جستاری در شناخت نظری مفهوم جغرافیای فرهنگی در چارچوب مکتب سازه‌انگاری

نویسنده

دانشگاه یزد

چکیده

در فلسفه‌­ی علم و به‌­ویژه در علوم انسانی تعریف و شناخت مفاهیم و موضوعات موردمطالعه، دارای مبناهای هستی­‌شناسانه و معرفت‌­شناسانۀ متفاوت و حتی متضاد می‌­باشد. به‌عبارت‌دیگر شناخت یک مفهوم در مکاتب مختلف می­‌تواند دارای تعاریف متضاد باشد. ازاین‌جهت تعیین چارچوب نظری شناخت یک مفهوم بنیادین؛، یکی از مبنایی‌ترین اصول در مطالعه و شناخت مفاهیم و موضوعات است. در علوم جغرافیایی یکی از مفاهیم و پارادایم‌های تعیین‌کننده‌ی حوزه­‌ی معرفتی، جغرافیای فرهنگی است که تفسیر آن در مکاتب مختلف فلسفی - سیاسی ازجمله در سازه‌انگاری متفاوت است. به‌طورکلی مهم‌ترین محورهای فکری سازه‌انگاری و مفروضات آن مشتمل بر اهمّیّت ساختار معنایی در شکل‌گیری و تکوین واقعیّت، نقش هویت در شکل دادن به منافع و کنش دولت‌ها، اهمّیّت دادن به تبیین تکوینی به‌جای تبیین عِلی و این­که همه­ی سازه­‌انگاران واقعیّت را برساخته‌­ی اجتماعی می‌دانند. در این پژوهش کوشش گردیده با مراجعه به مستندات معتبر نظری نوعی نگاه نقادانه در رابطه با شناخت جغرافیای فرهنگی در مکتب سازه‌انگاری ارائه گردد. یافته‌های پژوهش بیانگر آن است که اصولاً ساحت هستی­‌شناسانه جغرافیای فرهنگی در زیرمجموعه‌­ی علوم جغرافیایی ناشی از ساختار بین‌­الاذهانی یک جامعه‌­ی مشترک انسانی در یک قلمرو فرهنگی- اجتماعی متمایز است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Survey on the Theoretical Understanding of the Concept of Cultural Geography within the Structuralism School

نویسنده [English]

  • ehsan Lashgari
چکیده [English]

Introduction
In the philosophy of science, and especially in the humanities, the definition and understanding of the concepts and subjects under study have different and even contradictory ontological and epistemological foundations. In other words, recognizing a concept in different schools can have conflicting definitions. Therefore, defining the theoretical framework for recognizing a fundamental concept is one of the most fundamental principles in studying and understanding concepts and subjects. In the geographical sciences one of the concepts and paradigms that determine the epistemological domain of cultural geography is its interpretation in different philosophical-political schools, including different constructivism. In general, the most important intellectual axioms of constructivism and its assumptions include the importance of semantic structure in the formation and development of reality, the role of identity in shaping the interests and actions of states, the importance of formative explanation rather than causal explanation that all constructivists view reality as socially constructed. In this study, it is attempted to provide a critical look at cultural geography in the school of structuralism by referring to the valid theoretical documentation.
Materials and Methods
This study aims at explaining the concept of cultural geography and understanding the causes of cultural territorial changes within the framework of constructivism school with a qualitative and content approach. In this regard, in order to achieve a universal scientific theory in this research, it has been attempted to extract the foundations of the concept of cultural geography in accordance with the teachings and theories existing in the school of structuralism. And then, with a critical look at the methodology and how knowledge is acquired and the solution of spatial unknowns in cultural geography were defined.
Discussion and Results
The findings of the study indicate that the ontological domain of cultural geography is a subset of geographical sciences stemming from the inter-conceptual structure of a common human community in a distinct socio-cultural domain. In this regard, the most important constructivist ideas in explaining and analyzing cultural geography can be mentioned as following:
1- In this discourse, processes and symbols in the geographical space are constructed through structured social patterns and are subject to social and historical change. In this regard, the constructivist view of the geographical space has been constructed and discussed by social practices and in the analysis of the construction of space the historical sociological approach is given more priority.
2- One of the most important consequences of the belief in constructivism is the formation of the geographical extent of sovereignty and the eligibility of affairs by a culture in a particular geographical area. These understandings and expectations are created as a result of the interaction and build on that cultural realm. On the other hand, as mentioned above, human relation to the territory is more than economic considerations and has emotional and psychological links, finding the emotional burden of a given territory gives rise to a sense of territoriality and strives to defend the territory and its interests in society.
This process leads to the emergence of a naturalistic territorial action that is manifested within cultural boundaries and by differentiation with other cultures.
3- According to this view, the formation of the development process in a cultural-spatial domain requires stimulating specific values and behavioral patterns among the general public. On the one hand, society is a kind of social system that is shaped by the interactions of individuals and institutions in society. In fact, the social system is the result of social relations, and social relations are not deterministic and dogmatic, unlike natural relations, and can change over time under the influence of factors. Obviously, the prerequisite for economic development is to bring about change in the culture of society.
4- From the methodological point of view of constructivism, the general principles of positivism based on the knowledge of the channel of experience have been rejected, and space is considered in contrast to the concept of Cartesian abstract and absolute space. In this notion, space is the product of the socio-cultural interactions that result from the interconnection of humans and communities in ecosystems. Therefore, it is not possible to adopt descriptive-analytical approaches based on empirical attitudes to space within this theoretical framework.
Conclusions
As mentioned earlier, in the structuralism perspective the dialectic (movement and contradiction) formed in concrete and abstract structures, is derived from the activation of the cultural processes that govern them by controlling spatial routines. The evolution of geographic space depends on a source of power and authority, which may not be a source of political power or authority, and in the construction of this source of power comes from the functioning of cultural discourses.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Territory- Ontology
  • Constructivism- Cultural Geography
Alder, Alfred (2005). Communitarian international relation, the epistemic foundation of international relation, London, Newyork: Routledge. Ashly, R, K (1987). The Geopolitics of Space, Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics, Alternatives Journal, Volume 12, Number 4, pp 403- 434. Checkel, T) 1999 (, Norms and domestic politics; Birding the rationalist- Constructivist, European journal of international relation, Number 3, pp 473-495. Dalby, Simon (2014). Imperialism, Domination, Culture: the continued relevance of critical geopolitics; Geopolitics journal, January 2014, DOI: 10.1080/14650040802203679, pp 413-434. Driver, Flix (2013). Research in historical geography and in the history and philosophy of geography in the UK, 2001- 2011: An overview, journal of historical geography, doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2013.07.011, pp 203-211. Lorimer, Hayden (2008). Cultural geography, non- representational condition and concerns, Progress in human geography, DOI: 10.1177/0309132507086882, pp 551-559. Peck, Jamie & Wills, Jane (2000). What is geography, Antipode journal, volume 32, Number 1, pp 87-96. Youngs, G. (2008). International relations in a global age, a concept challenge, Cambridge: polity press.