Non‐representational Theory(ies) as a Style in Poststructuralist and Relational Geographies

Non‐representational theory, which emerged in 1990s through the studies of Thrift, has criticized the representation of space and the new cultural geography, which obsessively focuses on the politics of representation. Additionally, non‐representational theory has criticized the dualism of Cartesian logic, which is based on binary oppositions such as nature/culture, mind/body, agent/structure, and has attempted to go beyond such binary constructions. In other words, non‐representational theory might be seen as an “umbrella” or a “framework” that houses several distinct approaches such as phenomenology, structuralism, feminism and post‐structuralism. Thus, rather than calling it non‐representational theory, one may call it as non‐representational theories due to its pluralist nature. The first aim of this paper is to cover the nature and emergence of the theory as well as the impact of the aforementioned intellectual traditions. The second aim of this paper is to highlight the main aspects and principles of non‐representational theory. Finally, this paper aims to examine the critique of non‐representational theory. In this respect, it is notable to mention that this paper offer a critique as well. This paper will also provide a critical overview of the intellectual activities which attempt not just to understand non‐representational theory in Anglo‐American geographies but to transfer it into the Turkish academy in a critical fashion. In parallel, the possible contributions of the theory to the theoretical discussions in the Turkish academy will be shortly considered in the end of this essay.