be far-fetched to claim that “the commodity of the age is the city.” Considering the city’s connection with trade, existence, and life, we come closer to understanding the significance of cities being “within the city.”
The statement “those who understand cities succeed” emerges as a reality of our time rather than merely a slogan. Especially when considering that much of the world remains confined within the circles of political engagement, political gains form one leg of this triad. Meanwhile, the economic gains stemming from the city’s role as a sanctuary for capital represent the other leg.
The purpose of this text is to lay the foundation for understanding cities in the 21st century and, at the same time, focus on the reflection of political and economic dynamics in cities. By going beyond academic definitions, it seeks to establish a sociological and political basis for the assertion of cities as living spaces for societies, while also making an effort to interpret Türkiye’s current societal structure in this context.
Those Who Understand Cities, Succeed: Political Gains
The spatial patterns of urbanization in Türkiye can be found in Asmin Kavas’ article titled “The Fading Pulse of Cities: Tracing the Decline of Urban Dynamics,” available on the website of the Institute for Social Studies. When cities are examined, spatial and societal dimensions are often considered separately. However, these dimensions are intertwined, forming a mosaic centered on humanity. The societal dimension of the city is the fundamental element that ensures the city is “within the city.” This dimension enables urban politics, urban chaos, urban freedom, and urban life to coexist simultaneously in the same space.
It is for this reason that urban scholar Stavros Stavrides speaks of “urban heterotopia,” which he defines as the coexistence of the real and the unreal in the same space. In this sense, reality becomes ambiguous when addressing cities.
Contrary to the view of cities as spaces of freedom and romance that emerged with the rise of nation-states, David Harvey states, “The city has never been a harmonious place free of chaos, conflict, or violence.” When chaos and conflict are discussed, politics naturally comes into play. Is it not true that the purpose of politics is to tame society? Is it not for this reason that the word politics originates from the term for “taming” or “controlling”?
The close connection between politics and cities is not exclusive to today. Politics began to institutionalize in cities with the emergence of democracy in Ancient Greece. Similarly, the situation of the Italian city-states led Niccolò Machiavelli to write The Prince, where the topics discussed converge on strategies for maintaining control over cities. Today as well, politics is fundamentally about controlling cities.
In recent times in Türkiye, whether in the political arena or in the media, prominent topics such as mayors, state-appointed trustees, local elections, etc., are all related to strategies for controlling cities.
The belief that old political habits need to be changed to govern cities effectively is growing stronger by the day. Since a Roman legion will not be sent, politics must become more effective. In today’s local administrations, the measure of success is understanding the city and its people and developing political strategies accordingly.
So, what are cities like today? Cities host many different cultures and structures, with increasing gaps between the rich and the poor forming urban enclaves; impoverished people living in urban areas but who have never seen the city center; wealthy individuals living in luxury residences yet feeling insecure; self-contained political parties; elitists scorning everyone outside their circles; academic institutions disconnected from the society they live in; children selling tissues on the streets; structures rejecting modern legal and educational systems; ivory-tower artists claiming that art is for art’s sake; minimum-wage workers commuting two hours daily; parking mafias; groups fighting for urban rights; and people from all ideologies coexisting in the same spaces.
In such an environment, the relationship between truth and falsehood, as well as reality and lies, finds equal footing. To engage in urban politics and especially to hold authority in local governance, one must grasp and interact with all these seemingly contradictory yet harmoniously coexisting elements.
To understand cities today, it is necessary to evaluate various factors together, from voting tendencies to cultural and lifestyle demands, and to develop policies accordingly. The global trend of localization stands out in every sense. In recent years, the United Nations, the European Union, UNESCO, and even NATO have evaluated their projects with a focus on localization. This shows that despite the rapid pace of globalization, localization gains importance, and the local emerges as fundamental.
Looking at the winners in Türkiye’s politics over the last thirty years, the Welfare Party won municipalities in the 1990s by engaging with slum dwellers in metropolitan areas. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) established connections with those outside the cities and the marginalized until the 2010s. Recently, the New Welfare Party has connected with rural communities, while the Republican People’s Party (CHP) engaged with the urban poor in the last local elections, achieving success in local governance. These activities, which directly yield results, are approaches that bring the periphery of the city to the center.
Even if spatial transformations have been limited in cities over the last decade, significant societal changes have occurred. Political parties must consider the sociological dimensions of cities in their processes. Otherwise, echo chambers, “as-if” policies on social media, and press releases that lack societal resonance will lead to party headquarters that even their own members fail to take seriously.
Engaging in politics by understanding the city—winning the local to address the general—emerges as the only viable path forward in the coming years.
Those Who Understand Cities, Succeed: Economic Dimensions
Many scholars working on urban studies and acknowledged in academia regard the city as a space for the production and consumption of capital. David Harvey, one of the first names that comes to mind in recent years when it comes to urban studies, examines cities in the context of capital cycles. He argues that the construction of urban built environments is a necessary phase for ensuring the fluidity of capital in the market. Considering that construction activates approximately 200 sectors, the neoliberal urban experience progresses through the relationship between construction and the economy.
Urbanization issues such as slums, zoning laws, zoning amnesties, earthquakes, and urban planning, which frequently occupy the political agenda in Türkiye, are directly related to the economy. Through zoning regulations passed by local councils, capital transfers occur, and parties in power locally seek to participate in urban rent generation, which is always on the agenda.
Attention must be drawn to a critical point: since the city exists as a living organism, some areas transform into zones of decline while others gain value through gentrification. In other words, cities inherently generate rent. What matters is that local administrations ensure the distribution of this rent within the framework of social justice.
The statement “cities inherently generate rent” may not sit well in society because rent is often associated with corruption, favoritism, and unjust enrichment. However, urban rent is part of the natural trajectory of cities due to their continuous development, growth, densification, and the simultaneous emergence of areas of decline and areas of value. For urban rent to be distributed equitably, local administrators must understand urban policies and the city’s needs and demands.
Local administrators aware of the dynamic nature and development journey of cities—mayors, council members, provincial party administrators, etc.—often overlook ensuring urban justice. In his book Social Justice and the City, David Harvey also addresses the impact of urban rent on societal development. There is a strong direct relationship between urban development and societal development. While this may require more economic analysis, the healthy outcome of enriching the city is enriching its inhabitants.
In this context, the promise of some mayors in the last local elections to “enrich the inhabitants” is entirely within the framework of the social justice context of urban rent.
Toward the End…
An effort has been made to briefly convey the necessity of re-evaluating cities in the 21st century. The era of surrounding cities with walls for defense or constructing cities on strategic hills has long passed. Today, the increasing population, density, and web of relationships in cities make it necessary to re-examine cities in terms of space, society, and governance.
This approach, which falls directly within the scope of urban sociology, helps us answer questions about what should be done by revealing the forms of societal action today. Mastery of urban dynamics and gaining knowledge in this area are critical for decision-makers and those aspiring to make decisions, as they hold a valuable position for shaping the future of societies.
