Behrad Farmahini Farahani; Mozaffar Sarrafi
Abstract
Extended Abstract Objective and Background: Henri Lefebvre’s theory of production of space has been one of the most influential theories in spatial studies that deals with the ...
Read More
Extended Abstract Objective and Background: Henri Lefebvre’s theory of production of space has been one of the most influential theories in spatial studies that deals with the relationship between the mentality of urban residents and urban space. The triad of spatial practice, representations of space and representational spaces, which have been discussed in that theory, have proven to be problematic due to its failure of explanation of the way that semeiotical significations in a representational space lead to the creation of meanings in the mind. In addition, it is not precise from the perspective of the cognitive psychology. The objective of present essay is the criticism of Lefebvre’s triad and explanation of the process of thought and representation in mind by means of Vygotskian School in cognitive psychology and application of the mental schema model. By criticism of Lefebvre’s theory and revelation of its deficiencies and finally, by the use of model of mental schema, the following question is answered: How is urban space created in relation to consciousness and mentality of its residents? Methodos: The methodology of current essay is based on two general methodological approach: system approach in epistemology and structurationist ontology; with emphasize on becoming, which is dialectic. Thus, it is emphasized that there is something beyond the mere expression of the mutual relationship between structure and culture, environment and psyche of man and it is that social and spatial phenomena should be studied in the course of their evolution, maturation and fall in history; this is indeed the method of dialectic. Although Lefebvre’s method from the perspective of its three moments helps us to avoid the absolute and one-sided encounter with spatial issues, it is still problematic and subject to criticism that how representational spaces influence human psyche and mind through the process of semiotical significations as well as the adi of physical objects that contain meanings (whether in line with political and social resistance or in line with the regeneration of the dominant way of production through systematization of space and exertion of hegemony over the space). Findings: This criticism took place through the encounter of the ideas of Lefebvre with the ideas of Vygotsky and Bakhtin and expression of the role of mental schema in understanding of meanings and interpretation of the inputs and their externalization. Firstly, Vygotsky in his discussion as regards inner speech showed that on the one hand, there is a distance between the meaning of a word and its sense. On the other hand, he proved that there is a difference between the scientific concepts and everyday concepts, which in turn reminds us the Hegelian difference of “In-itself” and “For-Itself. In addition, scientific concepts, which are the result of education, surpass the everyday concepts in mental analyses. Secondly, according to Bakhtin’s theory, process of thought has a dialogic nature, and in the word of every individual, there is always a trace of “otherness”. This issue leads us towards understanding the role of social groups in individual consciousness. Thirdly, mental schema, which are the dynamic element of individual consciousness and have a propositional nature change following the creation of question and search for answer. Following the change of the mental schema, if the individual finds the opportunity for institutionalization and popularization of his own idea, the culture would change too. Then, culture can be defined through the change in mental schema. On the other hand, problem of cognitive distortion is also related with the concept of exertion of hegemony and false consciousness, which can be discussed in the form of the intentional manipulation of the mental schema. Through these three theoretical foundations, one can conclude: 1)consciousness acts by means of the concepts that build mental schema; 2)since reality is changing, concepts also change in the course of time, and change in concepts and their relations through raising a question, findings answer, training and institutionalization leads to the change of mental schema; 3)individual consciousness has a collective structure, i.e. it is influenced by social groups which host the individual as their member; 4) factors of hegemony succeed to control cultural space and lived space thanks to cognitive distortion. Definition of culture through model of mental schema causes the mode of production and change of space to be clarified without being entangled with the cognitive deficiencies of Lefebvre’s cognitive theory. In an analysis that was proposed of the everyday concepts and scientific notions, it became clear that perceptions and ideas that take place due to the semiotical metaphors and significations within lived space and through spatial representations of Lefebvre are mere everyday concepts. Therefore, they do not have the logical structure of scientific concepts and even if the end of the concatenation of associations leads to similar action, since they have led to that action with an inferential method and by means of different notions and interrelations between them in the form of mental schema, soon or later, the difference and contradiction of them will be revealed. Therefore, Lefebvre’s political project, i.e. the ideal society that will be realized through resistance of different groups like oppressed, underclasses, ethnic groups, gender groups and other before the capitalist system, is more a poetic notion than a scientific analysis of the mental conditions of those groups. Conclusion: The results acquired through findings and discussions show that semiotical significations in lived space not in a poetic form that is hidden in Lefebvre’s expression rather through the role that concepts and the relations between them are established between them in the form of schemata in mind. Moreover, study of formation and change of space requires the study of the evolutionary schemata of intentional and active man whose consciousness has taken form by mediation of the semiotical systems and tools and of course, changes in the course of time. Since the consciousness of every individual is influenced by the social group to which the individual belongs, the mental schemata of social groups regarding a determinate space should be studied.
