Publicação
fem*MAP Berlin 2049: Feminist spatial systems for a non-sexist city
| Resumo: | In search of a feminist perspective for Berlin and an answer to the question of what a non-sexist city could and should look like, an analysis of hegemonic and feminist spatial systems was carried out based on practice-based teaching research formats. Using critical mapping (Harley, 1989; Wood, 1992) with a collective-feminist approach, this paper will demonstrate the potential of the map as a tool that allows for a non-hegemonic perspective of space. The mapping research reveals how the dichotomy of the terms public and private determines hegemonic spatial systems and how the concept of commons as a counter-image and third spatial realm opens up a possible typology of feminist spatial systems. Thus, in the evaluation of the results, the need for new common notions in urban planning discourse is discussed. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Koepper, Julia |
| Outros Autores: | Wegewitz, Martha; Pelger, Dagmar |
| Assunto: | Feminist spatial production Non-sexist city Feminist practices of resistance Feminist planning practice Critical mapping |
| Ano: | 2022 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | artigo |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | ISCTE |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório ISCTE |
| Resumo: | In search of a feminist perspective for Berlin and an answer to the question of what a non-sexist city could and should look like, an analysis of hegemonic and feminist spatial systems was carried out based on practice-based teaching research formats. Using critical mapping (Harley, 1989; Wood, 1992) with a collective-feminist approach, this paper will demonstrate the potential of the map as a tool that allows for a non-hegemonic perspective of space. The mapping research reveals how the dichotomy of the terms public and private determines hegemonic spatial systems and how the concept of commons as a counter-image and third spatial realm opens up a possible typology of feminist spatial systems. Thus, in the evaluation of the results, the need for new common notions in urban planning discourse is discussed. |
|---|