Geopolitics of Urban Landscape: The Relation between Politics and Power with Urban Symbolization

پژوهش ‎های جغرافیای سیاسی

Article 1, Volume 1, Issue 3, November 2016, Pages 1-28   

Document Type: مقالات علمی -پژوهشی

DOI: 10.22067/pg.v3i3.55086

Authors

abdolvahab khojamli^{* 1}; Zahra Ahmadypour²; Mohammadreza Hafeznia²; Mohammadreza Pourjafar²

¹Tarbiat modares

²Tarbiat Modares University

Abstract

Extended abstract
1. Introduction
The current paper is intended to explain geopolitics of urban landscape, and also to present a theoretical model. The relation between politics and power and urban semiotics system in geographic spaces and in particular in urban spaces forms geopolitics of urban landscape. The paper presents new approaches to the scholars of urban geopolitics and urban political geography.
2. Theoretical Framework
The paper is intended to present a theoretical framework to study geopolitics of landscape regarding the relation between politics and power and urban semiotic system and dominant political, social and economic discourses. When a landscape would be called a geopolitical urban landscape? What kind of processes and factors has geopolitics of urban landscape? What are the levels of formation of urban semiotic system and how they are affected by different factors? What are the general and political functions of urban semiotic system, and what kind of criteria forms them? What are the benefits and deficiencies of the symbols? And finally what is the impact of these relations on urban semiotic system and urban space discourses?
3. Methodology
The research is basic in terms of its goal, and casual and descriptive- analytic in terms of method and nature. The data gathering procedure is based on the library findings. Data analysis and conclusion will be done using the qualitative research method.
4. Results & Discussion
Landscape, similarly to language, can operate as a representational system – signs, places and icons can be read and interpreted as geosymbols or icons. Power over landscape is usually visualized in the most picturesque, stable, perceptible and spectacular ways. Ruling over landscape, both forms, function, and particularly meanings, becomes one of the priorities of power, especially of those, whose legitimacy is or can be somehow challenged. The need to show his or her rights, authority, control, as well as supermacy and prerogatives is tremendous and typically materialized in grand culttural landscape projects. Those project usually expound not only political and economic powers, but also, and often above any other, the cultueral dominance of new leaders and discourses. The messages coded in cultural landscape are typically very clearly readable for most of society, and are frequently enhanced by heavily marketed texts.
The function of power and politics in urban semiotic system paves the way to expalin geopolitics of landscape. Policies of different groups in urban spaces are affected by their power. Their power in urban spaces is emanated from different urban semiotics systems that gained from local, national and supra-national levels and has political, social, economic and historical facets. Different groups haves different potentials to take the advanteges of the levels and facets regarding their ideologic background and the level of mitigation of their interests with the dominant ideology. Also, their freedom in using the symbols and change in urban semiotics systems depends on players of power and their respected institutions.
Urban icons and symbols are a part of urban players tools to create discources in accordance with their interests. Urban players act in the frame of their discources and the stronger discources, the effective functions. Hisorical and ideologic background, institutions, social and cutural characteristics, groups’ interests and their discourses set the criteria to change in urban semiotic system and urban symbols; the changes that are realized in the froms of destructions or construction of symbols, omition or disclusion of symbols and relocation and change in their functions. All of the processes are done in order to improve the function of urban semiotic system and urban symbols or to reform their functions and alleviate abnormalities.
5. Conclusions & Suggestions
Actions and reactions, factors and structures in urban spaces create an area of power relations such as cooperation, interaction, rivalry and disputation that the occupation of desired spaces to settle the respected icons or display the symbols of their discources are claimed in urban spaces that results in “the war of icons” between different players who have contradictory interests. This causes an area of power relations which is the result of mutual relation between urban semiotics systems and the political actors that forms geopolitics of landscape.
So, geopolitics of landscape is a process that based on it the dominant discourse creates different landscapes to control and manage urban spaces in line with its political and geopolitical order, and competition to control urban spaces is subordinated to relation between power, politics and space. Geopolitics of landscape studies the process of image making by urban players, the management of urban relations, urban space bordering, the relation between the state and non-governmental institutions.

Keywords

Urban semiotic system; symbol; discourse; power; politics; geopolitics of landscape

References

1. Alvarez, Jacobo Garcia, Places, Landscapes and Policies of Memory: A Geographic Lecture, Boletin de la A.G.E. No 51 – 2009, pages 405-409.

2. Ashfaq, Mariam, Government sponsored monuments at tools of communication and their significance in the urban landscape of Karachi,2013, Indus Valley School and Architecture,

3. Benko, Georges and ULF Strohmayer (1997). Space & social Theory, London, Blackwell Publishers Lid.

4. Bourdieu, Pierre, The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups, Theory and Society, Vol. 14, No. 6. (Nov., 1985). pp. 723-744.

5. Cohen, Irit Amit, Contested Landscape and Spirit of Place: The Case of the Olive Trees and Urban Neighborhood in Israel, Revijazageografijo - Journal for Geography, 4-1, 2009, pp 147-162.

6. Czepczynski, Mariusz (2008). Cultural Landscapes of Post-Socialist Cities Representation of Powers and Needs, Poland, Ashgate Publishing Company.

7. Czepczyński, Mariusz, Interpreting post-socialist icons: from pride and hate towards disappearance and/or assimilation, Human Geographies. (2010) 4.1, 67-78.

8. Davarpanah, Afshin. (2012). An Introduction to the management and use of symbols and signs in urban space , Tehran, Institute of Culture, Art and Architecture. [In Persian]

9. De Frantz, Monika, From Cultural Regeneration to Discursive Governance: Constructing the Flagship of the ‘Museumsquartier Vienna’ as a Plural Symbol of Change, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,Published by Blackwell Publishing, March 2005, Volume 29.1, pp 50-66.

10. Dovey, Kim, Memory, Democracy and Urban Space: Bangkok’s `Path to Democracy’, Journal of Urban Design, 2001, Vol. 6, No. 3, 265-282.

11. Guvenc, muna, constructing narratives of Kurdish nationalism in the urban space of diyarbakır, Turkey, TDSR, 2011, volume xxiii, number 23.1, pp 25-40.

12. Hafeznia, Mohammadreza and Morad Kaviani Rad. (2014). Philsophia of Political Geography ,Tehran, Research Institute for Strategic Studies. [In Persian]

13. Jacobs, A.J, Political Power, Collective Memory, and American Central Cities: The Discourses of the Conservative Elite’s Counter-Memory of the City, The Open Urban Studies Journal, 2008, 1, 25-34.

14. Kevin Andrew Lynch. (2005). The Image of the City, translated by Manouchehr Macini, Tehran,Tehran University Publications. [In Persian]

15. Light, Duncan and Craig Young, Reconfiguring Socialist Urban Landscapes: The ‘Left- journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography. (2010) 4.1, 5-16.

16. Mitchell, M.( 2000(, Cultural Geography. A Critical Introduction, Blackwell, Oxford.

17. Monnet, Jerôme, “The Geopolitics of Visibility: Urban Icons in Contemporary Mexico City”. In: Ethington, Philip J. & SCHWARTZ, Vanessa R (eds.). Atlas of Urban Icons: Studies in Urban Visual History. Multimedia Companion to Special Issue of Urban History, May 2006, vol. 33, N°1 (Cambridge University Press)

18. Norton, William (2000). Cultural Geoghraphy themes, concepts, Analyses, Canada, Oxford University Press.

19. Ó Tuathail, Gearoid and Simon Dalby (2002). Rethinking Geopolitics, published in the USA and Canada by Routledge. (Doddy, Klaus, Enframing Bosnia The geopolitical iconography of Steve Bell,).

20. Ó Tuathail, Gearoid, Simon Dalbyand Paul Routledge (2003). The Geopolitics Reader, London and New York, published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library.

21. Pecquet, Amy Elizabeth (2001). Signs Sense: Exploring Signs in Urban Place Making, Master Degree of Landscape Architecture, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Louisiana, U.S.America.

22. Pourjafar, Mohammadreza and Mahdi Montazeralhejeh. (2011). Urban Symptoms: Definitions, Typology, Positioning, planning and design, Tehran, Helleh. [In Persian]

23. Salehizadeh, Abdolhadi. (2012). Introduction to Michel Foucault's discourse analysis, Qualitative Research Methods, Socio-Cultural Knowledge Journal, Tehran, No 3, pp 113-141. [In Persian]

24. Santrauka, The Notion of Power in the Theories of Bourdieu, Foucault and Baudrillard (Galiossàvoka Bourdieu, Foucault irBaudrillardoteorijose). Sociologija. Mintisirveiksmas 2002/2, ISSN 1392-3358, pp 118-124.

25. Stahl, Geoff,”Urban Signs/Signs of the Urban”, Culture Unbound, Volume 1, 2009: 249–262. Hosted by Linköping University Electronic Press: http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se.

26. Vannieuwenhuyze, Karen, Using and Producing Urban Political Space: J.F. Loos in formal and informal 19th-centuryAntwerp, paper International Conference Political History, Leiden, 4‐6 September 2014.

27. Wydra, Harald, the Power of Symbols—Communism and Beyond, Int J Polit Cult Soc (2012) 25:49–69. (Published online: 30 December 2011, #Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011).