| تبليغات | X |
From the book Multiple Modernities in Muslim Societies, Modjtaba Sadria(ed.), London, I.B. Tauris, 2009
|
The Summer Academy was organised in collaboration with Boğaziçi University, 'Europe in the Middle East - The Middle East in Europe' (EUME), a joint research program of the the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, the Fritz Thyssen Foundation and the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin in cooperation with the German 'Orient-Institute Istanbul', the Centre for Modern Oriental Studies in Berlin, and the International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM), Leiden.
Held at the Ottoman Bank Museum in Istanbul, the academy offered an opportunity for young scholars to present and discuss their current research on cities, pluralism and cosmopolitanism. The Summer Academy was chaired by a group of prominent scholars; Asef Bayat (ISIM, Leiden), Edhem Eldem (Bogaziçi University, Istanbul), Ulrike Freitag (Centre for Modern Oriental Studies, Berlin), Nora Lafi (Centre for Modern Oriental Studies, Berlin), and Stefan Weber (AKU-ISMC, London).
The International Summer Academy was based on the theme of Living Together: Plurality and Cosmopolitanism in the Ottoman Empire and Beyond and related debates on cosmopolitanism to the historical experiences of cities in the Ottoman Empire, its successor and its neighbouring states - in the Balkans, Anatolia, and the Arab and Muslim world.
|
During the academy, AKU-ISMC Professor Modjtaba Sadria presented a lecture entitled ‘Cities: Social Borders, Complex Spaces and Intersections’. In addition to academic lectures and seminars, students participated in a range of excursions, including one to the Greek Orthodox patriarchate in Fener, Istanbul.
Among the sessions, three were directly related to research at AKU-ISMC (all concerning the Tripoli project). Participants discussed space, social order, consumption, and material culture as interrelated topics. Each session discussed one theme based on the context of a selected text, while overall, the focus was on the question of how social groups negotiated and constructed borders and cohesion.
Sassmannshausen and Weber introduced the first session – ‘The Spatial Turn – Space, cities, neighbourhoods and houses and a non-linear approach to history’. The session explored the analytical framework of space and asked how new perspectives on social action and trans-regional development could be developed, while approaching space as a complex venue of interaction able to challenge linear perspectives.
The second session – ‘Knowing one’s place – Approaching notions of social order and distinction’, was introduced by Papamichos-Chronakis and Bodenstein. It dealt with social categories, in particular questioning whether definitions such as ‘family’, ‘middle class’ or ‘elite’ are helpful analytical categories.
Inal and Weber presented the final session - ‘Material Culture - Habitus, taste and patterns of consumption’, which dealt with the mechanisms used to draw social borders. It investigated how social borders are articulated or constructed and their expression in social and physical space and material culture.
The diverse range of sources and approaches presented during the sessions portrayed a kaleidoscopic picture of Middle Eastern societies. Over the course of the academy, participants exchanged and sought out new methodological tools. Through this, they were able to explore processes to describe complex systems of societies in different settings, attempting to present different modes of living together.
|
During the sessions, the question was raised as to whether cosmopolitanism can be considered a useful tool to discuss the multilayered societies of the Middle East. Weber noted that participants rejected cosmopolitanism as a tool but understood it more as a description of 'living together'. The term as it is used today is loaded with positive views (as an ideological judgment) and can therefore hinder objective analysis.
“Defining cosmopolitanism clearly would help to attribute it as a description of certain societies. The Ottoman nineteenth century had many socially complex, multi-cultural and cosmopolitan places, spaces and social agents. Historians, as many of the participants were, describe and analyse interconnected individuals and groups and thus may use the historiographical concept of histoire croisée,” Weber reflected.
“During the presentation… most participants were more interested in the processes of social formation, distinction, integration of socially complex societies of very different social groups and their ways of negotiation and distribution of different forms of capital, following Bourdieu’s theory.”
“In their case studies, participants looked into moments of history where the local and global acted or influenced persons of different backgrounds living together and the configuration, dynamics and changes of groups, defined of different elements like class, gender, social-religious identity, etc. Others analysed how contemporary societies deal with this past: the reception and creation of histories, with implications for concepts such as 'heritage' and ideologically loaded places, developing themselves as agency over societies.”
The Summer Academy allowed scholars to explore a number of aspects related to social history and questions of spatial organisation, local agencies and vernacular modernities in the cities of the Ottoman Empire and surrounding regions. By offering perspectives of cosmopolitanism ‘from below’, the Academy helped to stimulate debates and conceptions of the contemporary city, civil society, multicultural societies, migration, and cosmopolitanism.
The Summer Academy was funded by AKU-ISMC and EUME with contribution from the Fritz Thyssen Foundation. The Academy was coordinated by Georges Khalil.
 |
| The roundtable workshop included presentations by leading architects, and academics working on various aspects of cities. |
The roundtable workshop, Reconsidering Dubai: New perspectives for Cities in the Middle East? was held on 12 June 2009, as part of the Cities/Muslim Urbanities research initiative at AKU-ISMC.
The afternoon workshop involved presentations by seven leading architects and academics: Hashim Sarkis (Professor, Harvard), Brett Steele (Director, AA School of Architecture), Nasser Rabbat (Professor, MIT), Farrokh Derakshani (Director, Aga Khan Award for Architecture), Farshid Moussavi (Architect, FOA, Member of Steering Committee of Aga Khan Award for Architecture), Modjtaba Sadria (Professor, AKU-ISMC) and Han Tumertekin (Mimarlar, Member of the Steering Committee of Aga Khan Award for Architecture).
The workshop aimed to explore Dubai’s current state, which follows a period of seemingly endless development and prosperity, curtailed by the recent global economic crisis. This has also had implications for the Dubai’s position at the centre of discourses of architecture and urban planning.
Within this framework, speakers presented their perspectives on a re-imagined Dubai, and how this re-imagining could have an impact on thinking about other cities in the Middle East more widely.
In the opening address, workshop coordinator Professor Modjtaba Sadria outlined the background to the workshop and the Cities/Muslim Urbanities research initiative at AKU-ISMC. Sadria discussed the importance of exploring new ways of thinking about social and cultural transformations in cities in Muslim societies.
 |
| The roundtable workshop explored the current state of Dubai from the perspective of the lived and built environment. |
Sadria presented the background of the current situation in Dubai by introducing the role of international factors in the recent history of the city.
He noted that predictions that Dubai would escape the economic crisis were rapidly undermined, citing the fact that between late 2008 and early 2009 the level of discussion about ‘the crisis in Dubai’ in the public sphere grew exponentially.
Sadria reviewed the many ways in which Dubai has been imagined and criticised in recent research. Commentators have dubbed Dubai a global city, a form of colonial modernity, an emerging market, and a ‘window to a soulless world’. He argued that the role of imagination and symbolic expression was central to the creation of Dubai as a symbol of desire.
Brett Steele’s presentation, Dubai Provocation, drew a comparison between the development of contemporary Dubai and Bloomsbury in 18th century London. Both were driven by an economic model alien to the culture and society in which it operated.
He argued that commentary about Dubai has rarely been neutral, stating that the city provokes “an unbelievably strange range of deeply felt opinions and reactions about what cities and architecture are today”.
Steele said that the contemporary Dubai is, in a sense, an abstract place upon which we can project our understanding of the world, architecture, the city, politics, social life, and even our own identity.
Not only is Dubai characterised by a constant recycling of older patterns and a pursuit of ‘newness’, it has the magical ability “to make everyone into everything”. As the last great monument of the 20th century, Dubai continues to occupy a prominent, yet extremely ambiguous position within architectural discourse.
 |
| The roundtable workshop was coordinated by Professor Modjtaba Sadria. |
Professor Sarkis introduced the hypothesis that the crisis in Dubai could have benefits for the urban environment. The speed of development in Dubai, Sarkis argues, has had a negative impact on the quality of the built and lived environment. A slower pace of development could lead to more “thoughtful and meaningful” urban design, particularly in relation to energy consumption.
Sarkis noted that, “the region is bound to find better and more lasting qualities for its architecture than the sensation of novelty that has already been showing very serious signs of fatigue, even before the economic crisis”.
Sarkis proposed that the crisis has resulted in Dubai being faced with an image of itself as an ‘incomplete city’. While incompleteness an openness to change is part of the general urban ethos, he questioned the possibility of establishing a collective identity and distinct city character amidst this incompleteness.
Using examples of other cities in Asia, and across history, he argued that a founding myth is crucial for forming a collective image of the city. This myth incorporates different elements, including the relationship between the city and the terrain, public spaces and infrastructure, all of which he argues, have been visibly absent in cities in the Gulf region.
Farshid Moussavi presented a critique of Mike Davis’s reading of Dubai. She proposed a new model for thinking about the built environment in Dubai based on difference and Deleuze’s notion of the simulacrum.
The notion of simulacrum focuses on the elements of desire and fantasy, both of which are central to Dubai’s character. She argued that Dubai, in a sense, is “liberated from history”. It uses forms from history, but does so without enforcing a singular, pre-determined meaning.
She noted that while cities that grow at a slower pace have a certain multiplicity and richness, this is no longer the reality for many cities around the world. In this context of rapidly developing cities, Moussavi argues, multiplicity needs to be engineered through design.
 |
| Hashim Sarkis (Harvard University) and Brett Steele (AA School of Architecture) presented their perspectives on the history and potential future role of Dubai. |
Moussavi argued that the central question for Dubai and other cities in the Middle East should be: how can a set of planning or design rules be produced that ensure multiplicity and opportunity, rather than singular and homogeneous urban forms in the face of rapid growth?
Nasser Rabbat‘s presentation reviewed the historical and geo-political dimensions of the rapid growth of cities in the Arabian Gulf in the last two decades. His presentation plotted the rise, and, as he argues, the eventual fall of Dubai due to the global financial crisis.
Rabbat focused on Dubai’s architecture from an Arab and Muslim perspective, within the context of wider trends and examples within Middle Eastern architecture.
He argued that against this historical and geo-political background, what Mike Davis has called the ‘architecture of the utopian capitalist city’ has emerged, and fed an apparently never-ending cycle of investment of international capital in property and development. He noted that traditionalism, revivalism, and even postmodernism have been given up in favour of a new architecture based on the global pursuit of luxury, but with some recognisable local elements.
Rabbat’s presentation led to a discussion about the erosion of the ‘civic quality’ of Middle Eastern cities in the face of rampant commercialization, and architects’ response to this.
Farrokh Derakhshani, Director of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture, discussed several key features of the way in which cities are thought about and understood, including the collective imagery of the city, ideas about the pace of its development, and the ideas of belonging to and ownership over the built environment of the city.
 |
| By focusing particularly on ‘new cities’ in Muslim societies, the workshop raised specific issues and possibilities related to the built environment, the lived environment and their interactions. |
Derakhshani explained that in the context of Dubai, belonging and ownership are complicated by the extraordinary diversity of the population (the clear majority being newcomers to the city) and the fast pace of change occurring.
A central question concerning the built environment thus becomes: who is building what and for whom? The characterisation of Dubai as a ‘city company’, in which iconic buildings become part of an international brand, was discussed.
Derakhshani questioned the overall sustainability of Dubai, but noted that it may follow the example of other Middle Eastern countries, such as Qatar, that have successfully learnt how best to manage rapid development.
A number of questions were raised during the discussion session which expanded on and challenged the views presented during the presentations.
The notion of ‘erasing history’ was questioned in relation to the central role that history plays in creating national narratives and contemporary politics of place. The difference in the level of investment in public and private projects in Dubai was also raised.
Members of the audience also discussed questions related to the social implications of architecture. In particular, questions were raised about the way in which segments of society are included or excluded from the built and lived environment, particularly in relation to indigenous inhabitants and migrant workers.
Panellists also commented on the relevance of notions of ‘Empire’ and ‘Orientalism’ to understanding our own reactions to Dubai and other cities in the Gulf, as well as the importance of the separation of economic and political capital as one of the defining characteristics of Dubai.
The discussions stimulated by the workshop contributed to clarifying conceptual frameworks for ongoing research into cities and urbanities in Muslim societies.
By focusing particularly on ‘new cities’ in Muslim societies, the workshop raised specific issues and possibilities related to the built environment, the lived environment and their interactions.
Multiple Modernities
in Muslim Societies
Tangible
Elements and Abstract Perspectives
Edited by: Modjtaba
Sadria
Is there any such thing as modernity in Islamic societies and, if so, what are the identifiable elements of this modernity? Here, a leading group of thinkers and practitioners from diverse theoretical backgrounds pose the question of what it means to be modern - exploring notions of myriad 'multiple modernities' that operate beyond the Western singular definition of modern civilisation.
This volume represents a major new contribution to the debate about modernity; this volume offers new perspectives and ways of considering experiences of modernity in non-Western societies. Questions about which aspects of civilisation might be identified as the tangible elements of modernity are discussed, both within the built environment - the cities, architecture, the material cultural heritage - and within the lived environment - in culture, politics and economics. The interplay between modernism, secularism and religion is explored and the view of the religious state and modernity as mutually exclusive is challenged.
While Muslim societies are chosen as the primary focus, the subject of the discussion has clear relevance to other cultural contexts and contributes to the wider debate on modernity. Rather than pose final solutions to the ‘problem’ of modernity within Muslim societies, the contributors instead create a space for the opening, questioning and recasting of the debate. This is an important contribution to the fields of Architecture, Cultural Studies, and Middle East and Islamic Studies.
CONTENTS
Preface
By Farrokh Derakhshani
As Director of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture, Derakhshani introduces the work of the Award and its core goal of framing architecture as a social act and responsibility. As the inaugural workshop in the Knowledge Construction series, the aim of the workshop is outlined as a means of addressing the most significant issues and debates relating to architecture in Muslim societies. Derakhshani gives an overview of the layout of the volume, which includes both the papers and the subsequent, rich discussion which formed the essence of the workshop.
Modernities: Re-posing the Issues
By Modjtaba Sadria
Approaches to issues of modernity in Muslim societies – whether the possibility of Muslim modernities is supported or rejected – have generally framed these issues as problems that must be solved. The opening paper discusses possible alternative epistemological approaches to the study of a plurality of modernities, comparing the dominant problem solving approach with an alternative problem-posing approach. Through its ability to problematise existing orders of knowledge and produce new ways of thinking, it is argued that problem-posing offers a more fruitful method to investigate issues relating to modernities, architecture and Muslim communities.
From Civilisations to Multiple Modernities: The Issue of the Public Sphere
By Armando Salvatore
Salvatore approaches the discussion of the possibility and characteristics of Muslim modernities through the notion of civilization, and asks if we can consider there to be an Islamic modernity as part of the problematic of multiple modernities. Using Habermas’s notion of the public sphere and communicative action, and critically assessing modernity in relation to democracy and secularism, it is suggested that there exist fundamental anti-modernities in the experiences of modernity. This essay explores the fundamental tension of Islamic modernity between maintaining their core legacies, while also coping with a hegemonic, Western modernity.
Iranian Islamic Modernities
By Masoud Kamali
The third essay in the volume critiques the tradition of social science meta-narratives that frame modernity as an exclusively western invention, aligned with a linear model of development. The author provides a comprehensive overview of the history of modernization in Iran, examining in particular the changing role of Islam and the relationship between civil society and the state. Kamali argues that the concept of multiple modernities opens the way to generating more socially and historically specific understandings of modernities.
Why Critical Modernism?
By Charles Jencks
The contribution from Jencks discusses modernity from the perspective of critical modernism and its development and expression within art and architecture, with its intrinsic characteristics of skepticism and disenchantment. It is argued that the differences between forms and critiques of modernism to a large extent operate within the same discourse; they are ‘prefix-modernities’. This essay questions whether modernity can ‘grow up’ and move beyond this.
From Critique in Modernity to Critique of Modernity
Modjtaba Sadria
Looking from a non-political perspective at issues of modernities, Sadria underlines the social recognition of human autonomy as a prerequisite for criticism and self-criticism. The essay argues that criticism is an important tangible element of modernity, and asks how we can understand criticism as an ontological tool. A model for understanding the concept of criticism is proposed that highlights four archetypal forms of criticism, discussed in relation to two key axes: political orientation and the position of the critic. The degree to which these forms of criticism reflect underlying premises of modernity while at the same time contesting them is outlined.
Counter Space of Islamic Modernity
By Homa Farjadi
The essay outlines the difference between the discourses of modernization and modernity and discusses the possibilities for lived spaces that emerge from each. Challenging conventional approaches to architecture and urban planning, the notions of ‘counter-design’ and the ‘open city’ are proposed as key ways to negotiate and bring together these two discourses in new forms of spatial modernity. The author offers a fascinating discussion of both planned and unexpected instances of this spatial modernity in relation to Islamic cities.
A Destructive Vacuum: The Marginalisation of Local Knowledge and Reassertion of Local Identities
By Farid Panjwani
What are the impacts of the privatization and globalization education on local contexts? This essay discusses how increasingly universalised standards of education have led to a dissociation of education – particularly higher education – from local and national contexts. The resulting marginalization of local knowledge and local identities is discussed, as well as the space this creates for the flourishing of Islamist ideology and affiliation. A reconceptualisation of education to address these issues is outlined.
Modernity: Keep Out of Reach of Children
By Fatemeh Hosseini-Shakib
This essay warns – from an insider’s perspective – of the continued presence of ethnocentrism in discourses and critiques surrounding modernity/modernization/anti-modernity. The continued presence of homogenized representations of Muslim societies is discussed, particularly in relation to Iran and Islam. The author calls for alternative critiques of modernity that adequately recognize the nuances and diversity of representations in the Muslim world.
Multiple Modernities: A Theoretical Frame
By Masoud Kamali
Furthering the critique of west-centered notions of modernity, Masoud Kamali argues that the legacy of these meta-narratives still exists to a large extent in social science theory in both western universities as well as their counterparts in Muslim societies. The author outlines several theoretical suggestions that challenge these established paradigms, and contribute towards the foundation of a scientific framework that ensures a diversity of perspectives through which to understand modernity in different societies.
Some Reflections on “Tangible Elements of Multiple Modernities”
By Deniz Kandiyoti
Reflecting on the key debates of the conference, Professor Kandiyoti argues that both simple and theoretically complex examples of tangible elements of modernity can be identified, and offers a succinct conceptual distinction between the terms ‘modernization’ and ‘modernity’. The author discusses the possible parameters of a theory of multiple modernities, and the need for it to address the ethical and political dimensions of the diverse manifestations of ‘modernities’.
Multiple Modernities in Contemporary Architecture
By Jeremy Melvin
Melvin’s essay provides an overview of the discourse of modernity within the discipline of architecture. The particular characteristics of architecture’s modernities and how they interact with modernity in a traditional sense are discussed. The evolution of the theory of “modernism” and the historically contingent circumstances from which it arose are laid out, as well as the forms of modernity that have been inherent to architecture.
Entangled Modernity: Multiple Architectural Expressions of Global Phenomena: the Late Ottoman Example
By Stefan Weber
The volume concludes with a discussion of the expressions of modernity in the architectural heritage of the Late Ottoman Empire, using the approach of an “entangled modernity”. Following a revisionist trend of historiography, this approach argues for a shared but multiple heritage. Using examples of new forms of housing and the suq in Damascus, the author argues that rather than assigning to modernity a set of binding criteria, the dimensions of modernity and social change need to be first understood within local contexts.
To order Multiple Modernities in Muslim Societies from IB Tauris click here
Understanding Cities
Pr. D. Modjtaba Sadria
Istanbul/Turkey Oct. 2008
ترجمه با همکاری:
درک شهرها
گزینه ای برای تفکر
چندی پیش, مسئول کارگاه آموزشی بررسی و شناخت معرفت شناسانه و روش شناسانه ی چالش ها و رویکردهای مطالعات فرهنگی- اجتماعی شهری در جوامع مسلمان بودم.
کلیه ی بحث های این کارگاه , برجسته کردن شیوه های روش شناسی و معرفت شناسی مسایل مطالعات شهری بود. برای مثال: چگونه می توان چشم اندازهای متفاوت کنش گران شهری مختلف را به آشتی و انطباق نزدیک کرد؟ ( اعم از طراحان , معماران، شهروندان و مهاجران) و یا چگونه می توان عوامل ساختاری و رویدادهای محلی را برای درک تغییر اجتماعی در شهر, تلفیق نمود؟
آنچه که قابل توجه است و بنابر آنچه که در کارگاه ارائه و پیشنهاد شد و همچنین پیشنهاداتی که متعاقباً ( بعداً) از طرف شرکت کنند گان در مورد مشکلات رایج کتاب مطرح گردید , به قرار زیر بوده است:
مسئله ی اساسی و مهم این کارگاه که در استانبول در ماه اکتبر سال 2008 برگزار شد , بررسی ارتباط بین محیط زندگی/نظامهای ارزشی و ساختن محیط شهری در جوامع مسلمان بود. برای بررسی این ارتباط و مشخص شدن تعامل و ارتباط درونی و پویای محیط زندگی با محیط ساخته شده , مفهوم " مدنیت ( شهرنشینی)" مفهومی اساسی و هسته ی مرکزی این بحث است. در این زمینه دو دیدگاه معرفت شناسانه ی مهم وجود دارد. که هر دو این دیدگاهها با وجود پیامدهای نظری و معرفت شناسی خاص خود, برای بررسی "مدنیت(شهرنشینی)" در جوامع مسلمان, استفاده می شوند.
دیدگاه نخست ادامه ی نظریه ی " توسعه باوری در قرن 19 است. بر اساس این دیدگاه , تاریخ بشر در مسیری خطی بر پایه ی مفهوم پیشرفت قرار دارد که یک سر آن "عقب ماندگی است و در دیگر سو , جوامع پیشرفته و متمدن قرار دارند. این دیدگاه بر این باور است که جوامع چه بخواهند , چه نخواهند گریزی جز حرکت از عقب ماندگی به سوی پیشرفت , ندارند. از دید متفکران این رویکرد و در گفتمان های توسعه و مطالعات منطقه ای آنان , جوامع مسلمان جزء شهرها ی عقب مانده تلقی می شوند. میزان مدنیت این شهرها, بر اساس میزان مشابهت آنان با شهرهای توسعه یافته ی نخست در دنیا , ارزیابی می شود. این دیدگاه، مدنیت شاخص جوامع مسلمان را یا نا دیده می گیرد و یا پنهان می کند. حال با توجه به این نکته که جوامع مسلمان, در زمینه ی مدنیت و شهرنشینی میراث مربوط به خود را دارا هستند , دیدگاه پیشرفت تک خطی , زیر سوال می رود. در فضای حاکم روابط قدرت در دنیای معاصر و به ویژه دیدگاههای استعماری اروپایی و مارکسیست که بر پایه ی هویت و دین شکل گرفته, آگاهانه یا نا آگاهانه, از میراث جوامع مسلمان به عنوان جوامعی عقب مانده یاد می شود.
وسوسه ای برای رد هر گونه عقیده راجع به وجود تفکر شهرنشینی و مدنیت در میراث جوامع مسلمانان , وجود دارد. بسیاری از نظریه های مطالعه ی شهرها , برگرفته از دیدگاه تک- صدایی و تک - بعدی هستند , که بر عوامل معینی در زمینه ی عقب ماندگی تاکید می کنند.
دو عامل اساسی در باره ی تغییر اجتماعی در شهرها وجود دارد, که منطق آن به طور موثری , هر گونه مطالعه ی شهری در جوامع مسلمان را پوچ و بی اعتبار می کند. عامل اول , جهانی شدن است که از آن به عنوان نیرویی برای همگون شدن ( متجانس شدن) تعبیر می شود که در خارج از روند جهانی شدن , هیچ چیزی را بر نمی تابد حتی در مورد مدنیت و شهرنشینی مسلمانان. عامل دوم , بر پایه ی دگرگونی اقتصادی و فشار بازار است که ضرورتاً در بحث پیرامون جهانی شدن نمی گنجد. این بحث, رویکرد مشابه دیگری را برای درک هم گونی شهرها مطرح می کند که از نظر مفهومی با عبارات " جوامع در حال توسعه و یا "جوامع توسعه یافته محدود می شود. و حال این سئوال مطرح است که, آیا نوع دیگری از مدنیت و شهرنشینی وجود دارد؟
من معتقدم , منشا این رویکرد پیشنهادی, می تواند بر پایه ی چالشی با رویکرد تک خطی در مورد مدنیت و شهرنشینی باشد. سوال محوری می تواند بدین صورت مطرح گردد: آیا این امکان وجود دارد که شهرنشینی و مدنیتی جدید و متفاوت را مخصوص جوامع مسلمان داشته باشیم؟ و آیا این سوال مشروع است یا بی ربط؟
یک روش برای تفکر به این سوال مهم این است که به شکلهای قدیمی شهرنشینی و مدنیت در جوامع مسلمان برگردیم تا ببینیم آنها چگونه به شکلهای جدید شهرنشینی تغییر یافته اند. بنابراین , نقطه عزیمت منطقی , می تواند, بررسی میراث شهرنشینی و مدنیت جوامع مسلمان باشد. اگر چه , من یک نقطه آغازین دیگر را توصیه می کنم.
تصور کنید, به جای پیروی از الگوی قراردادی توجه به مدنیت در جوامع مسلمانان که بر پایه ی دیدگاه میراث آنهاست , ما از دیدگاه معرفت شناسانه ی متفاوتی آغاز کنیم. در این صورت متوجه خواهیم شد که, در قرن 21 , دیگر شهرها با یک فرم مدنیت و شهرنشینی خاص مشخص نمی شوند. اگرچه در گذشته اینگونه بوده است اما امروزه با تکثر مدنیت و شهرنشینی , باز نمایی های متفاوت, و منطق اقتصادی گوناگون و... خاص هر شهر, این امکان دیگر وجود ندارد.
بنابراین رویکرد مان بستگی به ایده هایی دارد که وجود مدنیت و شهرنشینی چند گانه را پدیده ای مشترک در شهرهای قرن 21 تلقی می کنند. اما همزمان, این عوامل که موجب تکثر شهرنشینی می شوند , از شهر به شهر دیگر و از فرهنگ به فرهنگ دیگر متفاوت می باشد.
بنابراین , ما می توانیم نقطه ی عزیمت مان را بر پایه ی یک بعد مشترک, که شامل وجود مدنیت و شهرنشینی های چند گانه در شهر و یک بعد تفاوت که شامل , ساختن این مدنیت ها و شهرنشینی ها بر اساس بافت شهری متفاوت است , قرار دهیم. اگر ما این وضعیت را بپذیریم که یکی از عناصر این تکثر, که می تواند مورد بررسی قرار گیرد, میراث شهرنشینی است , که بیشتر رویکرد های جبر گرایانه یا خطی مطالعات میراث شهری, از آن گذشته اند و آن را نا دیده گرفته اند , حال نقش میراث بعنوان یک عامل مهم در فهم شهرهای معاصر بسیار پر رنگ و اساسی است.
لذا پیشنهاد می شود که هسته مرکزی و درونمایه ی این درنگ , به چالش کشیدن رویکرد خطی باشد که جوامع مسلمان را بعنوان عقب مانده به تصویر می کشد و پیشرفت را مترادف با حرکت این جوامع ( مسلمان ) در جهت نزدیکتر شدن هر چه بیشتر آنان به اشکال پیشرفته شهرنشینی می داند. به همین خاطر ما گزینه ی دیگری را بر پایه ی رویکردی لحاظ می کنیم که بر امکان وجود یا عدم وجود شهرنشینی و مدنیت های جدید در جوامع مسلمانان توجه می کند .
این رویکرد نیازمند شماری توضیحات معرفت شناسانه معین و توافق بر روی این مقدمه کلیدی است. که اولاً / آیا ما می پذیریم در یک تکثر مدنیت و شهرنشینی زندگی می کنیم ؟ آیا می پذیریم که این تکثر یک تقسیم کننده ی مشترک در هر شهر و هر فرهنگی در دنیا است ؟ اگر این چنین است ,ما می پذیریم که این تکثر شهرنشینی و مدنیت در جوامع مسلمان نیز اتفاق می افتد , و بعضی از مولفه های این تکثر, به میراث , دگرگونی اقتصادی , مهاجرت ،هویت ( اسلامی , اجتماعی , ملی گرایانه ) و نظایر آن وابسته است. این عامل آخر ( هویت)شاید اهمیت بخصوصی در متن (بستر) قرن بیست و یکم دارد , چرا که تضادها و مذاکراتی در محدوده شهری بر سر اشکال هویت داشته ایم. ترک , ایرانی , بنگلادشی, مصری , در شهر چه تعریفی می شود؟ پیکره سیاست در شهر چیست؟ بدینگونه این نیز مهم می شود که بنگریم امروزه, چگونه مناظرات در شهرهای جوامع مسلمان رخ می دهد - در حالیکه آنها ممکن است معنای ضمنی ( دلالت ضمنی) میراث و هویت تاریخی خود را داشته باشند. اغلب بحث های جدید در مورد وجود تکثر در شهرنشینی و مدنیت , ممکن است بازتابی از ظهور یک پیچیدگی جدید در سیاستهای هویت شهر باشند.
Lookinf Into Cities
|
santralistanbul is a conservation and regeneration project, led by İstanbul Bilgi University, involving the transformation of İstanbul’s first urban scale electricity power plant, Silahtarağa (operational from 1914 to 1983), into an international hub for arts, culture, learning and education.
Organized by Professor Modjtaba Sadria, the workshop aimed to provide a foundation for further research and to find different possible paths for ongoing explorations of social and cultural change in Muslim urban settings.
In particular, the workshop focused on identifying epistemological and methodological challenges in the study of cities and socio-cultural change for the 21 st century. These issues were approached from the perspective of the built environment, the lived environment and their interaction.
|
The presentations addressed a number of key dimensions relating to cities and socio-cultural change, during which approaches emphasising macro-level and structural commonalities between cities as well as specificities in urban environments were highlighted.
The two day workshop was divided into four sessions. Session one explored the notion of cities as a framework for change in value systems; session two looked at cities as built environments: transformations and implications; session three examined interactions between the built environment and the transformation of value systems; and, session four consisted of a synthesis and summary of the three previous sessions, while defining the agenda for the continuation of research in these fields.
Using examples from Cairo, İstanbul , Bangladesh, Jerusalem, Tehran and Beirut, topics included: the problematic of urban master planning; the dynamics of poverty and urban migration; the everyday practices of religion and resistance; the historical and economic transformation of urban space; and the role of heritage conservation and public space in shaping the built and lived environments.
The workshop was attended by a speakers and participants from around the world from a range of disciplines, including architecture, urban conservation, sociology, urbanism, urban design and political economy.
Cities: Understanding Socio-cultural Transformation forms part of the Institute’s research work about the processes of change in Muslim societies. Research about cities at the Institute includes a discussion forum, Discussing Cities, and the research group – Cities and Muslim Societies.
Online Resources
Professor
Modjtaba Sadria contributes chapter in book – Pathways to Reconciliation
In October 2008, a chapter
contributed by AKU-ISMC Professor Modjtaba Sadria, ‘Hegemony, Ethics and
Reconciliation’, was published in Pathways to Reconciliation
(Rothfield,
Fleming, Komesaroff (eds), 2008).
The
book, published by Ashgate Publishing, London, is a creative engagement with
the central terms of reconciliation – forgiveness, nationhood, conflict
resolution, justice and memory – as well as an exploration of the premises of
listening and understanding the ‘other’. It is premised on the view that an essential
pathway to the achievement of reconciliation lies in developing and
disseminating critical concepts that capture the nuances of practice.
The
book includes writing by prominent scholars and thinkers, including an
introduction by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. It is divided into two sections:
'Pathways Towards and Away From Reconciliation' and 'Sites of Reconciliation'.
Both of these sections explore reconciliation: what makes it possible, what
impedes it, how to foster and promote it and how to build the social conditions
in which it can flourish.
The
book draws on a range of different fields in the humanities and social
sciences, including poststructuralism, hermeneutics, subaltern studies and
social theory. These fields are explored in relation to contemporary sites of
conflict and peace-making, bringing together a unique range of perspectives on
the complex issue of reconciliation, while offering responses to the key
questions being asked of it today.
Sadria’s
chapter, ‘Hegemony, Ethics and Reconciliation’, explores the difficulties posed
by reconciliation from two different perspectives, supporting the idea of the
potential for conflict as a tool for change rather than an end in itself; one
that is concerned with mutual destruction.
“The
first angle is an exploration of the notion of refusal or resistance to
reconcile, influenced by perceptions of the context of reconciliation, and also
implicitly related to the goals of reconciliation,” Sadria explains.
“The
second concerns problems related to listening, in terms of need and difficulty.
These matters must be overcome if we are to realise the possibility of conflict
as a tool for change rather than an end in itself.”
In
the chapter, Sadria outlines the factors and processes preventing potential
reconciliation within society, considering that any serious desire for
reconciliation requires those concerned to take into consideration a range of
perspectives. The chapter uses analytical and theoretical references in order
to help readers to grasp the nature and processes of the emergence of these
obstacles within and across societies.
In
conclusion, Sadria raises the notion of alternative possibilities based on
ethical concerns for living together, both within society as well as globally,
in order to open new perspectives on reconciliation.
Pathways
to Reconciliation was published with the support of
the Monash Centre for the Study of Global Movements, Monash University and
edited by Philipa Rothfield (La Trobe University, Australia), Cleo Fleming
(Monash University, Australia) and Paul A. Komesaroff (Monash University,
Australia). The Centre's work supports a range of research and generates
discussion and advice on matters relevant to the study of global movements.
Reconciliation: what makes it possible, what impedes it, how to
foster and promote it and how to build the social conditions in which
it can flourish? These are pressing questions for an increasingly
significant concept in community and international relations.
This book is a creative engagement with the central terms of
reconciliation - forgiveness, nationhood, conflict resolution, justice
and memory - and with approaches to questions of listening and
understanding the 'other'. It is premised on the view that an essential
pathway to the achievement of reconciliation lies in developing and
disseminating critical concepts that capture the nuances of practice.
Drawing on fields in the social sciences and humanities, including
post structuralism, hermeneutics, subaltern studies and social theory,
and elaborated in relation to contemporary sites of conflict and
peace-making, this collection brings together a unique range of
perspectives on the complex issue of reconciliation while offering
responses to the key questions being asked of it today.
Contents: Foreword, Desmond Tutu; Preface: the human face of indigenous Australia, Jackie Huggins; Introduction: pathways to reconciliation: bringing diverse voices into conversation, Paul Komesaroff; Part I The Complex Pathways of Reconciliation: Lead essay: evaluating reconciliation, Philipa Rothfield; The task of justice, David Pettigrew; Conflict resolution and reconciliation of peoples, Alphonso Lingis; Hegemony, ethics and reconciliation, Modjtaba Sadria; Telling a different story: hopes for forgiveness and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, Geraldine Smyth; Truth, reconciliation and nation formation in 'our land' of Timor-L'Este, Damian Grenfell; Testimony, nation building and the ethics of witnessing: after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, Kay Schaffer; Reconciliation with the dead and other unfamiliar pathways, Julian Jonker. Part II Sites of Reconciliation: Lead essay: reconciliation: from the usually unspoken to the almost unimaginable, Paul James; Accountability, remorse and reconciliation: lessons from South Africa, Mozambique and Rwanda, Helena Cobban; Community reconciliation in East Timor: a personal perspective, Patrick Burgess; The role of economic development in reconciliation: an experience from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Vince Gamberale; Between denial and reconciliation: lessons from South Africa to Israel and Palestine, Daphna Golan-Agnon; The Australian reconciliation process: an analysis, Andrew Gunstone; Stepping forward: reconciliation and the good relations agenda in organizational practice in Northern Ireland, Derick Wilson; Index.
Space and emancipatory discourses
Pr Modjtaba Sadria
Sept. 15, 2008
حرکت اندیشه در فضای شهر
دکتر مجتبی صدریا
خانه هنرمندان
25 شهریور 1387
ما با تعاریف متفاوتی از مدرنیته، روبه رو هستیم. یکی از تعاریفی که سالهاست پذیرفته ایم، تعریفی تک خطی از مدرنیته است. به این معنا که، مدرنیته ای که در غرب رخ داده است، پدیده ای است که در ذات خود تواناییهایی دارد و به علت وجود این تواناییها تمام آنچه غیر مدرن تعریف می شود را زیر سیطره ی خود قرار داده است.
این تعبیر از مدرنیته بر اساس یک منطق تک خطی شکل گرفته و تعابیر کانت، هگل و وبر را به عنوان مرجع پذیرفته است. و نوعی چشم انتظاری در دنیای به اصطلاح خودشان غیر مدرن، ایجاد نموده که همه در انتظار این هستند که چه موقع؟ و چه زمان این تعابیر برای آنان به وقوع خواهد پیوست.
این الگو، الگویی یک سویه است. همانند افکار بشری که قرار بوده است، از پدرانمان به نسل های بعدی بدون هیچ تغییری برسد. و بر این اساس مفاهیم مدرنیته نیز اینگونه باید به جوامع غیر مدرن انتقال یابد.
اما مفهوم دیگری نیز از مدرنیته وجود دارد. در این تعریف، مدرنیته ی غرب را تنها به این رده ی خالص اندیشه، خلاصه نمی کنیم. می پذیریم که، مدرنیته ی غرب تنها به انقلاب فرانسه، دموکراسی آمریکا و یا انقلاب صنعتی محدود نمی شود؛ بلکه اتفاق دیگری در غرب پیرامون مدرنیته شکل گرفته که نکته اساسی آن شکل گیری یک مدرنیته ی فرهنگی است که تبار فرهنگی دارد.
شکل گیری چنین مدرنیته ای از تعامل سه عنصر کاملا فرهنگی، سازمان یافته است: 1- مدرنیته هژمونیک
2- ضد مدرنیته که در لحظه ی شکل گیری مدرنیته هژمونیک به وجود آمده است و 3- مدرنیته انتقادی.
هر سه عنصر فوق، تباری فرهنگی دارند.
در تعریف نخست از مدرنیته که بر اساس یک منطق تک خطی بنا شده، مدرنیته باید بر ما وارد شود و الگوی چنین مدرنیته ای الگویی مکانیکی است.
اما در تعریف دوم، تعامل سه عنصر فرهنگی یاد شده، مدرنیته را می سازد و مسله مهم در این تعامل، شکل گیری افکار عمومی است که منطقی مارپیچ و انتقادی دارد و سه عنصر گفتگو، تفکر و اجماع در شکل گیری آن دخیلند. این الگو، الگویی تعاملی است.
نظریه ی فوکویاما مبنی بر " پایان تاریخ" و نظریه ی هانتینگتون " برخورد تمدنها" در همان تعریف تک خطی مدرنیته حرکت می کنند.
حال با توجه به مفهوم فرهنگی مدرنیته، چگونه می توان جایگاه ایران 1387 را در این چالش فرهنگی مدرنیته، تبیین کرد؟
گذارای به گذشته نشان می دهد که از اواخر قرن 11 میلادی در شمال ایتالیا و جنوب فرانسه و اسپانیا ، در اوج سلطه ی کلیسا ، اقلیتی شاعر، بحث جدایی دین از سیاست را به طور زیرکانه ای مطرح کردند و شعرهای سکولار سرودند.
آنها " تروبادور" نام داشتند به معنی کشف کردن.
بخش غالب این اشعار، عاشقانه بود. ولی به تدریج، حیطه های زسیع تری از بحث پیرامون سبک شعر تا مسایل اجتماعی و سیاسی را در بر گرفتند. به علاوه شیوه های مشاعره و مناظره را نیز سامان دادند. این گروه، خرده گفتمانی بر خلاف جریان آن زمان آغاز کردند و اصلا نیت سازماندهان آن تاثیر گذاری بر گفتمان کلان آن زمان نبود. اما به تدریج طی 300 سال ما شاهد تاثیر این خرده گفتمان، بر گفتمان کلان آن دوران هستیم.
امروز نیز در تهران سال 1387 ، خرده گفتمانهایی شکل گرفته اند که خود را به عنوان گفتمان تاثیر گذار تعریف نمی کنند اما اقدامی جدی در جهت نوآوری محسوب می شوند.
این خرده گفتمانها را حداقل می توان در عرصه های داستان نویسی، وب لاگ نویسی، مجسمه سازی و نقاشی مشاهده نمود. متاسفانه طنین چنین خرده گفتمانهایی در جامعه بسیار محدود و اندک است. آنچه در این میان اهمیت می یابد، تفکر، تامل و تعریف مکانیزمهایی است که این خرده گفتمانها بتوانند در جامعه طنین یافته و جایگاهی در خور خود، به دست آورند.
در ایران، به زعم من، گفتمان کلانی نداریم، آنچه هست، خرده گفتمانها هستند که برخی از آنان با استفاده از ابزارهای مکانیکی، خود را گفتمان کلان تعریف کرده اند، اما ماهیت آنان همچنان خرده گفتمان است. لازم است تا تمام خرده گفتمانها در جامعه، در فرایندی تعاملی طنین انداز شوند. جایگاه یک گفتمان، به مثابه خرد یا کلان، اساسا بر پایه ی جذابیت آن تعیین می شود؛ و این جذابیت به هر ترتیب بر بار اخلاقی مستقر می گردد.
مرور مفهوم مدرن ضروری به نظر می رسد. مدرن به معنی " پذیرفتن خود مختاری نسبی فرد در جامعه است." که امروز ما شاهد پذیرفته شدن نسبی این خود مختاری در جامعه هستیم. مثال روشن آن، گرد همایی امروز ما و صحبت در این زمینه است.
باید آگاه باشیم که در دام مدرنیزاسیون به جای مدرنیته، نیفتیم. مدرنیزاسیون به معنی " سلب خود مختاری از شهروندان، تعیین هدفی خارج از آنان و بسیج همه امکانات برای رسیدن به آن اهداف" است. در حالیکه مدرنیته " مذاکره ی اجتماعی بین افرادی است که خود مختاری نسبی فرد را در جامعه، پذیرفته اند."
از دیدگاه من ، متاسفانه در جهان معاصر، ما شاهد افول اندیشه ی غربی هستیم. اندشه ای که زمانی از اصلی ترین اصول روشنگری محسوب می شد و توانایی خود را در پذرفتن تکثر بشر، و متصل کردن این بشریت به یکدیگر تعریف می کرد . اما امروزه دیگر تحمل درک این اصل مهم را ندارد و توانایی خود را از دست داده است. اینکه می گویم، " متاسفانه" به خاطر جایگاه اندیشیدن به بشریت است.
شاهد این مدعا، تلاش جدی برای حذف قاره ی آفریقا و نا دیده انگاشتن این قاره به عنوان یک پدیده ی فرهنگی زنده است. امروزه ، آفریقا را تنها با مفاهیم فقر و ایدز باز نمایی می کنند.
نمونه ی دیگر این افول، تلاش برای نادیده انگاشتن مسلمان مدرن 1387 است. مفهوم مسلمان، از دید روند ویژه ای در غرب به گونه ای تعریف می شود که یا باید الگوی تک خطی آنان را بپذیرد و در یک روند استحاله وارد شود؛ یا مفهوم آنان از او مفهومی طالبانی و تروریست است.
امروز در سال 1387 درتهران شاهد شکل گیری خرده گفتمانهایی هستیم که خود را خارج از مفاهیم باز نمایی شده ی فوق به عنوان مسلمان 1387 تعریف می کنند.
کوشش در کیفیت آفرینی هر چه بیشتر، در این خرده گفتمانها، جذابیت آنان را بالا می برد. در دنیای معاصر میزان جذابیت این گفتمانها، قدرت آنان را تعریف می کند.
به نظر می رسد، یکی از مهمترین و اساسی ترین چالشهای ایران سال 1387 ، استفاده از مکانیزمهایی است که خرده گفتمانها، قادر شوند، جایگاه متناسب با کیفیت فکری، ذهنی و عملی خود را بیابند.
پی نوشت:
گفتمان به معنی مفصل بندی دلایل و داده ها برای شکل گیری معنا است.
Iranian Artist's Forum
Fiftennth of September 2008
2۵ شهریور 1387
سخنرانی دکتر صدریا در خانه هنرمندان
موضوع سخنرانی: مدرنیته و خرده گفتمان ها
بيست و هشتمين جلسه نقد منظر شهري با سخنراني مجتبي صدريا در تالار ناصري خانهي هنرمندان ايران برگزار شد.
برای خواندن مطلب لینک زیر را باز کنید:
http://www.iranartists.org/article.aspx?id=1143
بر گرفته از سایت:http://www.iranartists.org
