Absolute, relational, and epistemological conceptions of space and their use for the sociological analysis of a cit
Sociology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2017-4-604-613Keywords:
relational conception of space, substantial conception of space, urban space, sociology of space, urban studiesAbstract
Active development of urban studies is accompanied by the emergence and promotion of the diversity of approaches. Meanwhile, interpretation of one of the key categories — the category of space — still remains controversial. Taking into account the complexity of the phenomenon of urban space, and hence its status of a subject field of multiple disciplines, it is necessary to carry out the analysis of philosophical concepts of space in their respective sociological refraction. The article presents the analysis of the substantial and relational interpretations of space, their comparison, describes the use of each of these intuitions of space in the analysis of urban space. The result of applying the substantial interpretation of space in social sciences is spatial determinism and ignoration of the social actor and social facts. It seems that a synthesis of relational and epistemic (Kantian) interpretations of space appear to be more productive for urban sociology. The first allows one to analyze a city as a topological object that is simultaneously in physical and online spaces, and dependent in its existence on the conservation of the constitutive core of the relationship between the city and other topological objects, as well as relations between its constituent elements. Following Kant’s concept of space, which formed the basis of sociology in understanding of urban space, scholars focus on the use of the arsenal of interpretive sociology in the analysis of the urban space meanings for actors. Combination and use of these approaches, on the one hand, allows for getting away from the problems of spatial fetishism, being the logical consequence of the substantial interpretation, which seems significant for a sociological interpretation of the city (and its space) as a social phenomenon. On the other hand, it allows us not to exclude the space as a category of the subject field of sociology because of its substantial inconsistencies in the interpretation of the criteria of sociology. Both approaches make it possible to establish a harmonious link between the space of the subject, the current intention in relation to the urban space and its contained objects, in accordance with the subjective meanings and social facts that are constructed by individuals in their daily existence and providing a feedback effect.References
Трубина Е.Г. Город в теории: опыты осмысления пространства. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2011. 520 с.
ФилипповА.Ф. Социология пространства. СПб.: Владимир Даль, 2008. 285 с.
Верлен Б. Общество, действие и пространство. Альтернативная социальная география / пер. с англ. С.П. Баньковской // Социологическое обозрение. 2001. Т. 1, № 2. С. 26–47.
Декарт Р. Первоначала философии. 1644 // Сочинения: в 2 т. М.: Мысль, 1989. Т. 1. С. 352–357.
Ньютон И. Математические начала натуральной философии. М.: Наука, 1989. 688 с.
Вахштайн В. Пересборка города: между языком и пространством // Социология власти. 2014. № 2. С. 9–38. URL: http://socofpower.rane.ru/2-2014-ot-megapolisa-k-geteropolisu (дата обращения: 20.02.2016).
Кант И. О форме и принципах чувственно воспринимаемого и умопостигаемого мира // Сочинения: в 6 т. М.: Мысль, Т. 2. 510 c.
Кант И. Критика чистого разума // Сочинения: в 6 т. М.: Мысль, 1966. Т. 3. 799 с.
Бейдаш Ю.А. Анализ пространства в феноменологии Эдмунда Гуссерля и Мориса Мерло-Понти // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Философия. Социология. Политология. 2014. № 4(28). С. 211–218.
Лейбниц Г.В. Переписка с Кларком // Сочинения: в 4 т. М.: Мысль. 1982. Т. 1. 636 с.
Ухтомский А.А. Доминанта. СПб.: Питер, 2002. 448 c.
Михельсон М.О. Пространство и время городской культуры: проблема соотнесения принципов диахронии и синхронии // Известия Российского государственного педагогического университета им. А.И. Герцена. 2006. Т.1, № 18. С. 66–70. URL: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/prostranstvo-i-vremya-gorodskoy-kulturyproblema-sootneseniya-printsipov-diahronii-i-sinhronii (дата обращения: 12.09.2017).
Линч К. Образ времени // Образ города. М.: Строитель, 1982. 328c.
Lofland L. The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Territory. N.Y., 1998. 326 p.
ЛоДж. Объекты и пространства // Социология вещей / под ред. В. Вахштайна. М.: Территория будущего. С. 233–244.
References
Trubina E.G. Gorod v teorii: opyty osmysleniya prostranstva [A city in theory: experiments to understand the space]. Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ., 2011, 520 p. (In Russian).
Filippov A.F. Sotsiologiya prostranstva [Sociology of space]. Saint Petersburg, Vladimir Dal’ Publ., 2008, 285 p. (In Russian).
Verlen B. Obshchestvo, deystvie i prostranstvo. Al’ternativnaya social’naya geografiya [Society, action and space. Alternative social geography]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Sociological review]. 2001, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 26–47. (In Russian).
Descartes R. Pervonachala filosofii. 1644. [Principles of Philosophy. 1644]. Sochineniya [Works]. Moscow, Mysl’ Publ., 1989, vol. 1, pp. 352–357. (In Russian).
Newton I. Matematicheskie nachala natural’noy filosofii [The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1989. 688 p. (In Russian).
Vakhshtayn V. Peresborka goroda: mezhdu yazykom i prostranstvom [Reassembling the City: Between Language and Space]. Sotsiologiia vlasti [Sociology of Power]. 2014, no. 2, pp. 9–38. Available at: http://socofpower.rane.ru/2-2014-otmegapolisa-k-geteropolisu (accessed 20.02.2016). (In Russian).
Kant I. O forme i principah chuvstvenno vosprinimaemogo i umopostigaemogo mira [On the form and principles of the sensible and the intelligible world]. Sochineniya: v 6 t. [Works: in 6 vols.]. Moscow Mysl’ Publ., 1964. vol. 2, 510 p. (In Russian).
Kant I. Kritika chistogo razuma [Critique of Pure Reason]. Sochineniya: v 6 t. [Works: in 6 vols.]. Moscow, Mysl’ Publ., 1966, vol. 3, 799 p. (In Russian).
Biedash Yu.A. Analiz prostranstva v phenomenologii Edmunda Gusserlya i Morisa Merlo-Ponti [Space analysis in Edmund Husserl’s and Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya [Tomsk State University Journal Of Philosophy Sociology And Political Science]. 2014, no. 4(28), pp. 211–218. (In Russian).
Leybnits G.V. Perepiska s Clarkom [The LeibnizClarke Correspondence]. Sochineniya: v 4 t. [Works: in 4 vols.]. Moscow, Mysl’ Publ., 1982, vol. 1, 636 p. (In Russian).
Ukhtomsky A.A. Dominanta [A Dominant]. Saint Petersburg, Peter Publ., 2002, 448 p. (In Russian). 12. Michelson M.O. Prostranstvo i vremya gorodskoy kultury: problema sootnosheniya printsipov diachronii i sinchronii [Space and time of urban culture: the problem of correlating principles diachrony and synchrony]. Izvestiya Rossiyskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A.I. Gercena [Izvestia: Herzen University Journal of Humanities and Sciences]. 2006, vol. 1, no. 18, pp. 66–70. Available at: http://cyberleninka.ru/ article/n/prostranstvo-i-vremya-gorodskoykulturyproblema-sootneseniya-printsipov-diahroniii-sinhronii (accessed 12.09.2017). (In Russian).
Lynch K. Obraz vremeni [The image of time]. Obraz goroda [The image of the city]. Moscow, 1982, 328 p. (In Russian).
Lofland L. The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Territory. New York, 1998. 326 p. (In Russian).
Law J. Ob’ekty i prostranstva [Objects and Spaces]. Sociologiya veshhey [Sociology of Things]. Moscow, Territoriya budushchego Publ., 2006, pp. 233– 244. (In Russian).
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
