The modern city as bricolage: public-private (re)territorization

  • Ye. V. Khodus Oles Honchar Dnipropetrovsk National University
Keywords: private­public, city, space, social privatization, obscenity

Abstract

The article discusses the problem of public­private (re)territorization as a process specific to space of the modern city. In the spotlight – a place of areas of pri­vate/public in the structure of urban life.Obviously, the social life of the city is governed by a double coordinate of system. Actual reality is that the ideological basis of contemporary social life is not established in the tradition of modern hierarchical opposition «public / private», but just the opposite, it is her disappearance, that generates not as much havoc as a new configuration of the socio­cultural field in general and the urban areas in specifically. Its dominant characteristic is the open context, stimulating spatial, communication and semantic bias. The specific of the modern city is picolanate of its structure, bizarre combination is not always logically combined area of public­private socio­spatial networks.Accordingly, the present article attempts of theoretical reflection of the process of obscenity (in the terminology of J. Baudrillard) as the blurring of boundaries between the public scene and private space of the city. The fact that the space ceases to be a public, that does not mean that it automatically becomes private. Instead of a zone of privacy/publicity receive interim status, they are liminality. On a spatial level (meaning, the forms of territorial organization – for example, the space of the city, street, park, house, cafes) the result of the elimination of hard territorial division on public/private is the appearance of areas that may belong both to the public and the private sphere.

Author Biography

Ye. V. Khodus, Oles Honchar Dnipropetrovsk National University
PhD in Sociology, Associate Professor

References

Bodriyyar Zh. Ekstaz kommunikatsii (Ecstasy of Communication). Access mode: http://ivanem.chat.ru/extaz.htm.

Aleksander Dzh. Analiticheskie debaty: ponimanie otnositelnoy avtonomii kultury. (Introduction: Understanding the ‘Relative Autonomy’ of Culture). Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie, Moscow, 2007, Vol. 6, no. 1,

pp. 17­37.

Zhizhek S. Razmyshlenie v krasnom tsvete: kommunisticheskiy vzglyad na krizis i soputstvuyushchie predmety (Reflection in a Red Eye: a Communist Examination of the Crisis and Related Matters). Moscow, 2011,476p.

Kozyrkov V.P. Chastnaya zhizn lichnosti i privatizatsiya kultury (Private life of the indi­vidual and the privatization of culture). Vestnik NNGU. Ser. Sotsialnye nauki, N. Novgorod, 2002, no. 1 (2), pp. 117­130.

Bikbov A. Moskva / Parizh: prostranstvennye struktury i telesnye skhemy. (Moscow / Paris: spatial structure and physical schemes). Logos, Moscow, 2002, no. 3 (34). Access mode: http://magazines.russ.ru/logos/2002/3/bikbov.html.

Pachenkov O. Publichnoe prostranstvo goroda pered litsom vyzovov sovremennosti: mo­bilnost i «zloupotreblenie publichnostyu». (Public space of the city in the face of modern challenges: mobility and «abuse of publicity») Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, Moscow, 2012, no. 117. Access mode: http://magazines.russ.ru/nlo/2012/117/p33­pr.html

Sennet R. Padenie publichnogo cheloveka. (The Fall of Public Man). Moscow, 2002, 424 p.

Chernyaeva N. Kulturnaya geografiya i problematika «Mesta». (Obzor novoy literatury). (Cultural geography and problems «Places» (A review of the literature)) Izvestiya Uralskogo gos. un­ta. Ser. Gumanitarnye nauki, 2005, no. 35, pp. 67­68.

Gofman I. Predstavlenie sebya drugim v povsednevnoy zhizni. (The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life). Moscow, 2000, 304 p.

Kulchitskiy O. Svіtovіdchuttya ukraїntsya. (Attitude of Ukrainians). Ukraїnska dusha. Kiev, 1992, 128 p.

How to Cite
Khodus, Y. V. (1). The modern city as bricolage: public-private (re)territorization. Scientific and Theoretical Almanac Grani, 17(8), 35-40. Retrieved from https://grani.org.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/589
Section
PHILOSOPHY