The City as a Subjective Reality and the Space of Social Practices (Based on Research in Novosibirsk)

Release:

2017, Vol. 1. №2

Title: 
The City as a Subjective Reality and the Space of Social Practices (Based on Research in Novosibirsk)


For citation: Ilyinykh S. A. 2017. “The City as a Subjective Reality and the Space of Social Practices (Based on Research in Novosibirsk)”. Siberian Socium, vol. 1, no 2, pp. 72-81. DOI: 10.21684/2587-8484-2017-1-2-72-81

About the author:

Svetlana A. Ilyinykh, Dr. Sci. (Soc.), Professor, Head of the Department of Sociology, Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation); eLibrary AuthorID, ORCID, Scopus AuthorID, ili.sa@mail.ru

Abstract:

This article shows that a city is not only a territorial unit, but also a subjective reality, reflected in the perceptions and attitude of its inhabitants as a result of the surrounding space’s development. This attitude manifests itself in social practices, which the townspeople realize in the urban space. In this article, the authors explain a number of statements, including “space sociologising”, the movement of interactions from a purely physical space to a social space, the possibility of constructing representations about the urban space based on the media effects, the city as a space for social practices. The results of the empirical study conducted in the administrative centre of the Siberian Federal District reveal the gender specificity of perception in Novosibirsk. A specific social-demographic community perceives the city from the position of what opportunities the urban space, with its network of social institutions, can offer to the representatives of this community. For example, women find important the up-to-date modern standards of life, while men prefer creativity and growth. Both of these groups choose well-known objects as the “calling cards” of the city (for example, Akademgorodok). For men, technical and sports facilities are more important, as well as a dolphinarium combining artificial structures and natural content. The choice of local history museum, philharmonic society and others by women is explained by their more active engagement in the cultural development of their family members. The authors show that the metropolis is often perceived by the townspeople through the prism of problematic aspects (bad roads, inefficient public transport work, lack of parking and interchanges, noisy construction, and environmental violations among others), which, in the respondents’ opinions, reflects the unsatisfactory work of the authorities. This article also identifies the prevailing practices of the citizens’ social activity.

References:

  1. Berger P., Lukman T. 1995. Sotsial’noe konstruirovanie real’nosti [Social Construction of Reality]. Moscow: Medium.
  2. Vagin V. V. Sotsiologiya goroda [Urban Sociology]. Accessed on 1 September 2017. http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Sociolog/Vagin/01.php 
  3. Weber M. 2001. Istoriya khozyaystva. Gorod [History of the Economy. City]. Moscow: KANON-Press-Ts, Kuchkovo pole.
  4. Giddens E. 2011. Posledstviya sovremennosti [The Consequences of Modernity]. Moscow: Praksis.
  5. Gusserl E. 1994. Filosofiya kak strogaya nauka [Philosophy as a Strict Science]. Novocherkassk: Saguna.
  6. Simmel G. 1994. “Kak vozmozhno obshchestvo?” [How Is Society Possible?]. Sotsiologicheskiy zhurnal, no 2, pp. 102-114.
  7. Simmel G. 1996. Izbrannoe [Selected Works], vol. 1: Filosofiya kul’tury [Philosophy of Culture]. Moscow: Yurist.
  8. Ikonnikov A. V. 1973. Formirovanie gorodskoy sredy [Formation of the Urban Environment]. Moscow: Znanie.
  9. Ilyinykh S. A. 2009. “Gendernaya kontseptsiya organizatsionnoy kul’tury” [Gender Concept of Organizational Culture]. Dr. Sci. (Soc.) diss. abstract. Novosibirsk: Novosibirskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet ekonomiki i upravleniya.
  10. Kaganskiy V. L. 1997. “Landshaft i kul’tura” [Landscape and Culture]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’, no 1, pp. 134-146.
  11. Kant I. 2016. Kritika chistogo razuma [Critique of Pure Reason]. Moscow: Eksmo.
  12. Kogan L. B. 1990. Byt’ gorozhanami [To Be Citizens]. Moscow.
  13. Linch K. 1982. Obraz goroda [A City’s Image]. Moscow.
  14. Likhachev D. S. 1983. Zemlya rodnaya [Homeland]. Moscow.
  15. Svirida I. I. 2007. Landshafty kul’tury. Slavyanskiy mir [The Landscapes of Culture. Slavic World]. Moscow.
  16. Tennis F. 2002. Obshchnost’ i obshchestvo. Osnovnye ponyatiya chistoy sotsiologii [Community and Society. The Main Notions of the Proper Sociology]. St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal’.
  17. Trushchenko O. E. 1983. “Gorodskaya sreda i obraz zhizni. Kritika amerikanskikh sotsiologicheskikh kontseptsiy” [Urban Environment and Way of Life. The Criticism of American Sociological Concepts]. Cand Sci. (Hist.) diss. abstract. Moscow.
  18. Filippov A. F. 1995. “Elementarnaya sotsiologiya prostranstva” [Elementary Urban Sociology]. Sotsiologicheskiy zhurnal, no 1, pp. 45-69.
  19. Shpengler O. 1993. Zakat Evropy. Ocherki morfologii mirovoy istorii [The Decline of Europe. Essays on the Morphology of the World History], vol. 1. Moscow: Mysl’.
  20. Shtompka P. 1996. Sotsiologiya sotsial’nykh izmeneniy [Sociology of Social Changes]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 
  21. Shyuts A. 1994. “Formirovanie ponyatiya i teorii v obshchestvennykh naukakh” [Formation of the Concept and Theory in Social Sciences]. In: Dobrenkov (ed.). Amerikanskaya sotsiologicheskaya mysl’: teksty, pp. 481-496. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.
  22. Bachmann-Medick D. 2016. Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften, pp. 284-328. Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. DOI: 10.1515/9783110402988
  23. Fischer J., Delitz H. (eds.). 2009. Die Architektur der Gesellschaft. Theorien für die Architektursoziologie. Bielefeld: Transcript. DOI: 10.14361/9783839411377
  24. Becker A., Mohr J. 2012. “Fremdheit und Alterität im Hinblick auf historisches Interpretieren Waldenfels, Bernhard”. In: Alterität als Leitkonzept für historisches Interpretieren, pp. 61-72.
  25. Altenburgerund R., Bentmann E. (eds.). 2016. Raum und Grenzein den China-Studien. Jahrbuch der deutschen Vereinigung für Chinastudien, Band 10, pp. 233-254. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
  26. Redfield R. 1947. “The Folk Society”. The American Journal of Sociology, January, vol. 52, no 4, pp. 293-308. DOI: 10.1086/220015
  27. Lynd R. S., Lynd H. M. 1929. Middletown: A study in American culture. New York: HarcOurt and Brace.
  28. Vogelsang F. 2014. Identität in einer offenen Wirklichkeit. Eine Spurensuche im Anschluss an Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur und Waldenfels. Freiburg/München: Verlag Karl Alber.
  29. Warner W. L. 1963. Yankee City. New-Haven.