تعداد نشریات | 30 |
تعداد شمارهها | 467 |
تعداد مقالات | 4,519 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 7,144,872 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 5,334,683 |
نقدی بر میراث ناملموس به عنوان یک مسئله شهری | ||
مطالعات ساختار و کارکرد شهری | ||
مقاله 7، دوره 12، شماره 1، فروردین 1404، صفحه 191-220 اصل مقاله (2.87 M) | ||
نوع مقاله: علمی- پژوهشی | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22080/usfs.2024.27504.2458 | ||
نویسنده | ||
کوهیار محسن پور* | ||
استادیار گروه مردم شناسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران | ||
تاریخ دریافت: 11 مرداد 1403، تاریخ بازنگری: 23 شهریور 1403، تاریخ پذیرش: 06 آبان 1403 | ||
چکیده | ||
چرخش فرهنگی در گفتمان مطالعات شهری در سالهای اخیر، و توجه به حفظ تنوع فرهنگی در ساختار شهرها، مفهوم میراث فرهنگی ناملموس را به عنوان یک مسئله جدی در شهرهای جهان مطرح کرده است. مطابق تعریف کنوانسیون سال 2003 یونسکو، میراث فرهنگی ناملموس شامل دانش و مهارت ها، بازنمایی ها و اقداماتی که جوامع، گروه ها و افراد به عنوان بخشی از میراث فرهنگی خود می شناسند. این مسئله شامل سنتهای موروثی، فعالیتها و اعمال اجتماعی، آیینها، دانش و اعمال کلی مربوط به طبیعت و جهان اطراف است که ارتباط تنگاتنگی با احساس هویت و تعلق، تنوع فرهنگی، حافظه، دانش فرهنگی، سبک زندگی در ساختار شهر دارد. مباحث نظری کمتری درباره مسئله میراث ناملموس شهری مطرح گردیده است. در این مقاله بحث در مورد آنچه را که میراث مشهود و ملموس می نامیم کنار می گذاریم، به منبع و منشأ آن می پردازیم، یعنی میراث ناملموس. مسئله اصلی این مقاله تلاشی نظری و مفهومی است برای رسیدن به تعریفی بسط یافته تر از ویژگی های ذاتی میراث ناملموس و توسعه آن به عنوان یک زبان فهم که به ابعاد متفاوت تری از شناخت و درک مسئله شهری اشاره دارد. علاوه بر این با تاسی از آرای گادامر درباره ابعاد فهم، که با سه مفهوم زبان و زبانمندی، زمان و سنت، و مکانمندی و محلیت مرتبط است، به ابعاد فهم میراث ناملموس در منظر شهری پرداخته شده است. با توجه به پتانسیل تطبیق پذیری و خود بازسازی میراث ناملموس، همچنین ظرفیت همراهی با جریانهای معاصر و مدرن زندگی شهری، و ارتباط با فرهنگ عامه و زندگی روزمره، می توان آن را به عنوان یک "تجربه زمینه ای" بسط یافته، "منشور اتیک اجتماعی" و سامان فرهنگی یک جامعه دانست. از اینرو خوانش "مسئله میراث ناملموس جدید"، برای "نظم اجتماعی جدید" در شهرها، مسئله ای حیاتی به شمار می آید. | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
میراث ناملموس فرهنگی؛ ساختار شهر؛ فهم مسئله | ||
عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
A Critique of Intangible Heritage as an Urban Problem | ||
نویسندگان [English] | ||
Koohyar Mohsenpour | ||
Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran | ||
چکیده [English] | ||
The cultural turn in the discourse of urban studies and attention to maintaining cultural diversity in the structure of cities has raised the concept of intangible cultural heritage as a serious matter in the cities. According to the 2003 UNESCO convention, intangible cultural heritage includes knowledge and skills, representations and actions that communities, groups, and individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This issue includes inherited traditions, social activities and actions, rituals, general knowledge and actions related to nature and the surrounding world, which are closely related to the sense of identity and belonging, cultural diversity, and memory and lifestyle in the structure of the city. Fewer theoretical discussions have been raised about the issue of intangible urban heritage. This study leaves aside the discussion about what is called visible and tangible heritage and focuses on its source and origin, that is, intangible heritage. The main scope of this research is a theoretical and conceptual attempt to reach a more expanded definition of the inherent characteristics of intangible heritage as a language of understanding that refers to different dimensions of knowing and understanding the urban problem. In addition, this study discussed the dimensions of understanding intangible heritage in the urban landscape based on Gadamer's opinions about the dimensions of understanding, which are related to the three concepts of language, time, and place. Considering the adaptability and self-regeneration potential of intangible heritage, as well as the capacity to accompany the contemporary and modern trends of urban life and the connection with popular culture and everyday life, it can be expanded as a contextual experience and a social and cultural order of a society. Therefore, reading "the new intangible heritage" is considered a vital problem for the "new social order" in cities. | ||
کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
Intangible cultural heritage, city structure, problem understanding | ||
مراجع | ||
Appadurai, A. (2003). The production of locality. In Counterworks (pp. 208-229). Routledge. eBook ISBN: 9780203450994
Ashrafi, M. (2011). Risks to intangible values in safeguarding cultural heritage. In International Symposium and Workshop on Cultural Property Risk Analysis, Lisbon. Accessed March (Vol. 27, p. 2016).
Augé, M. (2020). Non-places: An introduction to supermodernity. Verso Books. ISBN: 9781804292600
Azad, A., Vaezi, A., & Naghizadeh, H. (2016). A Critique of methodologism from the perspective of Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. Essays in Philosophy and Kalam, 48(1), 9-30. doi: 10.22067/philosophy.v48i1.34493 (In Persian).
Badiou, A. (2007). Being and event. A&C Black.
Berliner, D. (2013). New directions in the study of cultural transmission. In Anthropological perspectives on intangible cultural heritage (pp. 71-77). Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00855-4_6
Bianchini, F., & Ghilardi, L. (2007). Thinking culturally about place. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3, 280-286.
Bouchenaki, M. (2003). The interdependency of the tangible and intangible cultural heritage. ICOMOS 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium. https://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/468/
Castells, M. (1996). The space of flows. The rise of the network society, 1, 376-482. DOI:10.1002/9781444319514
Castillo-Villar, F. R. (2018). City branding and the theory of social representation. Bitácora Urbano Territorial, 28(1), 33-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/bitacora.v28n1.52939
Duranti, A. (Ed.). (2008). A companion to linguistic anthropology. John Wiley & Sons. DOI:10.1002/9780470996522
Dürrschmidt, J. (2017). Everyday lives in the global city: The delinking of locale and milieu (A. Moradi. Trans.). Routledge. (original work published 2000). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203184271
Eichler, J. (2020). Intangible Cultural Heritage under Pressure? Examining Vulnerabilities in ICH Regimes-Minorities, Indigenous Peoples and Refugees (p. 140). DEU. http://dx.doi.org/10.17901/AKBP1.02.2020
Evans, G. (2009). From cultural quarters to creative clusters–creative spaces in the new city economy. Stockholm: Institute of Urban History. http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/6475
Fazeli, N. (2020a). Culture and City: Cultural Turn in Urban Discourses (4th edition). Tehran: Teesa. (In Persian).
Fazeli, N. (2020b). life is thoroughly problem understanding: problem and problematology in Iranian social sciences and humanities (2th edition). Tehran: institute for humanities and cultural studies. (In Persian).
Ghorbani, R., Hossein Abadi, S., & Toorani, A. (2013). Creative cities: as cultural approach in urban development. Journal of Arid Regions Geographic Studies, 4(11), 1-18. (In Persian). https://jargs.hsu.ac.ir/article_161322.html?lang=en
Gottdiener, M. (2000). Lefebvre and the bias of academic urbanism: What can we learn from the 'new' urban analysis?. City, 4(1), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/713656983
Graeme, E., & Foord, J. (2006). Small cities for a small country: Sustaining the cultural renaissance?. In Small Cities (pp. 151-167). Routledge. http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415366588/
Graham, B. (2002). Heritage as knowledge: capital or culture?. Urban studies, 39(5-6), 1003-1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00420980220128426
Harvey, D. C. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International journal of heritage studies, 7(4), 319-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/13581650120105534
Hemmati, M. (2023). Emogizing the City A Critique on the Emergence of Unfamiliar Linguistic Signs in the Urban Landscape. Tourism of Culture, 3(11), 58-63. doi: 10.22034/toc.2023.379383.1106 (In Persian).
Hennessy, K., & Fraser, S. (2012). From intangible expression to digital cultural heritage. Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage, 33-45. Online ISBN: 9781846158629
Jaffe, R., & De Koning, A. (2020). Introducing urban anthropology (A. Baseri, Trans.). Routledge. (original work published 2016). (In Persian).
Jigyasu, R. (2014). The intangible dimension of urban heritage. Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage, 129-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118383940.ch5
Karimzadeh, D., & Davoudpour, ,. Z. (2018). Democratic approaches in urban planning and the emergence of agnostic theory. Urban Structure and Function Studies, 5(16), 111-128. doi: 10.22080/shahr.2018.2014 (In Persian).
Konach, T. (2016). Programming the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the City–Paradigms and Perception. The Case of the Ancient City of Nessebar. Przegląd Kulturoznawczy, 27(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.4467/20843860PK.16.002.5042
Lotfi, S. & Mohammadi, A. (2012). Examining the relationship between urban symbols and the city's identity (case study: Gonbad Kavos City). Geography (Regional Planning). 2(2), 61-70. (In Persian).
Loulanski, T. (2006). Revising the concept for cultural heritage: the argument for a functional approach. International journal of cultural property, 13(2), 207-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0940739106060085
Lucy, J. A. (1992). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620843
Melis, C., & Chambers, D. (2021). The construction of intangible cultural heritage: A Foucauldian critique. Annals of Tourism Research, 89, 103206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103206
Meshkini, A., Zanganeh, A., & Amirhajlou, E. (2022). Metheodoligical criticism on urban studies based on the Philosophy of Critical.
Nasri, A. (2004). Elements of Understanding in Gadamer’s Thought. Philosophy of Religion Research, 2(2), 55-65. doi: 10.30497/prr.2012.1214 (In Persian).
Pearce, S. (1998). The construction and analysis of the cultural heritage: some thoughts. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 4(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527259808722215
razi, N., Abdollahzadeh Tarf, A., Saghafi Asl, A., & Sattarzadeh, D. (2023). Assessing the Relationship between the Effective Cultural Indices on the Sustainable Urban Landscape of Urmia City. Sustainable city, 6(1), 19-37. doi: 10.22034/jsc.2021.283676.1460 (In Persian).
Roe, M. (2016). Landscape and intangible cultural heritage: Interactions, memories and meanings. In The Routledge companion to intangible cultural heritage (pp. 342-355). Routledge. eBook ISBN: 9781315716404
Rusalić, D. (Русалић, Д.) (2009). Making the intangible tangible: The new interface of cultural heritage (Vol. 63). Etnografski institut SANU. https://etno-institut.co.rs/en/editorial-boards-for-monographs/making-the-intangible-tangible-the-new-interface-of-cultural-heritage
Schut, M., Nas, P. J., & Hettige, S. T. (2011). Emotion in the symbolic spectrum of Colombo, Sri Lanka. Cities full of symbols: A theory of urban space and culture, 27-54. https://hdl.handle.net/1887/21402
Smeets, R. (2004). Language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage. Museum international, 56(1‐2), 156-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00470.x
Smith, L., & Campbell, G. (2017). The tautology of “intangible values” and the misrecognition of intangible cultural heritage. Heritage & Society, 10(1), 26-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2159032X.2017.1423225
Tavares, D. S., Alves, F. B., & Vásquez, I. B. (2021). The Relationship between Intangible Cultural Heritage and Urban Resilience: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 13(22), 12921. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132212921
Toghraei, A., Ranjbar, E., & Varij Kazemi, A. (2022). Clarifying the Place of Urban Public Space in Two Concepts of Cultural Consumption and Social Production of Space. Urban Planning Knowledge, 6(2), 101-130. doi: 10.22124/upk.2022.20824.1692 (In Persian).
Turner, M., & Tomer, T. (2013). Community participation and the tangible and intangible values of urban heritage. Heritage & Society, 6(2), 185-198. https://doi.org/10.1179/2159032X13Z.00000000013
Vaezi, A. (2012). Gadamer's Original Notion of Understanding. Philosophy, 10(2), 5-26. doi: 10.22059/jop.2012.35878. (In Persian).
Vaghefi, I. (2016). Critical methodology in city studies. Space and dialectics. Retrieved on June 12, 1403. http://dialecticalspace.com/critical-methodology-urban-study (In Persian).
Van Zanten, W. (2004). Constructing new terminology for intangible cultural heritage. Museum international, 56(1-2), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00456.x
Zokaei, S., & Vala, M. (2020). The Politics of Memory, Cultural Memory and Cultural trauma in Modern Iran. Cultural Studies & Communication, 16(58), 11-33. doi: 10.22034/jcsc.2020.128105.2146 (In Persian).
| ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 101 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 70 |