Difference between revisions of "Culture aspects"
(Created page with "ttt") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | '''Culture aspects''' in urban planning have been classically addressed in terms of urban arts and city planning. Growing features are cultural policy and practice. The purpose is to "create contexts in which planners and multicultural groups can continuously learn and experiment, think systematically, engage in meaningful dialogue, and create visions that energize action and inclusion in city planning."<ref>INSERT.</ref> Cognitive dimensions of culture are especially important to address aspects, such as perception of [[Vulnerability|vulnerability]] and building of cognitive foundations for citizen [[Resilience|resilience]]. |
||
| − | ttt |
||
| + | |||
| + | =Concept of culture= |
||
| + | Technically, culture is linked to cognition and refers to people’s assumptions about the world.<ref>E.g. Keesing 1974.</ref> Definitions of culture, also as related to security, abound. The classical policy concept of political culture, as established by Almond and Verba, centers on norms and values guiding citizens’ assessments, expectations and behavior consequences.<ref> Almond and Verba 1963.</ref> Theoretically speaking, culture provides the background for (re)cognition and forms the cognitive as well as value-laden basis for so-called "taken for grantedness".<ref>Cf. Adler 1997.</ref> This has been seminally elaborated by Alfred Schütz, who also regarded culture as a threshold criteria for defining when a society will accept a problem (such as a security threat/challenge) to be solved.<ref>Schütz 1972: 156-157.</ref> Social sciences and humanities have mainly defined cultural factors as cognitive forms by which members of social communities make sense of reality, attribute meaning to facts as well as save and reproduce knowledge and their interpretation of the world.<ref>For a classical example, see Geertz 1973.>/ref> EU FP7 Programme documents show that this definition of culture also strongly influences Security Research, e.g. in the form of the emphasis on felt vs. actual security. |
||
| + | |||
| + | This cognitive dimensions of culture is especially important to address aspects such as perception of vulnerability and building of cognitive foundations for citizen resilience. It requires a "multicultural sensibility for planning", which includes considering how cultures, "which prescribe members' relations with the community, orient their actions, and, among other things, suggest how they might use formal planning processes."<ref>Baum 2000: 115.</ref> |
||
| + | |||
| + | =Addressing of cultural factors in urban studies= |
||
| + | |||
| + | In urban studies though, cultural factors so far have mainly been understood as legal requirements related to upholding historic landmarks, involving questions such as "Is it legal for a historic preservation commission to stop an owner from demolishing or even modifying the exterior of a historically significant building?"<ref>Cf. Kayden 2011: 175.</ref> |
||
| + | |||
| + | Contrast with VITRUV appraoch to culture from D1.1. |
||
| + | |||
| + | =Addressing culture aspects in urban planning= |
||
| + | |||
| + | The concept of [[Security_culture|(security) culture]] is important for effective [[Urban_planning|urban planning]] for several reasons. One of those is that existing public security cultures influence the criteria for societal acceptance of urban security planning decisions and results, and for the addressing of security aspects in that context. Another reason is the need to identify Cultural influence of urban structure, such as cultural artifacts that result from urban planning and may also involve and challenge [[Ethics_aspects|ethics aspects]]. |
||
| + | |||
| + | Consider the following example: In his seminal work ''The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society'', cultural criminologist David Garland identifies cultural and institutional practices to construct artefacts which allow a continuation of imagined middle-class separation from crime. He illustrates his argument with examples from urban planning, especially the concept of offering citizens new middle-class type privacy in private public spaces, such a commercial malls based on architectures "to separate out different 'types' of people" and including commercial policing by private companies.<ref>Garland 2001: INSERT P.</ref> |
||
| + | |||
| + | Culture aspects are however not limited to factors that limit citizens’ acceptance of urban planning or distract perception of security, also as addressed in urban planning and represented by built infrastructure that results from such planning decisions, from a more "objective" risk assessment. For example, activating civic culture can also be a method to use in urban planning in order to efficiently address security aspects. Likewise, cultural aspects are an important ingredient of citizen [[Resiliene|resilience]] that urban planning can support and that in turn urban planning can take advantage of to tackle security aspects. |
||
| + | |||
| + | Consideration of cultural aspects in urban planning can for the most part be referred to the approach of [[Cultural criminology|cultural criminology]]. In a similar vein as [[New_urbanism|new urbanism]], cultural criminology points out that while culture figures prominently in theoretical and practical approaches, it entails a concept of vulnerability and resilience that are based on a type of culture that is "rooted in the material predicament of the actors concerned. It eschews both a social positivism of material conditions and a cultural positivism of stasis and of essence."<ref>Hayward/Young 2007: 117.</ref> [[Cultural_criminology|Cultural criminology]], in contrast, sets out to appropriately consider dynamic change, pluralism of values, ethnic diversity and, "in terms of method", to "rescue the human actors", among other things from an overly technological approach to security.<ref>Ibid.</ref> |
||
| + | |||
| + | Apart from cultural criminology, the following approaches/schools of thought are of particular relevance for covering culture-related security aspects in urban planning: |
||
| + | |||
| + | * [[Community safety approach]]; |
||
| + | * [[Security culture]] |
||
| + | * [[Perception of (in)security]]; |
||
| + | * [[Risk#Perception_of_risk|Cultural perception of risk]]; |
||
| + | * Societal norms and values; |
||
| + | * [[Environmental design]] (behaviour setting). |
||
| + | |||
| + | =References= |
||
| + | <references /> |
||
Revision as of 16:23, 19 March 2012
Culture aspects in urban planning have been classically addressed in terms of urban arts and city planning. Growing features are cultural policy and practice. The purpose is to "create contexts in which planners and multicultural groups can continuously learn and experiment, think systematically, engage in meaningful dialogue, and create visions that energize action and inclusion in city planning."[1] Cognitive dimensions of culture are especially important to address aspects, such as perception of vulnerability and building of cognitive foundations for citizen resilience.
Contents
Concept of culture
Technically, culture is linked to cognition and refers to people’s assumptions about the world.[2] Definitions of culture, also as related to security, abound. The classical policy concept of political culture, as established by Almond and Verba, centers on norms and values guiding citizens’ assessments, expectations and behavior consequences.[3] Theoretically speaking, culture provides the background for (re)cognition and forms the cognitive as well as value-laden basis for so-called "taken for grantedness".[4] This has been seminally elaborated by Alfred Schütz, who also regarded culture as a threshold criteria for defining when a society will accept a problem (such as a security threat/challenge) to be solved.[5] Social sciences and humanities have mainly defined cultural factors as cognitive forms by which members of social communities make sense of reality, attribute meaning to facts as well as save and reproduce knowledge and their interpretation of the world.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag
Addressing of cultural factors in urban studies
In urban studies though, cultural factors so far have mainly been understood as legal requirements related to upholding historic landmarks, involving questions such as "Is it legal for a historic preservation commission to stop an owner from demolishing or even modifying the exterior of a historically significant building?"[6]
Contrast with VITRUV appraoch to culture from D1.1.
Addressing culture aspects in urban planning
The concept of (security) culture is important for effective urban planning for several reasons. One of those is that existing public security cultures influence the criteria for societal acceptance of urban security planning decisions and results, and for the addressing of security aspects in that context. Another reason is the need to identify Cultural influence of urban structure, such as cultural artifacts that result from urban planning and may also involve and challenge ethics aspects.
Consider the following example: In his seminal work The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, cultural criminologist David Garland identifies cultural and institutional practices to construct artefacts which allow a continuation of imagined middle-class separation from crime. He illustrates his argument with examples from urban planning, especially the concept of offering citizens new middle-class type privacy in private public spaces, such a commercial malls based on architectures "to separate out different 'types' of people" and including commercial policing by private companies.[7]
Culture aspects are however not limited to factors that limit citizens’ acceptance of urban planning or distract perception of security, also as addressed in urban planning and represented by built infrastructure that results from such planning decisions, from a more "objective" risk assessment. For example, activating civic culture can also be a method to use in urban planning in order to efficiently address security aspects. Likewise, cultural aspects are an important ingredient of citizen resilience that urban planning can support and that in turn urban planning can take advantage of to tackle security aspects.
Consideration of cultural aspects in urban planning can for the most part be referred to the approach of cultural criminology. In a similar vein as new urbanism, cultural criminology points out that while culture figures prominently in theoretical and practical approaches, it entails a concept of vulnerability and resilience that are based on a type of culture that is "rooted in the material predicament of the actors concerned. It eschews both a social positivism of material conditions and a cultural positivism of stasis and of essence."[8] Cultural criminology, in contrast, sets out to appropriately consider dynamic change, pluralism of values, ethnic diversity and, "in terms of method", to "rescue the human actors", among other things from an overly technological approach to security.[9]
Apart from cultural criminology, the following approaches/schools of thought are of particular relevance for covering culture-related security aspects in urban planning:
- Community safety approach;
- Security culture
- Perception of (in)security;
- Cultural perception of risk;
- Societal norms and values;
- Environmental design (behaviour setting).
