Back to issue

Full text - PDF

UDC:316.7

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/UCS.2019.2(5).05

O. D. Rykhlytska, PhD,

Associate Professor

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 60, Volodymyrska Street, Kyiv, 01033, Ukraine

THE PHENOMENON OF THE CITY: SOCIO-CULTURAL DIMENSION

The article deals with theoretical and practical analysis of modern approaches to the study of the city and urban culture, which in the study is un- derstood as a special phenomenon that ontologically determines the form and content of cultures in various manifestations of socio-cultural practice: physical, symbolic, mental. That is, a special space of embodiment of the semantic and symbolic needs and interests of human cultural activity.

Modern processes of globalization and the rapid development of cities are definitely changing the role of the city, its space, affect cultural tradi- tions, creative subjects of culture, innovative practices and cultural policy in general. The change in the semantic dominant and functions of the city is reflected in the search for a special urban space and culture, which are certain symbols of urban identity and their influence in general on the infrastructure of cities, urban rhythm of life, creation of architectural structures, etc.

Particular attention is paid to the factors that influence the development of the city and urban culture, it is the loss of special relationships be- tween people, urban space and the environment, as well as the mechanisms of transfer of cultural heritage, as a symbol of collective aspirations, values. It is argued that the uncontrolled growth, glut, growth of industrial relations, consumer character and the leveling of the value basis of human interaction, the feeling of alienation, the growth of violent activity, as well as artificial modeling of urban space and destruction of the environ- ment, are not only evidence of "absolute indifference" of the cities but also the devastating changes in the cultural and symbolic system of the city. In such a torn apart, polycentric world of the modern city ("techno cities", "exemplary ghost cities" "cyborg-cities"), a person loses rational integri- ty and psychological stability, and needs more harmonious techno-natural and cultivated space. There has been demonstrated the experience of harmonious construction of urban environment (E. Howard's "garden-city", "zoo policy") and various practices ("ecology of culture", "visual ecolo- gy", etc.) of creation, and its influence on interpersonal interaction that requires significant sociocultural transformations.

The progressive development of the city and urban culture is creating new conditions for socio-cultural development. Which in a certain way requires dramatic changes in the creation of a harmonious urban space and the reproduction of the diversity of cultural habitat, the creation of the unified natural-semiotic environment.

Keywords: city, urban culture, urban space, urbanism, eco-city, visual ecology.

REFERENCES:

1. Bauman, Z. (2004). Globalization: The Human Consequences. Moskow, Ves' Mir (In Russian).

2. Bodrijjar, Zh. (1997). Gorod i nenavist' [City and hate]. Retrieved from http:://www. ruthenia.ru/logos/number/1997_09/06.htm.

3. Vaganov, A. (2007). Planeta gorodskogo tipa (Urban Planet) Nezavisimaja gazeta. Retrieved from http: www.ng.ru/telecom/2007-12- 04/9_gorod.html.

4. Vizual'naja antropologija: gorodskie karty pamjati (2009). [Visual anthropology: urban memory cards]. Moskow, Variant.

5. Wirth, L. (2005). Urbanism as a Way of Life. In Wirth L. Izbrannye raboty po sociologii. Moskow, RAN INION (In Russian).

6. Gruza, I. (1972). Teorija goroda [City theory]. Moskow, Strojizdat.

7. Ducev, M. (2012). Sovremennij gorod kak prostranstvo dialoga [The modern city as a space of dialogue]. Sovremennaja arhitektura mira, 2, 221‒244.

8. Issledovanija goroda v XXv.: Mnogoobrazie poznavatel'nyh i upravlencheskih praktik (2007). [Studies of the city in the twentieth century.: A variety of cognitive and managerial practices]. Social'nye i gumanitarnye nauki (Ser. 11. Sociologija), 2, 54–55.

9. Lynch, K. (1982). The Image of the City. Moskow, Strojizdat (In Russian).

10. Lotman, Ju. (2000). Arhitektura v kontekste kul'tury [Architecture in the context of culture].Iin Semiotika. SPb, Iskusstvo.

11. Mamford, L. (2011). Kul'tura gorodov [City culture]. Retrieved from http:://www. www.slideshare.net/ssuser9fc5af/ss-9744340

12. Matjash, S. (1990). Chelovek v gorode: sociologicheskie ocherki [Man in the City: Sociological Essays]. Kyiv, Politizdat Ukrainy.

13. Proekt: (2013 ‒ po nast. vremja) Which place looks safer? [Which place looks safer?]. In Place pulse. Retrieved from http:://www.pulse.media.mit.edu

14. Stil, K. (2014). Golodnyj gorod: Kak eda opredeljaet nashu zhizn' [The Hungry City: How Food Defines Our Life]. Moskow, Strelka Press.

15. Trubina, E. (2011). Gorod v teorii: opyt osmyslenija prostranstva [City in theory: the experience of understanding space]. Moskow, Novoe literaturnoje obozrjenije.

16. Florida, R. (2014). Kto tvoj gorod? Kreativnaja jekonomika i vybor mesta zhitel'stva [Who is your city? Creative economy and choice of resi- dence]. Moskow, Strelka Press.

17. Zukin,Sharon.(1996).The Cutures of Cities. Wiley.

© O. D. Rykhlytska 2019