نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی دانشگاه هنر تهران

2 استاد شهرسازی دانشگاه هنر تهران

3 استاد، گروه علوم اجتماعی، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و اقتصاد، دانشگاه الزهرا

چکیده

در پارادایم جدید برنامه‌ریزی شهری، اجتماع جایگاهی کلیدی در طرح‌ها و برنامه‌های شهری دارد. از این‌ رو، از اوایل دهه 1380، پژوهش‌های متعددی در ایران با موضوع چگونگی کاربرد اجتماع در برنامه‌ریزی شهری انجام شده و برنامه‌های شهری گوناگونی با تکیه بر مفهوم اجتماع تهیه شده است. اگرچه برخی مطالعات و برنامه‌ها، محله را معادل اجتماع در نظر می‌گیرند، برخی دیگر معتقدند اساساً مفهومی معادل اجتماع در ایران وجود نداشته و مفاهیم اجتماع در جامعه‌شناسی شهری غرب را بدون در‌ نظر‌ گرفتن ملاحظات مرتبط با زمینه اقتصادی، سیاسی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی کاربست این مفاهیم به کار گرفته‌اند. همین امر باعث شده تلقی یکسانی از اجتماع در میان برنامه‌ریزان شهری وجود نداشته باشد و برنامه‌های تدوین‌ شده بر مبنای مفاهیم غربی اجتماع، در عمل موفقیت لازم را به دست نیاورند. از این‌ رو، پیش از به کارگیری اجتماع در نظام برنامه‌ریزی ایران، با توجه به تعدد مفاهیم اجتماع در جامعه‌شناسی غرب، لازم است مشخص شود که کدام مفهوم از اجتماع برای کاربست در نظام برنامه‌ریزی شهری ایران مناسب است؟ با این حال، پرداختن به این پرسش نیازمند پاسخگویی به سه پرسش بنیادین دیگر است: (1) مفهوم اجتماع در نظریات جامعه‌شناسی شهری چیست و هر یک از این نظریات برای کاربست در چه شرایطی مناسب است؟ (2) مفهوم اجتماع در پارادایم جدید برنامه‌ریزی شهری چیست و ریشه در کدام یک از نظریات جامعه‌شناسی شهری دارد؟ و (3) پیشینه اجتماع در ایران چیست و در حال حاضر اجتماع چه مفهومی در ایران دارد؟ پژوهش حاضر سعی دارد با بهره‌گیری از مرور روایتی نظریات اجتماع و بررسی تطبیقیِ کشف مغایرت به روش کیفی به پرسش نخست پاسخ دهد. به این منظور، نظریات بنیادین اجتماع با استفاده از مطالعات اسنادی مرور شده‌اند. سپس شباهت‌ها و تفاوت‌های نظریات با یکدیگر با استفاده از بررسی تطبیقی شناسایی و ریشه این شباهت‌ها و تفاوت‌ها با بهره‌گیری از تحلیل محتوای کیفی، تبیین شده است. نتایج این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که بهره‌گیری از نظریات گوناگون اجتماع نیازمند در نظر گرفتن همزمان سه عامل است: (1)زمینه اقتصادی، اجتماعی، فرهنگی و سیاسی شهر یا محله هدف، (2) نظریه برنامه‌ریزی شهری ملاک پژوهش یا تدوین برنامه و (3) هدف از انجام مطالعه یا تدوین برنامه.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The concept of community in Urban Sociology theories and its application in urban planning

نویسندگان [English]

  • Zahra Azad 1
  • Parvin Partovi 2
  • Susan Bastani 3

1 PhD Candidate of Urban Planning at Tehran University of Art

2 Professor of Urban Planning at Tehran University of Art

3 Professor of Sociology at Alzahra University

چکیده [English]

With the paradigm change in urban planning in the 1980s, the community has assumed a central role. As a result, the community provides the smallest scale for urban planning in recent theories such as communicative planning theory, collaborative planning theory, multicultural planning, transactive planning, and argumentative planning. Following the changes in urban planning throughout the world ever since 2000, particular attention has been paid to the community in urban planning around Iran, where the concept of community has been controversial. While some Iranian experts support the idea that the notion of neighborhood can be used instead of community, others deploy different conceptions of community in western urban sociology regardless of the social, cultural, economic, and political context of Iranian cities. As a result, neither community-based studies nor urban plans are sufficiently successful. For appropriate application of the notion of community, therefore, it is necessary to find out which conception of community can best be adapted to the Iranian urban planning system. Before this question can be answered, three fundamental inquiries need to be addressed: (1) what are the assumptions behind deployment of community theories in urban planning? (2) what does community mean in the new urban planning paradigm? and (3) what does community mean in the context of Iranian cities? This research was conducted to answer the first question. Thus, the study began with an account of community theories through an examination of accredited documents with an emphasis on urban sociology. The theories reviewed here included Tonnies’s Gemeinschaft and Gessellschaft, Durkheim’s Mechanical and Organic Solidarity, Urban Community of Chicago School, Network Community, Personal Community, Cultural Community, Political Community, Post-modern Community, and Virtual Community. The similarities and differences between the conceptions of community were identified through a variation-finding comparative analysis of the theories. Then, the reasons behind these similarities and differences were derived from both narrative reviews and comparative analyses using qualitative content analysis. According to the comparison results, the similarities and differences were rooted in three major factors: (1) the dominant theoretical bases of each theory, (2) the dominant paradigm and approach of each theory, and (3) the social, economic, cultural, and political changes in the world at the time when the theory had been developed. In other words, each theory gave an account of the community in a specific social, economic, and political context, deploying a particular paradigm and sociological approach; thus, a theory of the community should be used that best fitted both the expert theoretical insight and the context the community is located in. Based on these results, three factors need to be taken into consideration for deployment of the western conceptions of community: (1) the social, cultural, economic, and political context of the target city or neighborhood, (2) the urban planning theory of the research or the plan, and (3) the purposes of the research or plan development. A combination of these three factors could contribute to the process through which the appropriate theory of community could be selected for investigation of the notion in specific contexts.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Community
  • Community Theories Genealogy
  • Community in Urban Planning
  • Community in Sociological Approaches

Azad Armaki, T. (2007). Sociological theories, Tehran: Sorush Publication. [in Persian]

Bastani, S. (2008). Network Social Capital in Ten Neighborhoods of Tehran The Place of Local Ties in Social Networks, Motaleat Ejtemaee Iran Journal, No. 4, Winter. [in Persian]

Bradshaw, T. K. (2008). The Post-Place Community : Contributions to the Debate about the Definition of Community. Journal of the Community Development Society, 39(1), 5–16.

Bradshaw, T. K. (2013). The Post-Place Community Contributions to the Debate about the Definition of Community. In M. A. Brennan, J. C. Bridger, & T. R. Alter (Eds.), theory, practice and community development (pp. 11–24). New York: Routledge.

Castells, M. (2001). The Rise of the Network Society. Tehran; Tarh-e-No Publication. [in Persian]

Cohen, A. (2010). The Symbolic Construction of Community, Tehran; Daneshkade-ye Seda va Sima Publication. [in Persian]

Delanty, G. (2003). Community. London & New York: Routledge.

Dempwolf, S., & Lyles, W. (2012). The Uses of Social Network Analysis in Planning : A Review of the Literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(1), 3–21.

Duffy, K., & Hutchinson, J. O. (1997). Urban Policy and the turn to Community. The Town Planning Review, 68(3), 347–362.

Ebrahimabadi, H. (2014). A Study Of the Relationship Between Information Technology and Changes in Culture and Social Relationships,  Iranian Journal of Cultural Research, No, 4, Winter. [in Persian].

Fernback, J., & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure? In International Communication Association. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Friedland, L. A. (2001). Communication, Community, and Democracy: Toward a Theory of the Communicatively Integrated Community. Communication Research, 28(4), 358–391.

Lyon, L. (2012). the community in urban society (second Edi). United States of America: Waveland Press.

Manson, A. (2001). Community, solidarity and belonging: levels of community significance. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(4), 462–466.

Niakouei, A. (2008). The Problems of Communitarian Politics Unity and Conflicts, Siyasat Journal, No. 4. Winter. [in Persian]

Papoli Yazdi, H. & Saghai, M. (2002). Tradition, Modernisim A Review of an Article: Geography is the Study of the Inter relationship Among Man (Culture) Technology, Management, and the Environment, Tahghighat Goghrafiai Journal, No. 2-3, Summer-Fall. [in Persian]

Pappenheim, F. (2008). ‫The alienation of modern man ; an interpretation based on Marx and Tonnies, Tehran; Agah Publication. [in Persian]

Piran, P. (2004). Wrong Assumptions of Scintific Concepts, Vaghaye Etefaghiye Journal. [in Persian]

Piselli, F. (2007). Communities, Places, and Social Networks. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(7), 867–878.

Rainie, L. and Wellman, B.(2012). Networked: The New Social Operating System, MIT Press.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ritzer, G. (2007). Contemporary Sociological Theory and its Classical Roots : the Basics, Tehran; Sales Publication. [in Persian]

Saghatoleslami, A. (2012). The concept of neighborhood in Iranian Contemporary Cities, Tehran; Sokhan Gostar Publication. [in Persian]

Talen, E. (2000). The Problem with Community in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 15(2), 171-183.

Tonnies, F. (2001). Community and Civil Society. (J. HARRIS, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, V. W. (1991). The ritual process: structure and anti-structure. Cornell University Press.

Webber, M. (2011), Nonplace Urban Realm, in Issucs on Cities and City Planning by M. Mozayeni, Tehran; University of Tehran Publication. [in Persian]

Wellman, B. (1979). The Community Question : The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers. American Journal of Sociology, 84(5), 1201–1231.

Wellman, B. (1982). Studyng Personal Communities, Centre for Urban and Community Studies University of Toronto.

Wellman, B., & Leighton, B. (1979). Networks, Neighborhoods, and Communities Approaches to the Study of the Community Question. Urban Affairs Review, 14(3), 363–390.

Wellman, B. (1988). structural Analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance. In B. Wellman, P. J. Carrington, & A. Hall (Eds.), Social Structures: A Network Approach (pp. 19–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wellman, B., & Wetherell, C. (1996). Social Network Analysis of Historical Communities: Some Questions from the Present for the Past. The History of the Family An International Quarterly, 1(1), 97–121.

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism Way of Life. The American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1813–1815.