Critical Configuration of Space, with focus on Urban Public Space How space formed

Document Type : مقالات علمی -پژوهشی

Authors

• Mojtaba Rafiean ¹
• Ahmad Yazdanian ²
• Hashem Dadashpour ²

¹ Tarbiat Modarres University

² Tarbiat Modares University

https://doi.org/10.22067/pg.v2i6.63713

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
The urban public space is the realm of the presence of different social groups with different patterns of behavior. The concept of space in this sense is an entity that, first of all, is shaped by the presence of individuals through individual action and social relations. The space we live in everyday life is essentially a social and political construct. Urban public spaces, on the one hand, represent the culture, values, goals and ideologies prevailing in each society, and, on the other hand, by facilitating the presence of space, facilitates space for centralized groups. Space is not a reflection of society, but society itself. According to what was said, the main question of the following text is how space is produced and reproduced through relationships and forces. For a long time, the study of space as a social and political concept was not common in the social sciences and urban planning literature. From a critical point of view, space is formulated as an abstract-concrete concept. In this sense, the spatial being is related to the social relations of production, and, in fact, with the social being. In fact space study is the study of relations and spatial and economic relations.
If we consider the concept of space in this way, essentially as a social and political construct, then we can like any other social category, put it under the magnifier of critical analysis.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Production and reproduction of space:
The social space is produced in the realms that allow the presence of different groups; this means that space cannot exist itself. Historical concepts of space are analyzed on the basis of three axes, which are spatial practice, representations of space and space of representation. Space is thus analyzed in three perceived, imagined and lived ways. The form of agency in each of these spaces varies in different ways.
2.2 Space, knowledge and representation of power:
The social space, as Bourdieu states, is the first and last reality. The space that was occupied by different groups is one of the places where the undoubted power in its most intangible form is fixed and becomes reality. Understanding the concept of space requires the recognition of the social world in the form of relationships. Understanding space cannot be done without theoretical understanding of the relationship in place. Places and spaces vary according to the conception of different social groups, and what identity in space dominates as the dominant identity is the subject of controversy.
2.3 Space of Difference and Field of Division
Communities are made up of people, groups, bodies and different classes in which different groups in public spaces make it possible to formulate the meaning of life and have a close connection with their lived experience. Communities are composed of individuals, groups, bodies, and classes, in which different groups in public spaces make it possible to formulate in the sense of life, and have a close connection with their life experience. Communities generate rhythms in the form of spatial relationships. The existence of man is, above all, the existence of space.
2.4 Disciplinary Discourse and Normalization of Space
The various qualities of space affect the way and form of action of individuals in space. Discourse shapes spaces and communities. This formation makes the body of subject in space more influenced by the actions of these discursive and material spaces. From a critical attitude the presence of different people in spatial situations that leads to the formation of spatial dialogues can be considered as a controlled conflict. This conflict ultimately leads to social and spatial divisions in the city and therefore reflects and reproduces the social differences of people in space.
2.5 Spatial tactics, resistance and presence as a negation of spatial subjection:
In fact, space is an actual place, that is, the positioning of objects relative to each other, but space is experiencing them. Resistance is more than anything related to strength. Resistance is always assumed in any kind of power relations in space. Because otherwise there will be no power relations. This resistance is never in a position out of power, but everywhere within the power relations. Hence, there is no unique space for refusals, but in every space, along with the presence of mechanisms of power, there is a plurality of resistors. In fact, the tactical interactions that are conceived in the form of the contextual presence of the subject in space can, in the light of the individual's presence in the space, create a new spatial logic that does not necessarily coincide with the predetermined behavioral logic of the structure. It does not form the space and forces that reproduce spatial domination.
2.6 Everyday life and multiplication in space:
Any theory making must begin with everyday life. Non-spatial thinking cannot interfere with the interconnectedness of the behavior of individuals in space and the implied meanings that arise from space and mediation between them, leading to specific behavioral patterns. Each social rhythm or, in other words, mass and spatial rhythm is shaped by the various forms of human presence in space. Rhythms are considered as movements and differences within space repetition, within which the daily life is considered to be the space experience.
2.7 Experience of Space in Individual and Social Interactions:
We cannot exist without others. It is the space that provides the realization of the ontological possibility by providing the ground for presence and interactions of the group. The social space encompasses concrete materiality, and, moreover, embraces a conceptual concept called experience. Experience, like the issue of being in the final analysis, is like a mystery rooted in space. This means without the material dimension and thought that make it, experience there is no social space without the material dimension. In the sense that the experience has no social-spatial existence without the man, and the thoughts and ideas he has.
2.8 Space in time and experience
The existence of human space is shaped by experiences and the social world. How our lives in the world, and therefore our understanding of the place in this world, depends on our understanding of space and time and, more specifically, on space time. The relations between time and space are the main components of social systems.
3. Methodology
This paper, emphasis on Interweave of method, theory and reality. From this methodological viewpoint, article analysis the problem of space in the city. In the same vein, spatial aspect of such concepts as power, resistance, spatial strategies, normalization, differences and so on have been addressed.
4. Findings and Discussion.
Space is the materialized human being. Hence, human existence has always been related to something called space. Space is the realization of human existence. In the same vein, the urban public space is in the realm of the presence of individuals and social groups that are tied to their social and economic functions. The spatial existence of human is shaped by his experiences and social relations.
The way we live in the world is the consequence of our time and space perception; more precisely our apprehension of Space-time. And this is when the space as a concept of relations is produced and becomes the question. That is, the moment when space is tied to political and economic relations, and it takes its conceptual strength. In this sense, we can talk about the production of space, power, resistance, normalization, tactics and strategies, experience and time, and other forces. This paper tries to emphasize the strains that produce the concept of space and reproduce them through different forms of presence. In this regard, the question of what space is, is abandoned. This study deals with how space is produced.

Keywords

• Space production
• Critical discourse
• Space possibilities
• Urban public space

References

1. Afroogh, E. (1998). Space and social inequality. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University Press. (In Persian).

2. Bakhtin, M. (1990). Art and Answerabililty: Early Philosophical Essays. Austin : Texas University Press.

3. Barker, C. (2009). Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. (Faraji, M. & Mohamadi, N. Trans.). Tehran: Institute for Cultural and Social Studies. (In Persian).

4. Bayat, A. (2010). Life as Politics How Ordinary People Change the Middle East. Amesterdam: Amesterdam University Press.

5. Bourdieu, P. (1991). “Physischer, sozialer and angeeigneter physischer Raum,” in StadtRäume, ed. M. Wentz (Frankfurt: Campus, 1991) (translation by BandulasenaGoonewardena) , 113.

6. Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity.

7. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian Meditations. Camrigde: Polity.

8. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1997). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press.

9. Castells, M. (1984). Space and Society. London: Citis in Transformation.

10. Certeau, M. D. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life, translated by Steven Rendall. Berkeley: Berkeley.

11. Crang, M., & Thrift, N. (2000). THINKING SPACE. London: Routledge.

12. Crossley, N., & Roberts, M. (2004). After Habermas: New Perspective On The Public Shpere. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

13. Dalil, S. , Javan, J. & Salmanimoghadam, M. (2013). dialectic fo Space from Lefebvre. Journal of arid regions Geogeraphic studies. Vol12. pp. 1-18. (In Persian).

14. Dreyfus, H. & Robino, P. (1997). Michel Foucault is beyond structuralism and hermeneutics Tehran: Nashre Ney. (In Persian).

15. Elden, S. (2001). Mapping the Present Heidegger, Foucault and the Project of a Spatial History. London: Continuum.

16. Elden, S. (2004). Understanding Henri Lefebvre Theory and the Possible. New York: Continuum.

17. Fakouhi, N. (2004). Urban anthropology. Tehran: Nashre Ney. (In Persian).

18. Fiske, J. (1998). Understanding Popular Culture. London and New York: Routledge.

19. Foucalt, M. (2008). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of prison.(Sarkhosh, N. & Jahandideh, A., Trans.). Tehran: Ney. (In Persian).

20. Giddens, A. (1981). A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

21. Giddens, A. (1990). Sociology. New York: Polity Press.

22. Goonewarden, K., Kipfer, S., Milgrom, R., & Schmid, C. (2008). Space, difference, everyday life: reading Henri Lefebvre. New York: Routledge.

23. Gottdiener, M. (1985). The Social Production of Urban Space. Austin: University of Texas Press.

24. Gregory, D., & Urry, J. (1985). Social Relation and Spatial Structures. London: Macmilan.

25. Grosz, E. (1995). Space, Time and Perversion: Essays on the Politics of Bodies. New York: Routledge.

26. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action Volume Two: System and Lifeworld,. Cambridge: Polity.

27. Habermas, J. (1990). New Social Movments. Telos,Vol 49, 156- 164.

28. Harvey, D. (1976). Social Justice in the City. Boltimore: Basil Blackwell.

29. Heynen, H. (2013). Space as Receptor, Instrument or Stage: Notes on the Interaction Between Spatial and Social Constellations. International Planning Studies,Vol 18: , 342-357.

30. Hiller, J. (2009). Shadows of Power: A Thought Forecasting in Land Use Planning. (Pooladi, K., Trans.). Tehran: Iran Consulting Engineers Society. (In Persian).

31. Kant, I. (2105). The Critique of the Reason. (Nazari, B., Trans.). Tehran: Ghoghnoos. (In Persian).

32. Lefebvre, H. (1971). Everyday Life in the Modern World Translated by Sacha Rabinovitch, . New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

33. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space, Translated by Smith David Nicholson. Oxford : Blackwell.

34. Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, time and everyday life. A&C Black translated by Stuart Elden and Gerald Moore. New York: Continoum.

35. Lopez, J. & Scott, J. (2006). Making Social Thought. (Ghazian,H., Trans.). Tehran: Nashre Ney. (In Persian).

36. Martin, J. L. (2003). What Is Field Theory? American Journal of Sociology, Vol, 109:, 1-49.

37. Massey, D. (1991). The practical place of locality studies. Environment and Planning,Vol 23, 267-282.

38. Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place, and Gender,. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.

39. Massey, D. (2005). For Space. London: Sage.

40. Merrifield, A. (2006). Henri Lefebvre: A critical introduction. New York: Routledge.

41. Murdoch, J. (2006). Post-structuralist geography: a guide to relational space . London: Sage.

42. Rahbari, L. & Sharepoor, M. ( 2014). Sex and the Right to the City: Lefebvre's Theoretical Test in Tehran. Sociology of Iran.Vol 1. PP. 116-141. (In Persian).

43. Roohi, Z. (2013). Right To the City. Retrieved from Anthopology and Culture Web site: http://anthropology.ir/article/19023.html. (In Persian).

44. Sack, R. (1980). Conceptions of Space in Social Thought A Geographic Perspective. London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press.

45. Sennett, R. (1977). The Fall of Public Man. London: Penguin Books.

46. Seyyidman, S. (2007). Controversy in sociology. (Jalili, H., Trans.). Tehran: Nashre Ney. (In Persian).

47. Shafii, S. (2014). A review of the later theoretical approaches to resistance, Journal of Social Science, Volume 1, Issue 64, pp 139- 186. (In Persian).

48. Sharepoor, M.(2013). City, space and everyday life. Tehran: Tisa. (In Persian).

49. Shields, R. (2000). Lefebvre, Love and Struggle. London: Routledge.

50. Soja, E. (1995). Postmodern Geograpies The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London: Verso.

51. Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: journey to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined. Oxford: Blackwell.

52. Tavana, S. & Shafii, M. (2014). The social production of space from the perspective of Henry Lefebvre. Media Culture. Third Year, No. 10, 131-140. (In Persian).

53. Tehrani, A. (2010). Gender Generation Public Space: A Discourse Analysis of Gender Segmentation in Tehran's Public Spaces, Metro Case Study. Master's Degree, University of Science and Culture. (In Persian).

54. Thrift, N., & Kitchen, R. (2009). International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier.

55. Tonkiss, F. (2005). Space, the city and social theory: Social relations and urban forms. Oxford: Polity Press. (In Persian).

56. Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and Place The Perspective of Experience . Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.

57. Urry, J. (1995). Consuming Places . .London and New York: Routledge.

58. Vallega, A. A. (2003). Heidegger and the Issue of Space. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

59. Zieleniec, A. J. (2007). Space and Social Theory. London: SAGE.