Cultural Space of a Modern City as an Object of Psychological Research | South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences
Cultural Space of a Modern City as an Object of Psychological Research
Vol. 25 (2024) No. 1, Social Psychology
Vol. 25 (2024) No. 1
Social Psychology

Cultural Space of a Modern City as an Object of Psychological Research

Tuchina O.R.
Kuban State Technological University
ORCID ID 0000-0001-5525-7645
Apollonov I.A.
Kuban State Technological University
ORCID ID 0000-0002-1926-8213
PDF (Russian)
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-25-1-114-126
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-25-1-114-126

How to Cite Array

Tuchina O.R., Apollonov I.A. (2024) Cultural Space of a Modern City as an Object of Psychological Research. South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences, 25 (1), pp. 114-126. DOI: 10.31429/26190567-25-1-114-126 (In Russian)
Submission Date 2024-02-05
Accepted Date 2024-04-15
Published Date 2024-03-29

Copyright (c) 2024 Оксана Роальдовна Тучина, Иван Александрович Аполлонов

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The paper examines the phenomenon of urban identity within the context of an individual’s sense of belonging to the urban cultural space. The urban cultural milieu represents a significant factor in shaping an individual’s attachment to their place of residence and an emotional connection with the city. This is an essential aspect of the subjective well-being of the residents. The objective of this study is to provide theoretical justification for the concept of “urban cultural space” and to empirically examine the respondents’ perceptions of urban cultural space. The research methods employed were an associative experiment and a prototypical analysis, as proposed by P. Vergès. The empirical base of the study comprised 354 respondents permanently residing in Krasnodar. The concept of the “cultural space of the city” as a semantic sphere embodied in the urban landscape is substantiated from the perspective of the subjective approach. The core of social ideas of Krasnodar residents about urban culture and the culture of their city is characterized by consistency. This is evidenced by common elements, including city cultural institutions, parks, city customs and traditions, and the culture of everyday. The social representations of urban culture are distinguished by an expanded core, encompassing both material cultural objects and the activity aspect of urban culture. The peripheral zone of social perceptions (SP) of Krasnodar residents about urban culture includes categories that distinguish the urban environment from the rural one (specifically in terms of the visible signs of urbanization.). The same zone of SP about Krasnodar culture encompasses specific urban locations, urban cultural practices, distinctive behaviors, and the everyday culture of citizens. The common element of the peripheral zone of SP is the category “city residents” (“Krasnodar residents”). The social perceptions of a given city, such as Krasnodar, imbue these elements with a specific content that is determined by the specifics of the urban environment.

Keywords

subjective approach, social perceptions, urban environment, urban culture, cultural space of the city, urban identity

Acknowledgements

The study was financially supported by the Kuban Science Foundation (project no. NIP‑20.1/209 “Interactive digital environment as a tool for realizing the socio-­economic potential of fine arts in Krasnodar”).

References

  1. Apollonov, I.A., Tarba, I.D. (2023). Prostranstvo kul’tury v zerkale gorodskogo landshafta [Space of Culture in the Mirror of the Urban Landscape]. Voprosy filosofii [Philosophy Questions], 8, 174–178. DOI: 10.21146/0042-8744-2023-8-174-188
  2. Bovina, I.B., Dvoryanchikov, N.V., Mel’nikova. D.V., Lavreshkin, N.V. (2022). K voprosu ob issledovanii sotsial’nykh predstavleniy: vzglyad so storony [On the Issue of Studying Social Representations: an Outside View]. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 13(3), 8–25. DOI: 10.17759/sps.2022130302
  3. Vyrva, A.YU., Leont’yev, D.A. (2015). Vozmozhnosti sub’’yektivno-semanticheskikh metodov v issledovanii vospriyatiya arkhitektury [Possibilities of Subjective-Semantic Methods in the Study of the Perception of Architecture]. Kul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya [Cultural-Historical Psychology], 11(4), 96–111. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2015110409
  4. Gabidulina, S.E. (2012). Psikhologiya gorodskoy sredy [Psychology of the Urban Environment]. Moskva: Smysl.
  5. Znakov, V.V., Ryabikina, Z.I. (2017). Psikhologiya chelovecheskogo bytiya [Psychology of Human Existence]. Moskva: Smysl.
  6. Kaptsevich, O. A. (2021). Kriterii otsenochnogo vospriyatiya elementov gorodskoy sredy (na primere zhilykh domov Vladivostoka) [Criteria for Evaluative Perception of Elements of the Urban Environment (on the Example of Residential Buildings in Vladivostok)]. Ekologiya cheloveka [Human Ecology], 1, 38–44. DOI: 10.33396/1728-0869-2021-1-38-44
  7. Linch, K. (1982). Obraz goroda [The Image of the City]. Moskva: Stroyizdat.
  8. Litvina, S.A., Bogomaz, S.A. (2016). Lichnostno-obuslovlennaya otsenka gorodskoy sredy cherez konstrukt realizuyemosti bazovykh tsennostey [Personally-Conditioned Assessment of the Urban Environment through the Construct of the Feasibility of Basic Values]. In T.V. Drobysheva, A.L. ZHuravlev (Eds.) Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskiye issledovaniya goroda [Socio-Psychological Studies of the City] (pp. 125–145). Moskva: Institut psikhologii, Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk.
  9. Murav’yeva, O.I., Litvina, S. A., Bogomaz, S. A. (2015). Sredovaya identichnost’: soderzhaniye ponyatiya [Environmental Identity: The Content of the Concept]. Sibirskiy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal [Siberian Psychological Journal], 58, 136–148. DOI: 10.17223/17267080/58/10
  10. Ozerina, A.A., Timofeyeva, T.S. (2019). Obzor sovremennykh zarubezhnykh issledovaniy fenomena “Gorodskaya identichnost’” [Review of Modern Foreign Studies of the Phenomenon “Urban Identity”]. Logos et Praxis, 4, 142–152. DOI: 10.15688/??????
  11. Pirogov, S.V. (2011). Gorod kak fenomen kul’tury: kognitivnyy podkhod [City as a Phenomenon of Culture: A Cognitive Approach]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Kul’turologiya i iskusstvovedeniye [Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. Cultural Studies and Art History], 2, 31–37.
  12. Radina, N.K. (2016). Urbanistika i sotsial’naya psikhologiya: gorod v predstavleniyakh gorozhan [Urban Studies and Social Psychology: the City in the Minds of Citizens]. In T.V. Drobysheva, A. L. ZHuravlev (Eds.) Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskiye issledovaniya goroda [Socio-Psychological Studies of the City] (pp. 61–81). Moskva: Institut psikhologii, Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk.
  13. Smirnov, S.A. (2022). Chelovek v gorode i gorod v cheloveke, ili Yeshche raz o predmete gorodskoy antropologii [Man in the City and the City in Man, or Once Again about the Subject of Urban Anthropology]. Urbis et Orbis. Mikroistoriya i semiotika goroda [Urbis et Orbis. Microhistory and Semiotics of the City], 1(2), 7–28. DOI: 10.34680/urbis‑2022-1(2)-7-28
  14. Tuchina, O.R. (2023). Kul’turnoye prostranstvo sovremennogo goroda kak faktor formirovaniya gorodskoy identichnosti (na materiale issledovaniya zhiteley Krasnodara) [The Cultural Space of a Modern City as a Factor in the Formation of Urban Identity (Based on a Study of Residents of Krasnodar)]. Azimut nauchnykh issledovaniy: pedagogika i psikhologiya [Azimuth of Scientific Research: Pedagogy and Psychology], 3(44), 145–148. DOI: 10.57145/27128474
  15. Shmelina, O.S., Tsygankova, O.Ye. (2016). Obrazy “goroda-mechty” i real’nogo goroda v predstavlenii zhiteley krupnogo i malogo gorodov [Images of a “Dream City” and a Real City in the Minds of Residents of Large and Small Cities]. In T.V. Drobysheva, A.L. Zhuravlev (Eds) Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskiye issledovaniya goroda [Socio-Psychological Studies of the City] (pp. 27–49). Moskva: Institut psikhologii, Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk.
  16. Agustí, D.P., Rutllant, J., Fortea, J.L. (2019). Differences in the Perception of Urban Space via Mental Maps and Heart Rate Variation (HRV). Applied Geography, 112, 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102084
  17. Bott, S., Cantrill, J.G., Myers, O.E. (2003). Place and Promise of Conservatory Psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 100–112.
  18. Brown, D.G. (2001). Characterizing the Human Imprint on Landscapes for Ecological Assessment. In M.E. Jensen, P.S. Bourgeron (Eds.) A Guidebook for Integrated Ecological Assessments (pp. 404–416). New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-8620-7_28
  19. Cervinkova, H. (2016). Producing Homogeneity as a Historical Tradition. Neo-conservatism, Precarity and Citizenship Education in Poland. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 14(3), 43–55.
  20. Cervinkova, H., Golden, J.D. (2020). Remembering and Belonging: Jewish Heritage and Civic Agency in Poland’s Haunted Urban Spaces. Urbanities-Journal of Urban Ethnography, 10(3), 128–146.
  21. Cosgrove, D.E. (1984). Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  22. Hidalgo, M.C., Berto, R., Galindo, M.P., Getrevi, A. (2006). Identifying Attractive and Unattractive Urban Places: Categories, Restorativeness and Aesthetic Attributes. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 7(2), 115–133.
  23. Jiang, B., Li, D., Larsen, L., Sullivan, W.C. (2016). A Dose-Response Curve Describing the Relationship between Urban Tree Cover Density and Self-Reported Stress Recovery. Environment and Behavior, 48(4), 607–629. DOI: 10.1177/0013916514552321
  24. Jones, C., Svejenova, S. (2017). The Architecture of City identities: A Multimodal Study of Barcelona and Boston. Multimodality, Meaning, and Institutions, 54B, 203–234, DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X2017000054B007
  25. Klusáková, L., Parafianowicz, H., Brzozowska M. (2019). The Strategic Use of Heritage Representations: The Small Towns of Podlasie Province. Urbanities-Journal of Urban Ethnography, 1, 54–74.
  26. Lindberg, M., Johansson, K., Karlberg, H, Balogh, J. (2019). Place Innovative Synergies for City Center Attractiveness: A Matter of Experiencing Retail and Retailing Experiences. Urban Planning, 4(1), 91–105. DOI: 10.17645/up.v4i1.1640
  27. Milgram, S. (1984). Cities as Social Representation. In R.M. Farr, S. Moscovici (Eds) Social representations (рр. 289–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Negami, H. R., Mazumder, R., Reardon, M., Ellard, C. G. (2018). Field Analysis of Psychological Effects of Urban Design: A Case Study in Vancouver. Cities & Health, 2(2), 106–115. DOI: 10.1080/23748834.2018.1548257
  29. O’Donnell, P. M. (2008). Urban Cultural Landscapes and the Spirit of Place. In 16th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium: ‘Finding the spirit of place — between the tangible and the intangible’. Retrieved from https://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/67/
  30. Valera, S., Guàrdia, J., Pol, E. (1998). A Study of the Symbolic Aspects of Space Using Nonquantitative Techniques of Analysis. Quality & Quantity, 32, 367–381. DOI: 10.1023/A:1004360609319
  31. Vogeler, I. (2010). Critical Cultural Landscape of North America. Retrieved from http://people.uwec.edu/ivogeler/CCL-bookchapters-pdf/index.htm
  32. Zelenski, J. M., Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Happiness and Feeling Connected: the Distinct Role of Nature Relatedness. Environment and Behavior, 46(1), 3–23. DOI: 10.1177/0013916512451901
  33. Ziyaee, M. (2018). Assessment of Urban Identity through a Matrix of Cultural Landscapes. Cities, 74, 21–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2017.10.021