The Experience of the Place. How Territory Image Can Help in Studying Cross-Ethnical Urban Communities


2018, Vol. 2. №1

The Experience of the Place. How Territory Image Can Help in Studying Cross-Ethnical Urban Communities

For citation: Skalaban I. A. 2018. “The Experience of the Place. How Territory Image Can Help in Studying Cross-Ethnical Urban Communities”. Siberian Socium, vol. 2, no 1, pp. 84-96. DOI: 10.21684/2587-8484-2018-2-1-84-96

About the author:

Irina A. Skalaban, Cand. Sci. (Hist.), Associate Professor, Institute of Social Technology and Rehabilitation, Novosibirsk State Technical University;


This article seeks to answer the question of whether the reconstruction of characteristic denizen place image and place experience can aid in the study of a city as a cross-ethnical community. Relying on Z. Bauman’s understanding of a city, statistical data, and empirical research of Novosibirsk, the author proves that the existence of outsider cultural groups in a modern city carries both a development potential for itself and its localised spaces and communities, as well as the risks of public opinion shift, defined by E. V. Tyrykanova as the new xenophobia. The theoretical and empirical material shows that using the image and experience of place can be perspective in assessing the state of cross-ethnical relations in localised city spaces and integration of outsider cultural groups into urban communities. This article confirms that a method of group social mapping (even in its preliminary form) can be a useful tool of data gathering and analysis. Its employment allows to understand the peculiarities of the city’s image construction by outsider ethnical groups. In addition, the author has established that the constructed image does not rely on universal cultural symbols adopted by the city dwellers, but on the symbols that reflect diaspora’s interests and values. In conclusion, there is a proved connection between the weak “imagining” of a place and a weak access to it, which, in turn, acts as a barrier to associating new citizens with local places and community. Moreover, the members of new diasporas are more likely to adapt to their urban surroundings rather than to the community, which can be seen as the first step towards their integration into the city’s space.


  1. Bauman Z. 2008. “Gorod strakhov, gorod nadezhd” [City of Fears, City of Hopes]. LOGOS. Gorod, no 3, pp. 24-53.
  2. Bart F. 2006. “Vvedenie” [Introduction]. In: Bart F. (ed.). Etnicheskie gruppy i sotsial’nye granitsy: sotsial’naya organizatsiya kul’turnykh razlichiy [Ethnic Groups and Social Frontiers: The Social Organization of Cultural Differences], p. 11. Moscow.
  3. Brubaker R. 2006. “Etnichnost’ bez grupp” [Ethnicity without Groups]. Translated from English by I. Borisova. Moscow: dom VSHEH.
  4. Vavilina N. D., Skalaban I. A. 2015. “Sotsial’noe kartirovanie: metod issledovaniya i instrument razvitiya territorii” [Social Mapping: Research Method and Territory Development Instrument]. Novosibirsk: Sibprint.
  5. Lefebvre H. 2008. “Drugie Parizhi” [Other Parises]. LOGOS. Gorod, no 3, pp. 141-147.
  6. Linch K. 1982. “Obraz goroda” [The Image of a City]. Translated from English by V. L. Glazychev. Moscow: Stroyizdat.
  7. Novosibirskstat. Migratsionnye potoki Novosibirskoy oblasti [Migration Currents of the Novosibirsk Region]. Novosibirsk: Novosibirskstat. Accessed on 7 March 2018.
  8. Persidskaya O. A., Popkov Yu. V., Skalaban I. A. 2017. “Migranty v mezhetnicheskom soobshchestve Novosibirska: spetsifika vzaimnoy adaptatsii” [Migrants in Cross-Ethnical Community of Novosibirsk: Features of Mutual Adaptation]. Vestnik NGUEHU, no 3, pp. 229-239.
  9. Popkov Yu. V., Tyugashev E. A. 2017. “Fenomen goroda kak mezhehtnicheskogo soobshchestva” [Phenomenon of a City as Cross-Ethnical Community]. EKO, no 10 (520), pp. 7-19.
  10. Reznichenko S. I. 2014. “Privyazannost’ k mestu i chuvstvo mesta: modeli i fenomeny” [Connection to a Place and the Feeling of a Place: Models and Phenomena]. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo, no 3, pp. 15-27.
  11. Skalaban I. A. 2017. “‘Starye’ i ‘novye’ diasporal’nye soobshchestva v sovremennom rossiyskom gorode” [“Old” and “New” Diasporal Communities in a Contemporary Russian City]. Eko, no 10 (520), pp. 20-35.
  12. Soja E. 2008. “Kak pisat’ o gorode s tochki zreniya prostranstva?” [Writing the City Spatially]. LOGOS. Gorod, no 3, pp. 130-140. 
  13. Tyuryukanova E. V. 2010. “Inokul’turnaya migratsiya. Drugoy ne budet” [Outsider Culture Migration. There Will Be No Other]. Accessed on 15.01.2018.
  14. Harvey D. 2008. “Pravo na gorod” [Right to the City]. Translated from English by A. Smirnov. LOGOS. Gorod, no 3., pp. 80-94. 
  15. Berdoulay V. 1989. “Place, Meaning, and Discourse in French Language Geography”. In: Agnew J. A., Duncan J. S. (eds.). The Power of Place, pр. 124-139. London: Unwin Hyman. 
  16. Cuba L., Hummon D. 1993. “A Place to Call Home: Identification with Dwelling, Community, and Region”. The Sociological Quarterly, Spring, vol. 34, no 1, pp. 111-131.
  17. Entrikin J. N. 1989. “Place, Region and Modernity”. In: Agnew J. A., Duncan J. S. (eds.). The Power of Place, pр. 30-43. London: Unwin Hyman.
  18. Entrikin J. N. 1991. The Betweenness of Place: Toward a Geography of Modernity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-21086-2
  19. Jorgensen B. A., Stedman R. 2006. “Comparative Analysis of Predictors of Sense of Place Dimensions: Attachment to, Dependence on, and Identification with Lakeshore Properties”. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 79, pp. 316-327.
  20. Meyrowitz J. 1986. No Sense of Place: The Impact of the Electronic Media on Social Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
  21. Reicher S. 2004. “The Context of Social Identity: Domination, Resistance, and Change”. Political Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 921-945.
  22. Rodman M. 1992. “Empowering Place: Multilocality and Multivocality”. American Anthropologist. New Series, September, vol. 94, no 3, pp. 640-656.
  23. Steele F. 1981. The Sense of Place. Boston: CBI.