Symbolism in Open Urban Space
Rusul Mohamed hasan Assistant lecturer
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research Abstract:
In this paper, issues related to coding for the city will be discussed. It was suggested to use a set of symbolic and discursive models to understand the cityscape to obtain the most appropriate illustration of the urban environment. The city forms a semi-circular turbine system, featuring in it social science and constantly updated patterns. An example of this is the dynamics of society.
The city is often modernized by humans. Changes can lead to the urban environment, and the formation of the idea of coding, and is considered one of the most important things in many areas of modern urban life.
Key words: symbols of the urbanize, semiotic discourse, symbols of symbolism.
Introduction:
Social, economic and symbolic. We are currently witnessing a crisis of many values on which the national and local societies that gave rise to the modern city were built. In the heart of the city, originally the engine and catalyst of human exchange, there is greater pressure on the environment and a loss of the quality of life of its inhabitants, the symptoms of which are: the deterioration of the historic center, the lack of green spaces, traffic congestion, noise pollution, increased costs of basic services, problems of social integration and marginalization and insecurity, among others. Confidence in the future, in science and technology, three pillars of the inherent order of modernity, are liquefied in a transformation of time and space.
In contemporary ―globalized‖ society, the ―traditional communities‖ of belonging have lost centrality as preferential spheres of cultural reproduction, while other media are configured as new producers of information and culture.. This is characterized, on the one hand, by the globalization of essential economic activities for the social group from the strategic point of view (means of transport, basic services, etc.) and the working conditions defined by flexibility and instability of the labor force. work and its individualization and, on the other hand, by a culture of virtuality built through a system of omnipresent, interconnected and diversified media that transform the material foundations of life, space and time.
In current times there are no great stories to take shelter from these phenomena that impact on the life of the population (relationship patterns, consumption patterns, collective affiliations, political references and dynamics of commitment). The concepts of individuation, recognition and crisis of identities account for the subjective anguish that becomes in the individual when he seeks to take charge of the task, always incomplete, of constituting his self. As a reaction to this
transformation of the human experience within the urban system, local feelings spread, yearning for the past grows, and the volatility of the culture and the symbolically most significant testimonies for the communities of reference is concerned. In this deregulation and internationalization of local identities, it is not surprising to find identity referents in specific and determined contexts.
Purpose of the study:
A philosophical search for symbols of urban space makes us think about the process of their formation. According to the theory of a symbol is generated from the relationship between reality and consciousness that perceives it [1]. Symbol is a conditional model for those who fit him of singularities that form the being and the creative beginning of the tract-wok, meanings, essence of the defined objects. The symbols of the city, the symbolism of the urban space are contained in the discourse of certain concepts, connections and relationships. The city is a phenomenon that has not only objective characteristics, but also inter subjective significance.
The structural component of the city as a system is filled with symbolic images. The image in the context of the characterization of the city is presented as a distant and mediated knowledge about reality
The image is part of reality; he can change with her. At the same time, the image is a factor of change, the dynamics of reality ‖[2]. Thus, the semiotic view of the city is concentrated in the capabilities of the subject who is aware of the reality of urban space. The city's semiosphere can be represented in the form of two models of understanding its symbols. The discursive-semiotic model of understanding the city is revealed in the theoretical substantiation of its sign-symbolic structure, in the concretization of existing approaches and strategies for the perception of the city. The conceptual-semiotic model of understanding the city is realized in a complex of ideas about its components in terms of specific spatio-temporal meanings.
The discursive-semiotic model is revealed in the interdisciplinary space of research practices (discourses) of urban studies. If we analyze the results of some semiotic studies of the city, we can model the project of its semiotic code, with the help of which the urban space will be revealed in a variety of cognitive attitudes and symbolic variations, in the constantly updated information field of its interpretations. A component of the city's seven-code is a complex of directions of symbolism.
Study environment:
Architectural and planning symbolism defines the specifics of the symbols of the city through the features of urban construction. For example, K. Lynch [3] substantiated the visual qualities of American cities by examining the mental image of a city that residents have. The symbolism of the city focuses on one visual quality - the obvious clarity, readability of the urban landscape, in accordance with which the elements of the city are collected in an orderly picture. Such a city, as a rule, is well defined spatially and perceived by the townsfolk. Paths, districts, neighborhoods,
landmarks constitute the totality of the city's public symbols, developed by the townspeople in the course of their life practices [4] investigated the symbols of city architecture, revealing the differences in the impressions of the layman and the architect about the problems of the city's scale and individuality. The visual and tactile symbolism of the urban environment is based on the visual practices of forming the meanings of the city. This format of symbolism is associated with the architectural and planning perception of the city, but it is worth adding to it the sensations of the townspeople, received from the color, illumination, forms, smells, tastes [5], sounds of the urban environment. In many ways, these criteria are associated with the natural and geographical location of the city, its ethnographic characteristics. However, artificial manipulations with visual elements of urban space can become a tool for marketing, branding and both increase and decrease the city's ratings in terms of various indicators of its development. [6], studying the visual semiotics of cities, defines a city as an inhabited space that has a system of symbolic messages fixed in it and generating a living environment. The technological symbolism of the city presupposes an overview of the urban sphere as information Methodology:
The analysis of a heritage object in the urban context, consequently, refers to a field of interest in which the iconic reality converges, as a material expression; symbolic mediation, which goes beyond reification and objectuality; and collective action as a non-particular group expression. It is in these last two dimensions where the social sciences can provide relevant categories of analysis and develop proposals that favor the management of real estate in the urban context1.
This work will deal with carrying out a psychosocial analysis of the symbolic mediation processes between heritage assets and the environment in which they are located, as well as the collective action that occurs in relation to them and that we will call the urban heritage space.
This process operates as an explanatory synthesis of the social phenomena of appropriation and collective transformation.
Construct of the territory ( Symbolic images)
―City-network‖, ―media city‖ have become a widespread practice of comprehending it.
Cognitive symbolism reveals the city as an existing fragment of memory, as an element of consciousness and sub consciousness, which forms a subjective attitude towards a specific territory. This symbolism influences the processes of human identification in the environment, the identification of "oneself" in the city and the city with "oneself". The city as a way of interrelation of spirit and place, a place of collision of ―kinship‖ and ―alienation‖ of incompatible principles of community and freedom is revealed [7]. The sense of belonging to the city is realized in critical situations and is associated with being included in the local subculture, with comprehending the levels of urban marginality [8]. The problems of conceptualizing the urban image, conditioned by the dynamics of social relations and the individual consciousness of the individual, are expressed in the socio-cultural analysis of the city [9]. The collective objectified version of the cognitive perception of the city is associated with the formation of an urban style,
recognizable and defined everywhere by the symbols of space [10]. The cognitive model of the city (the form of its representation in the mind) is capable of influencing the organization and management of urban life [11]. There are presentations of various urban identities. Another type of cognitive symbolism can be correlated with mythological perception [12; 13]. The city gives rise to enduring myths and legends, its own style, demonstrating the urban specifics. Historical and cultural symbolism is associated with the development of differentiation of cities according to their symbols in the history and culture of the region, country. Cities are a priori symbols of culture and history. However, depending on what value they acquired in the course of social development, we can talk about the degree of symbolic interpretations of certain cities.
Urban symbolism
Urban symbolism, generated by different eras, national characteristics, is expressed in the secular culture of the city. Modernity brings changes to it. There are special trends in science about the symbols of cities formed by history. Thus, the author's version of the model "cultural and civilizational landscape - the supporting matrix of the city" [14]. The anthropomorphic symbolism of the city is associated with the personification of the city with some famous person.
In the literature, this phenomenon is most often correlated with the concept of "genius of the place." The symbolism of the urban environment manifests itself with images of greatness or loss, joy or sadness, depending on who is associated with a famous people with a given area.
rightly note that the place exists as an extensible and stretching, constantly transforming space of images felt and created by a genius, which forms a mediated borderline between the genius proper and his place [15]. Each city has its own ―genius‖, known or unknown in public opinion, but necessarily symbolizing the scale of human participation in the life of the local community.
Anthropo- morphological character is emphasized by S. A. Smirnov: ―the city is the form of the formation of human culture‖, ―the temple of the human soul not made by hands‖, ―the temple of the personality‖ [16]. The city is a unique cultural idea that forms and symbolizes the world around it. The marker theory of city symbolism includes the idea of its semantic dominants:
temples, theaters, museums, educational institutions, markets (shopping areas), etc. Markers of the city are substantiated in the idea of city identification marks [ 17], which are its socio-cultural institutions, elements of self-presentation of the city, ―frame types of social communication‖.
The principle of city markers is highlighted by the practices of micro-urbanism, connecting the researcher and the layman with urban everyday life, its ―trifles‖ and details. The opportunity to consider urban symbols through the urban details of being serious moments of life, giving it dynamics, meaning and values, is becoming a very popular knowledge. A team of scientists led [18] revealed the city in details, markers of abandoned spaces, types of urban inhabitants, peculiarities of city courtyards, interactivity of public territories of cities. The marketing symbolism of a city is a complex of meanings of a city, designed to designate its image, brand, efficiency in terms of commodity-money relations, considers the city in an ideal dimension [19].
In the spirit of marketing strategies, the event symbolism of the city is developing, based on the identification of events in the life of the city and the region,
developed a symbolizing the specifics of the territory.
On the basis of the symbolism of events, the tourist benefits of cities, cultural dynamics and economic resources are determined. Socio-cultural events in the life of cities enhance their rhythms and are tools for self-presentation of spaces. Events mediate between tradition and innovation in everyday life. Based on the symbols-events, it is possible to develop strategies for urban development and support of local communities. The theory of the integration of the symbols of the city determines the specifics of the openness and "non-disclosure" of urban space.
Ural scientists consider the city as an open space that forms development strategies and forms of publicity [20]. Semiotic linguistic symbolism is associated with the study of the texts of the urban environment, metaphors of urban life, content analysis of the media and the iconography of urban advertising, local dialects, dialects and nongovernments. The language of the city, its texts have become a fascinating knowledge for those who study and are interested in the linguistic picture of the world. As a result, we can say that the discursive-semiotic model of understanding the city is constantly being filled with the semi-codes of its space, defining the depth of the structural level of the city as a system. According to the conceptual-semiotic model of understanding the city, it is the context of the relationship between time, space and process.
The mode of city processes:
The Trans boundary nature of social urban communication has formed the symbolic meanings of urban time, urban space and urban processes. Urban time as a semiotic mode of the urban system is a metaphysical projection of urban rhythms associated with events of an objective and subjective nature. The city is a stream of events, a chronometer of the phenomena of social life.
Changes in the global community characterize a different level of development, a shift in social evolution, a transition to a new civilizational state, an era of post-urbanism. Post-urbanism should be understood as the period of development of urban civilization, accompanied by trends in the transition from the classical understanding of the benefits of urban life (urban housing, urban infrastructure, urban consumption culture, artificial urban environment, etc.) to a different perception of life - outside the city, but keeping in touch with him. Cities as a place of life remain for those who measure their world outlook with them. Study, career, business, city service are the principles of life for many townspeople. However, one cannot fail to notice the crisis of urbanism associated with the manifestation of alienation to the city, understanding of the discomfort in it and abandoning its conditions, moving to the countryside. People feel the potential on the intellectual scale of their development, find the strength and opportunity to decide to move to a place where there is no city, but there is a natural habitat, and they enjoy it.
Thus, cities remain for those who have acquired the meaning of life in them, the possibility of personal growth. The era of urbanism and post-urbanism combine with each other, giving rise to discussions about the problems of urban development.
The mode of city space is symbolized by a set of specific sociocodes. we mean a ―collapsed‖
model of communication, a generally valid regulator of activity, a mechanism for transmitting
values, a stable core of civilization and a ―product of activity transferred into the public domain‖, a way of existence of ―socio-genetic memory‖ inheriting cultural evolutionary mechanisms The universality of the sociocodes of the city space lies in the fact that the city symbolizes a particular geographic territory, object, a set of infrastructural parameters of the city, a network of city highways, urban segregation, the inner world of an ordinary person, a labyrinth of urban problems, openness and isolation of city territories. The city is the result of the spatial projection of human sensory images. Spatial localization of sensations and perceptions forms an adequate awareness of space , which is reflected in the emergence of sociocodes of the environment. The uniqueness of the sociocodes of urban space is symbolized by the fact that each city is a locus of freedom and activity of its society, the embodiment of its personal and collective perception. The individual level of the social code of a city demonstrates the attitude of a particular person to the city, and the collective level of the social code, respectively, is associated with the public point of view on various vital issues of urban development. The collective level of the sociocode exists in mental maps, collective self-awareness, at the subconscious level of townspeople (mentality).
The mode of city processes is symbolized by various practices of social interaction of the townspeople. Urban life is saturated with variations of social communications in the form of cultural dialogues, cultural disconnection (crisis of multiculturalism), socialization, creativity, mediation, integration into adjacent territories, etc. The processes of change are qualitative and quantitative, they can be promising and regressive, effective and ineffective. The city is constantly in dynamics, combining all modes of the conceptual-semiotic model of understanding the city.
Thus, the theory of the totality of conceptual-semiotic discursive-semiotic models of understanding the city defines the city as a system that creates its own symbols, forms their meaning, changes the indicators of the dynamics of urban spaces. Symbols urban environments play an important role in the development of the city and awareness of the prospects for its growth, deepen the heuristic potential of philosophical studies of urban studies.
2. Social subjectivity in the construction of urban heritage space
Both urban heritage and public space are central elements of the qualitative affirmation of cities insofar as they constitute places of memory. Stately buildings, industrial and port constructions or street art, to mention some heritage assets, correspond to a qualifying and identifying component of the public space that has the ability to monumentalize the city. But, in addition, many of the heritage assets are public spaces in themselves, as is the case with some streets, bridges or large buildings that house cultural centers or places of recreation. In short, this endowment of meaning that heritage gives to urban space takes place from the processes of appropriation and symbolic identification developed by individuals and groups at the moment that interact over time in these environments. In them material and symbolic aspects converge, which are instituted by their double character: physical and social.
In its monumental qualification, the urban heritage context is an eminently transfunctional space, that is, a space full of symbolism that cannot be reduced to its mere functionality. The physical and symbolic borders between the heritage asset and the city are bound to blur. The symbolism carried by an object recognized for its historical value or its aesthetic particularity transcends towards the environment in which it is located and the groups that interact in it, a process that also occurs in the opposite direction, that is, also the symbolism of space and social groups extend to the valuation and identification of the good, forming a socio-spatial complex that is divisible only analytically.
The relationship between symbolism and space in the city has been addressed by various authors and disciplines of the social sciences. We will review, below, some references that may seem dystopian. However, they all have in common that they reinforce the idea that cultural heritage is a symbolic mediator that qualifies public space as a source of social identification and activator of what has been called the urban imaginary .
3. The social activation of urban heritage
Urban heritage cannot be defined exclusively by its historical, artistic or architectural relevance, but above all by its symbolic value, that is, by the set of socially elaborated and shared meanings around the heritage space that includes key elements for the determination of the social identity of a group. The historical value of space urban heritage empowers, more than any other space, processes of symbolic identification. Social psychology, as well as the different approaches of the social sciences, emphasize a dimension that escapes the dominant materiality in the field of heritage definition and conservation: social subjectivity. This line of research allows us to understand collective action in the urban heritage space, the social structure and urban habitability.
The social appropriation of the space is carried out from the actions of physical transformation and symbolic identification that the subjects do in the place. These appropriation mechanisms facilitate dialogue between individuals and their environment in a dynamic relationship. The individual appropriates space when he transforms it and incorporates it into his personal sphere through cognitions, affects, feelings or attitudes related to it, all of which are fundamental in the definition of him as a subject .
In the case of heritage space, spatial appropriation is carried out, fundamentally, through the communicative dynamics that are built around the asset and the processes of historical sedimentation that configure the collective memory, that is, by what the people or institutions say about the good and the social representation that it has been built over time. For their part, transformation actions —another component of the appropriation mechanism— are oriented towards the conservation and projection of the heritage asset over time. It is enough that they are collective or individual activities aimed at the sustainability and care of the heritage space, and not necessarily a physical intervention.
Conflicts between groups are generated when these psychosocial processes are carried out by groups or institutions whose temporal orientations are dissimilar or who defend different symbolic contents about the good, or when their proposals for transformation actions are incompatible with each other. These authors identify four types of temporal orientations, each of which determines a type of specific symbolic link with the historical elements existing in a given space:
i Orientation groups focused on the present, which establish a symbolic relationship with the space intrinsically associated with its functional value and contingent plans.
ii Groups with a futuristic temporal orientation, in which objects and places are mainly linked to projects and interests for the future centered, fundamentally, on development plans.
iii Groups of traditional orientation, which associate the space with a historical value, as it symbolizes important aspects of the group's history.
Tradition is embodied in environments and places, which strengthen and preserve the ligaments between past and current generations. The affective response of these groups may vary depending on the level of perceived external threat.
iv Groups with coordinated orientation, present a sense of connection with both past and future generations, give value to their current situation based on previous experiences and development expectations, and their activities show a balance between tradition and innovation.
These distinctions constitute a first step to identify the actors that make up the patrimonial subject of a specific asset. The configuration of an urban heritage space is associated, in its most lasting form, with the action of groups with a traditional temporal orientation, since, at the symbolic level, heritage is considered the material presence of the group's history, presence that must be conserved to maintain social identity. Groups with a coordinated orientation are usually a solid ally of traditional groups, since they understand that the heritage space refers to the past and the characteristic elements of their identity while projecting the assets into the future. For them, heritage is a space to preserve and promote for a better collective future. On the other hand, the groups with a functional orientation are structurally more distant from the traditional groups, because despite the fact that they have the unparalleled advantage of having resources to invest in the recovery of goods, they do not ensure continuity in uses and do not have the stability demanded by traditional and coordinated groups4.
4. Participation as organized collective action
Heritage goes beyond constructions and buildings to connect the people involved with their past and their spatiality. To this community, the political institutionality of many countries assigns a primacy of rights, since it is understood that the patrimony, in the last instance, resides in the society that feels its heir . Now, the imaginary community requires a con- I believe that the social
will crystallizes by taking care of its organization. ―At an abstract level, we could say that these repertoires (the patrimonial assets) can be activated by any social agent interested in proposing a version of the identity and obtaining support for it. Already in the plane of social reality, we must say that, in any case, who wants to activate, but who can. That is, in the first place, the constituted powers ―.
The definition of patrimonial subject implies that the patrimonial exists to the extent that one or more subjects recognize it, appropriate it and protect it as such. This patrimonial recognition was usually initiated by the bureaucratic instances of the local societies, but at present it has progressively diversified to increasingly broad and plural groups of the population. Reports on this concurrence of actors, frequently in dispute, pointing out that the patrimonial subject is historically situated in relation to patrimonial assets. This social relationship is structured in a field in which (a) specific social actors located at a given moment participate, (b) with different economic and symbolic capitals (social position), and (c) in relation to an object that it is inherited.
These elements can be identified in each case according to the following criteria:
• The scale of the gaze: local, national or international.
• The origin of membership: public, private or community.
• The proper function: commercial, administrative or services.
• The type of ownership of the property: the owners of real estate or their material forks.
Within this framework of plurality of actors involved in activating and caring for cultural heritage, social participation becomes a necessary and unavoidable dimension when attempting management proposals that favor social appropriation. It is therefore a priority to identify and involve these various actors in the achievement of an adequate and viable planning of the actions.
Intervention purposes, which must be framed systemically by the relationships with the natural environment and the built environment. However, society does not spontaneously offer participation to its members and is accustomed, rather, to a passive role, to which is added that the political participation of the country, especially that of the municipalities, does not seem to go beyond the electoral exercise of the communal authorities .In effect, ―the institutions work with a narrow concept of decentralization and recognition of differences, incapable of producing flows of social visibility, except that operated by administrators and concentrated in events of community submission, that is, projects-constructs that thin the citizen and they wrap it up in the logic of institutional dependency ―.
To achieve the necessary intercommunication and coordination between the public and private initiative directed at heritage, open conversations and negotiations must take place in the style of
a public forum. It is about building a space for discussion and coordination to draw up programs and distribute loads in an atmosphere of freedom. The constraint of regulations and bureaucracies limits effectiveness, cuts the wings of patrons and sponsors, and consumes economic resources to support themselves.
It is feasible to create public-private consortia that participate from an interest and capital articulation perspective to conserve and enhance urban heritage. But, for this, it must be borne in mind that participation is a situation that arises in the encounter of two dynamics . The first is the ability to participate, that is, that the actors have the attitudes and skills necessary to join a common enterprise and that they must have developed through practices and reflection on them previously. This is the capital that they contribute to the realization of this company. The second is the opportunity to participate, that is, to have the space incorporated and registered in the design of the policies or in the organization of the network, allowing, institutionally, the adequate exercise of the participation capacity provided by the specific group that is involved.
incorporated into that collective action. In summary, we can speak of participation when there has been an adjustment between the capacities of the incorporated group to participate and the opportunities that open up with the functioning of the network and politics.
5. Technology for the social anchoring of heritage
Based on studies carried out in the city of Barcelona, they provide two relevant conclusions for the design of the management of heritage space. In the first place, the spaces that are part of the fastest of the symbolic universe of reference of a community correspond to those that allow its use for activities of a social nature, be they formal and informal; and, secondly, that monumentality, by itself, is not a sufficient element to accelerate an identification process, which requires, at the very least, that it be accompanied by new interactions, activities or actions that are valued as positive by the community. affected. Another heritage study, this time from the City, Identity and Sustainability Network (CIS) 5, concludes, coincidentally, that collectivities that are socially structured and cohesive, those that have a defined social and spatial identity, have greater possibilities of adopting functional values, habits and behaviors with the sustainability of their environments .
These conclusions reinforce the idea that, in asset management, it is necessary to give centrality to symbolic mediation and collective action as factors that will clearly improve collective actions for the conservation and projection of these spaces. The incorporation of strategies that favor the group or community identification of the inhabitants with these spaces, in the long run, will allow the necessary social anchoring so that a sustainable use of the heritage space is generated and the care for the physical structure, quality and the value of the good. In this sense, participation and communication are mechanisms that favor appropriation; the first allows coordinating actions aimed at conservation, while the second provides content to the symbolic identification that is built on the heritage object. We will see below how the model of strategic
planning and public communication can become two technical resources that can significantly contribute to the processes of urban heritage management.
a. Strategic planning
In organizations, both in the public and private spheres, calls multiple rationalities stands out.
Within an organization, various ways of understanding action coexist, all of them rational, and they are not always spontaneously orchestrated towards a common goal .Well, this multiplicity of rationalities can divide the application of the planning concept. What is valid in any organization is valid doubly in the context of cultural heritage.
According to Hopenhayn, there would be, roughly, two opposite ways of planning in an organization:
i. Rational-comprehensive planning, which can be defined as the set of procedures through which the planner clarifies objectives, performs a systematic analysis to generate alternatives, establishes criteria to choose between these alternatives and, once the choice has been made.
produced and executed, it controls its results. This rational-comprehensive approach ends up legitimizing the expert judgment contained in the plan drawn up by virtue of being considered a privileged observer.
ii. Strategic planning, which starts from an attitude of mistrust about the real possibilities of predicting the future or finding ideal solutions. It will be enough to achieve a situation in the organization that has the ability to move quickly in the face of certain events. In this context, as a way to reduce uncertainty, the participation and agreement of the actors in favor of shared objectives is valued. Strategic planning can never be considered finished, it is always partial and selective. For this second approach, the scope of a strategic plan can vary by concentrating, for example, on the development of a key project, or on a relevant function such as marketing or human resources.
From this way of doing things, the idea that the appropriate way to think about the organization and make appropriate decisions in an increasingly complex society should have less and less unilateral imposition by the technical or political estates to the rest of the members of the social fabric and more of recognition of objectives and multiple interests that can be rationally orchestrated through negotiation. For this reason, planning would consist of ―an effort to coordinate and order the behaviors of productive agents so that their results are less unforeseen, are better integrated and point to an overall directionality . The planning exercise will be more consistent with its objectives of economic efficiency of promotion of social motivations to the extent that it is able to capture the multiple motivations of productive agents, reconcile the behaviors that derive from them, and enhance the results that emanate from such behaviors ― The strategic plan is conceived as the channel in which to join the participation of the main economic, political and social actors of the community, to elaborate a shared design on the keys to its development, to build a common vision of the future and to select the priority objectives of intervention. The interests of the actors must be united within a common understanding that seeks a ―rational form of communication between the parties that allows the recognition of the community in a certain pragmatics of the language, capable of expressing rational wills and arriving at norms and decisions. equally rational ―
Figure 2. Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi and Sufism is an important phenomenon of Konya.
b. Public communication
Communication through technology constitutes a form of relationship, since it uses expressive acts and generates interactions in which the behaviors of the actors produce relevant information for their environment. In a specific interaction, the expressive or communicative behavior of the
actor indicates a state, a need or a particular object, thus distinguishing itself from merely executive or non-communicative behaviors, which do not provide information for others, since they are not directed at entities or they do not express intentions.
In the cultural heritage management process, communication will always be public7 to the extent that it is intended to provide community members with oral or written stories, images and objects, through which an interpretation of the environment is proposed and what happens in it.
This set of communication elements articulates events that have occurred, more or less conscious purposes that the community possesses and beliefs that persist in the patrimonial subjects. They elaborate and re-elaborate cognitive representations that concern reality, which come to a greater or lesser extent from the information provided by other individuals through personal or institutional channels of communication. These stories participate in the social control of patrimonial subjects, as they favor or hinder the formation of shared visions.
The management of cultural heritage, then, must be situated in a system of communication intended for public communication, if not exclusively at least preferably, in order to socially elaborate stories that contain all kinds of information that interests or affects social institutions.
Notwithstanding that, in addition, its communicative uses include the exchange of information that interests only certain groups or particular subjects. The issues to be communicated and the way in which heritage should be treated will allow community members to distinguish it from others and activate the appropriation process.
Now, social representations refer to certain themes, selecting some data and suggesting preferences for certain evaluations instead of possible others. In the context of public heritage communication, it seems important to us that it provides clear content to form adequate representations in groups of subjects based on two types of urgent tasks that they must carry out.
In the first place, the problem-solving task within a hierarchical structure typical of any organization. In this regard, legal science highlights the need for the organization to make explicit a set of objective criteria shared by the various groups within which, initially only in them, arguments in favor of partial interests can be protected. Second, the task of creativity that occurs within a non-hierarchical structure that allows the design and coordination of new actions for the conservation and projection of the asset. Within this approach, the subjects understand and interpret the situation in which they find themselves differently and do not behave in a similar way when faced with a procedure that remains identical, therefore the subjects are organized according to their representation.
When the connection between the events that occur in an environment and the knowledge of those events is made by resorting to technological equipment, the division of labor and the elaboration of information-bearing objects, as happens in mass communication, a public information production process is set in motion. The social process of communication production is carried out in the last instance to insert a repertoire of data between the change in the environment in which the heritage assets are located and the awareness of change in the
representations of the inhabitants that surround said heritage. Public communication that refers to cultural heritage is one of the collective activities aimed at providing the necessary information for the production of community identification.
Result:
Cities are considered and consist of a complex amalgamation of Adabda phenomena, based on a multiplicity Dynamic interactions. This is due to the increase in population density, In some cases, almost continuous cooperation occurs among the inhabitants, which leads to social and economic improvement. and we are not forgetting continuous improvement of living standards - such as infrastructure, production and Consumption - City and urbanization are generally considered a positive Taking into account the problems of social inequality and violence. As it will happen, within tens of years, 80% of the world's population will live In urban areas, which will lead to the formation of a single global city: Ecumenopolis.
There are different dimensions for the city, for example Demographic, social and administrative.
The cultural dimension of the city is made up of symbols and ritual,. Scientists have investigated City, but they and its elements.The symbolic dimension was ignored and explained.
7. Conclusion
The role of the social sciences, in particular of social psychology, is to provide elements for a better understanding of symbolic processes and a better management of collective action on heritage. Without losing sight of the fact that it is a complex field in which various spheres of knowledge converge and that, therefore, requires a trans disciplinary approach.
Social subjectivity, as it has been understood in this work, has become a central element today when it comes to tackling the complex field of urban heritage. Indeed, the dynamics of interaction between individual or collective subjects and patrimonial assets do not end at all to be explained by means of market or cultural consumption studies that speak exclusively to the functionality of these assets. We also require explanatory categories from the field of social psychology that allow us to understand in depth the close symbolic relationship between heritage assets and psychosocial processes, such as identity, which are found outside of an econometric conceptual framework. . In short, it is within this psychosocial dimension, rather than in the current functionality, that good management of cultural heritage acquires more and better meaning.
The mechanisms of identification of the subjects with the goods and the transformation actions that the groups undertake on them are psychosocial aspects that decisively influence the activation processes, which forces us to incorporate social participation at various levels. In this direction, the relevance of some operational resources has been highlighted:
• The mapping of patrimonial subjects for the identification of interests, capital and capacities to participate in the conservation and projection of the asset, all of which allows to have fundamental information for the adaptation of the participation designs to the characteristics of the assets. group verses.
• Strategic planning, instead of ―citizen consultations‖, as an ideal technique for the elaboration of management plans that incorporate objectives and visions for the future agreed between economic, political and social actors.
• Public communication of asset management as a fundamental resource to attempt the symbolic identification of the community to the extent that it contributes explicit content to the elaboration of social representations around the property.
Social participation should be understood as a strategy in the management of cultural assets that favors both their conservation and their activation in order to make them socially and economically profitable. Likewise, participation is an irreplaceable means of controlling activation processes. From the category of urban social identity, the way in which the social meanings linked to the heritage space are consolidated over time is explained and how these - added to the so-called temporal orientation of the group - contribute to the conciliation of the conflicts of interest present in asset activation.
In good accounts, thanks to the collective appropriation and transformation brought about by social participation, we will be able to build what we call the urban heritage space, vitally more habitable, socially more integrated and economically more attractive. As we have already stated in another moment , infrastructures and public spaces are material elements that appropriation processes can transform into symbolic spaces that constitute identity, capable of favoring the sense of belonging and social structuring. of those who inhabit these spaces. The ability to activate these mechanisms is even greater in the case of heritage assets that, in themselves, already carry a historical and symbolic value recognized by a community. Therefore, it is not risky to suggest that it is possible to take advantage of these city spaces to generate places that welcome diversity, that allow otherness and resist the growing privatization of public space.
Reference:
1. Carr, S., & Schissler, D. (1969). The City as a Trip: Perceptual Selection and Memory in the View from the Road. Environment and Behavior, 1, 7-35.
2. De Saussure, Ferdinand. (1966). Course in General Linguistics (Edited by Charles Bally and Al- bert Sechehaye, Translated by Wade Baskin). New York, Toronto, London: McGraw- Hill Book Company.
3. Denis, M. (1997). The Description of Routes: A Cognitive Approach to the Production of Spatial Discourse. Current Psychology of Cognition, 16, 409-458.
4. Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and Difference (Trans. Alan Bass). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5. Kalin, A., & Yılmaz, D. (2012). A Study on Visibility Analysis of Urban Landmarks: The Case of Hagia Sophia (Ayasofya) in Trabzon. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 29, 241-271.
6. Merriman, P. (2004). Driving Places: Marc Augé, Non-Places, and the Geographies of England’s M1 Motorway. Theory, Culture & Society, 21, 145-167.
7. Morris, C. (1964). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Toronto: The University of Toronto.
8. Peebles, D., Davies, C., & Mora, R. (2007). Effects of Geometry, Landmarks and Orientation Strategies in the ―Drop-Off‖ Orientation Task. In S. Winter, et al. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4736, pp. 390-405).
9. Peirce, C.S. (1958) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vols. 1-6, C. Hartshorne, &
P. Weiss (Eds.), Vols. 7-8, A.W. Burks (Ed.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp.
1931-1935.
10. Rossano, M. J., West, S. O., Robertson, T. J., Wayne, M. C., & Chase, R. B. (1999) The Acquisition of Route and Survey Knowledge from Computer Models. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 101-115.
11. Panduro, T. E., & Veie, K. L. (2013). Classification and valuation of urban green spaces—
A hedonic house price valuation.
12. Landscape and Urban Planning, 120(2013), 119–128. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.08.009 PATRICK, D. (2008). OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLANNER ’ S WORKBOOK.
13. Pojani, D., & Maci, G. (2015). The Detriments and Benefits of the Fall of Planning: The Evolution of Public Space in a Balkan Post-socialist Capital. Journal of Urban Design, 20(2), 251–272.
14. Rakhshandehroo, M., & Yusof, M. J. M. (2014). Establishing new urban green spaces classification for Malaysian cities. In IFLA Asia Pacific Congress (pp. 06,1–13). Kuching.
doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.3912.6880
15. Rakhshandehroo, M., Yusof, M., Johari, M., Ale Ebrahim, N., Sharghi, A., & Arabi, R.
(2015). 100 Most Cited Articles in Urban Green and Open Spaces: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Current World Environment, 10(2), 1–16.
16. Scottish Government. (2008). Planning Advice Note (PAN 65): Planning and Open Space.
Shackell, A., & Walter, R. (2012). Greenspace design for health and well-being.
17. Stiles, R. (2011). A Guideline For Making Space. Urbspace, Central Europe Programme.
18. Swanwick, C., Dunnett, N., & Woolley, H. (2003). Nature, role and value of green space in towns and cities: An overview.
19. Built Environment, 29(2), 94–106.
20. Tahir, O. M., & Roe, M. H. (2012). Sustainable Urban Landscape: Making the case for the Development of an Improved Management System. ALAM CIPTA, International Journal of Sustainable Tropical Design Research and Practice, 1(1).
