تبیین رویکرد شناختی-فرهنگی در انطباق با رویکردهای تکوینی به معنا در شهرسازی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکترای شهرسازی اسلامی، مدرس دانشگاه، تبریز، ایران

2 استاد طراحی شهری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اسلامی تبریز، تبریز، ایران

3 استاد معماری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اسلامی تبریز، تبریز، ایران

چکیده

بیان مسئله: امروزه معنای محیط از مهم‌ترین موضوعات شهرسازی بوده و مکاتب فکری معاصر همواره به دنبال نظریه‌پردازی «ماهیت معنا و فرایند تکوین آن» در فضاهای شهری هستند. به نظر می‌رسد این مکاتب به دلیل فقدان ظرفیت لازم جهت بهره‌مندی از ابتکارات سایر حوزه‌های علمی و همچنین نگاه تک‌سطحی به معنا، با کاستی‌هایی همراه هستند. به دلیل ماهیت میان‌رشته‌ای شهرسازی، بهره‌گیری از علوم مرتبط با ساختارهای شناختی و ادراکی فرد مانند علوم شناختی برای تبیین فرایند تکوین معنا در فضای شهری، ضروری به نظر می‌رسد.
هدف: هدف این نوشتار تعمیم کاربست مفاهیم مرتبط با شناخت انسان و محیط در حوزه علوم شناختی به حوزه مطالعات محیطی از جمله شهرسازی و کاهش خلأ موجود در مطالعات نظری میان‌رشته‌ای بین این دو حوزه است.
روش: روش تحقیق در این مقاله، تطبیقی - تحلیلی است که با تبیین جایگاه رویکرد شناختی-فرهنگی در مقایسه با رویکردهای پسااثبات‌گرا و پساساختارگرا در حوزه مطالعات شهری، انجام می‌شود.
یافته‌ها: رویکرد شناختی-فرهنگی به لحاظ معرفت‌شناسی و عوامل تکوین معنا در فضاهای شهری با رویکردهای پسااثبات‌گرا و پساساختارگرا متمایز می‌شود. به لحاظ معرفت‌شناسی در رویکرد شناختی-فرهنگی، معنا را به‌طور هم‌زمان در دو سطح فراگیر با ذهنیت فرهنگی و در سطح خاص با رویه‌های فرهنگی بازتولید می‌شود. قابلیت‌های شناختی-فرهنگی فضای شهری، تجربه شناختی-فرهنگی فرد از فضای شهری و نحوه در دسترس بودن/دسترس‌پذیری در یک موقعیت خاص عوامل تکوین معنا در رویکرد شناختی-فرهنگی هستند.
نتیجه‌گیری: رویکرد شناختی-فرهنگی به‌عنوان رویکرد پیشنهادی پژوهش با نگاهی چندسطحی و موقعیتی به معنا، کاستی‌های موجود رویکردهای پیشین همچون نگاه تک‌سطحی به مطالعه معنا در مطالعات شهری را پوشش داده و شهرسازی را به‌عنوان دانش موقعیت‌مند فرهنگی معرفی می‌نماید

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Explaining the Cognitive-Cultural Approach in Comparison with Developmental Approaches to Meaning in Urbanism

نویسندگان [English]

  • Zahra Alinam 1
  • Mohamad Taghi Pirbabaie 2
  • Minou Gharehbaglou 3
1 PhD in Islamic Urbanism, University Lecturer, Tabriz, Iran
2 Professor in Urban Design, Architecture & Urbanism Faculty, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran
3 Professor in Architecture, Architecture & Urbanism Faculty, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background: Today, the meaning of environment is one of the most important issues in urbanism and contemporary schools of thought have always sought to theorize the "nature of meaning and the process of its development" in urban spaces.Despite their strengths, they seem to have shortcomings due to the lack of capacity to benefit from the initiatives of other scientific fields and the single-level view of meaning. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of urbanism, it seems necessary to use related sciences to the cognitive and perceptual structures of the individual to explain the process of meaning development in urban.
Objectives: In response to the question, " What is the cognitive-cultural process of meaning formation in urban space and what are its achievements in comparison with other developmental approaches to meaning?", the purpose of this paper is to generalize the application of cognitive science concepts related to cognition of human and environment to the field of environmental studies, including urbanism and reduce the gap in the interdisciplinary theoretical studies of these two fields.
Method: The research method in this article is a comparative- analytical method that is done by explaining the position of cognitive-cultural approach in comparison with post-positivist and post-structuralist approaches in the field of urban studies.
Result: The cognitive-cultural approach is distinguished from post-positivist and poststructuralist approaches in terms of epistemology and factors of meaning development in urban spaces. Epistemologically, in the cognitive-cultural approach, meaning is reproduced simultaneously at two pervasive levels with cultural mentality and at a specific level with cultural practices. Cognitive-cultural affordances of urban space, cognitive-cultural experience of the individual from urban space and how to be available/accessible in a particular situation are the factors of meaning development in the cognitive-cultural approach. In other words, this approach examines the traces of culture both in the environment and in humans.
Conclusion: The proposed cognitive-cultural approach of the research with a multilevel and situational view of meaning, covers the shortcomings of previous approaches in urban studies such as a single-level view of meaning and introduces urbanism as situational cultural knowledge.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Urban meaning development
  • cognitive-cultural approach
  • situational cognition
  • post-positivism
  • post-structuralism
پیربابائی، محمدتقی، قرهبگلو، مینو و علینام، زهرا. )1395(. بررسی تأثیرعوامل فردی در مطالعه فرایندمحور دلبستگی به مکان با رویکرد روانشناسی
شناختی )مورد پژوهی: محله قرهباغیها در تبریز(. نشریه هنرهای زیبا-معماری و شهرسازی، 21)2(، .68-55
عالم، عبدالرحمن و انصافی، مصطفی. )1397(. بازشناسی گذار از ساختارگرایی به پساساختارگرایی. سیاست، 48)1(، .76-59
علینام، زهرا. )1400(. بررسی فرایند موقعیتی تولید معنا در فضاهای شهری از منظر نظریه ادراکات اعتباری. فرهنگ معماری و شهرسازی اسالمی،
.93-81 ،)2(6
قرهبگلو، مینو و اردبیلچی، ایلقار. )1399(. شناخت معنای محیط. تبریز: دانشگاه هنر اسالمی تبریز.
محمدی ماکرانی، حمید. )1389(. کاربرد نظریه کنش ارتباطی یورگن هابرماس در شهرسازی: موافقان و مخالفان. صفه، 44)16(، .25-4
 
Alam, A., & Ensafi, M. (2018). Recognizing the transition from structuralism to post-structuralism. Politic,
48(1), 59-76. (in Persian)
Alinam, Z. (2022). Investigating the Situated Process of Meaning Development in Urban Spaces from the
Perspective of Conventional Perception (E’tebariat) Theory. The Culture of Islamic Architecture and
Urbanism, 6(2), 81-93. (in Persian)
Alinam, Z. (2017). The Effects of Individual Factors on the Formation of Cognitive Maps. ICONARP
International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 5(1), 134-150.
Alinam, Z., Tylén, K., Pirbabaei, M. T., & Gharehbaglou, M. (2021). Cognitive-Cultural Looping Mechanism
of Urban Space Conceptualization. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 1-19.
Allmendinger, P. (2002). Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning theory, 1(1), 77-
99.
Auburn, T., & Barnes, R. (2006). Producing place: a neo- Schutzian perspective on the Psychology of place.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(1), 38-50.
Batty, M. (2012). Building a science of cities. Cities, 29(1), S9-S16.
Boelens, L., & De Roo, G. (2016). Planning of undefined becoming: First encounters of planners beyond the
plan. Planning Theory, 15(1), 42-67.
Brown, A. M., & Lindsey, D. T. (2004). Color and language: worldwide distribution of Daltonism and distinct
words for “blue”. Vis Neurosci, 21(3), 409-412.
Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological psychology, 15(2), 181-195.
Craig, C. S., & Douglas, S. P. (2006). Beyond national culture: Implications of cultural dynamics for
consumer research. International Marketing Review, 23(3), 322-342.
De Roo, G., & Rauws, W. S. (2012). Positioning planning in the world of order, chaos and complexity: On
perspectives, behaviour and interventions in a non-linear environment. In J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk
& E. Tan (Eds.), Complexity theories of cities have come of age (pp. 207-220). Heidelberg: Springer.
Derrida, J. (1977). Posiciones. Valencia: Pre-textos.
Durning, S. J., & Artino, A. R. (2011). Situativity theory: a perspective on how participants and the
environment can interact: AMEE Guide no. 52. Medical teacher, 33(3), 188-199.
Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban affairs review, 35(4), 451-478.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California press.
Friedmann, J. (2000). The good city: In defense of utopian thinking. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 24(2), 460-472.
Gehl, J. (1971). Life between buildings: using public space. Copenhagen: Danish ArchiArchitectural.
Gharehbaglou, M., & Ardabilchi, I. (2020).Understanding the meaning of the environment. Tabriz: Tabriz
Islamic Art Universit. (in Persian)
Gibson, J. J. (1977). “The Theory of Affordances”. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and
Knowing (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hove: Psychology Press.
Gottdiener, M., & Hutchiso, R. (2011). The New Urban Sociology (4th ed.). Colorado: Westview Press.
Graham, S., & Healey, P. (1999). Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and
practice. European planning studies, 7(5), 623-646.
Habermas, J., McCarthy, T., & McCarthy, T. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). Boston:
Beacon press.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan International
Higher Education.
Hillier, J. (2005). Straddling the post-structuralist abyss: between transcendence and immanence?. Planning
Theory, 4(3), 271-299.
Hillier, J. (2010). Post-structural complexity: strategic navigation in an ocean of theory and practice. In M.
Cerreta & V. Monno (Eds.), Making Strategies in Spatial Planning (pp. 87-97). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Howell, K.E. (2013). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology. London: SAGE Publication.
Inam, A. (2002). Meaningful urban design: teleological/catalytic/relevant. Journal of urban design, 7(1), 35-
58.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage.
Kashima, Y., & Kashima, E. S. (2003). Individualism, GNP, climate, and pronoun drop: Is individualism
determined by affluence and climate, o does language use play a role?. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 34(1), 125-134.
Knox, P., & Pinch, S. (2014). Urban social geography: an introduction. NY: Routledge.
Kudryavtsev, A., Stedman, R. C., & Krasny, M. E. (2012). Sense of place in environmental
education. Environmental education research, 18(2), 229-250.
Li, S. C. (2003). Biocultural orchestration of developmental plasticity across levels: the interplay of biology
and culture in shaping the mind and behavior across the life span. Psychological bulletin, 129(2), 94-171.
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. London: The MIT Press.
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure
cognition? The case for space. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(3), 108-114.
Marcus, L., Giusti, M., & Barthel, S. (2016). Cognitive affordances in sustainable urbanism: contributions of
space syntax and spatial cognition. Journal of Urban Design, 21(4), 439-452.
Markus, H. R., & Hamedani, M. G. (2007). “Sociocultural Psychology. The Dynamic Interdependence among
Self Systems and Social Systems”. S. Kitayama & D. Cohen, (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Psychology (pp.
3-39).
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Meesters, J. (2009). The meaning of activities in the dwelling and residential environment: A structural
approach in people-environment relations (Vol. 27). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Mertens, D.M. (2014). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology (4th ed.). London: SAGE
Publication.
Mohammadi Makrani, H. (2010). Application of Jürgen Habermas's theory of communication action in urban
planning: pros and cons. Soffe, 44(16), 4-25. (in Persian)
Nelson, K. (2007). Young Minds in Social World: Experience, Meaning and Memory. MA: Harward
University Press.
Nisbett, R. E., & Masuda, T. (2003). Culture and point of view. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 100(19), 11163-11170.
Nyseth, T. (2012). Fluid planning: A meaningless concept or a rational response to uncertainty in urban
planning. Advances in spatial planning, 27-46.
Nyseth, T., Pløger, J., & Holm, T. (2010). Planning beyond the horizon: The Tromsø experiment. Planning
Theory, 9(3), 223-247.
Nölle, J., Fusaroli, R., Mills, G. J., & Tylén, K. (2020). Language as shaped by the environment: linguistic
construal in a collaborative spatial task. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1-10.
Oyserman, D. (2017). Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries. Annual review of
psychology, 68, 435-463.
Oyserman, D., Novin, S., Flinkenflögel, N., & Krabbendam, L. (2014). Integrating culture-as-situatedcognition and neuroscience prediction models. Culture and Brain, 2(1), 1-26.
Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Post positivism and educational research. Maryland: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Pirbabaei, M. T., Gharehbaglou, M., & Alinam, Z. (2016). An investigation on the effects of individual factors
in process-oriented study of place attachment with a cognitive psychological approach. Journal of Honarha-ye-Ziba_Memari-Va-Shahrsazi, 21(2), 55–68. (in Persian)
Portugali, J., Meyer, H., Stolk, E., & Tan, E. (Eds.). (2012). Complexity theories of cities have come of age:
an overview with implications to urban planning and design. Springer Science & Business Media.
Ramstead, M. J., Veissière, S. P., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2016). Cultural affordances: scaffolding local worlds
through shared intentionality and regimes of attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1090.
Regier, T., Carstensen, A., & Kemp, C. (2016). Languages Support Efficient Communication about the
Environment: Words for Snow Revisited. PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0151138.
Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325-
352.
Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332-348.
Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social cognition, 25(5), 638-656.
Sheldon, K. M. (2004). The psychology of optimal being: An integrated, multi-level perspective. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, E., & Semin, G. (2004). Socially situated cognition: Cognition in its social context. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 53-117.
Soares, A. M., Farhangmehr, M., & Shoham, A. (2006). Hofstede's dimensions of culture in international
marketing studies. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 277-284.
Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it's hard to read, it's hard to do: Processing fluency affects effort prediction
and motivation. Psychological Science, 19(10), 986-988.
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M. J., & Peng, K. (2010). Cultural differences in expectations of change and
tolerance for contradiction: A decade of empirical research. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 14(3), 296-312.
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions:
The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and brain sciences, 28(5), 675-691.
Tylén, K., Fusaroli, R., Bundgaard, P. F., & Østergaard, S. (2013). Making sense together: A dynamical
account of linguistic meaning-making. Semiotica, 2013(194), 39-62.
Van de Vliert, E. (2006). Autocratic leadership around the globe: Do climate and wealth drive leadership
culture?. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(1), 42-59.
Van de Vliert, E., Huang, X., & Levine, R. V. (2004). National wealth and thermal climate as predictors of
motives for volunteer work. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(1), 62-73.
Way, B. M., & Lieberman, M. D. (2010). Is there a genetic contribution to cultural differences? Collectivism,
individualism and genetic markers of social sensitivity. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 5(2-
3), 203-211.
Williams, J. (2014). Understanding Poststructualism. NY: Routledge.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.