Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Barbora Vacková
(Masaryk University)
Monika Metykova (University of Sussex)
Send message to Convenors
- Formats:
- Panel
- Stream:
- Urban Studies
- Sessions:
- Wednesday 23 June, -
Time zone: Europe/Helsinki
Short Abstract:
The panel discusses communication processes that play a role in the re/construction of images and meanings linked to places. We focus on smaller localities and local communities that use distinctive features (historical, industrial, natural) as part of the way in which they communicate themselves.
Long Abstract:
Images of every locality - a town, a neighbourhood, a community - are used and circulated to communicate to insiders as well as to outsiders - visitors, trespassers, investors… The panel intends to explore various aspects of communication processes and its structures as well as actors and the power relations constituted in the communication process. To keep the discussion focused, we would like to signpost the unique social milieu of the small localities where social ties resemble Gemeinschaft rather than Gesellschaft ones with their lack of anonymity, commonly shared history and local knowledge. The second concept we want to explore is public space and that as a material space as well as a social one.
The questions to be discussed include but are not limited to:
● What are the dominant images in a city's communication?
● Who is allowed to participate in communicating the city?
● What is left out - intentionally or unintentionally - from the communication?
● How can we challenge long-established local images/meanings?
● How can public spaces be utilized in communicating a locality?
We welcome research-based papers and theoretical discussions of the topic. Examples of possible themes:
● Role of the local media and local professional communicators in the image/meaning re/construction
● Resistance/alternatives to how the locality is officially communicated
● Communication and the material/non-material public space
● Re/construction of the image of the city
● Utilization of specific images and categorizations (historical city, UNESCO city, industrial city etc.) in communication and their convergence
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Wednesday 23 June, 2021, -Paper short abstract:
The cultural boundary between “locals” and “non-locals” exists in the outlying district of Vilnius. People, who belong to different generations, have a different attitude towards this cultural boundary. During my presentation, I would like to discuss in detail how this division between “locals” and “non-locals” is maintained and the origin of it.
Paper long abstract:
his presentation is based on ethnographical data, which I have acquired during my field research in the Vilnius area. Some of the people there (mostly local Poles) identify themselves as “locals” (in Polish “tutejszy”). They claim that a person can be recognised as a local, only if his parents and grandparents lived in the Vilnius area. They refer to the tombstones with polish engravings on them in a local cemetery, buildings in the Vilnius area designed by Polish architects. The houses and the monuments of the famous artists who lived and performed in the area are mentioned as well. These material objects in the city are presented as testimonials of deep polish roots in the area.
People feel a cultural boundary (to use Fredrik Barth (1969) term) between themselves and other people, who they call “non-locals”. “Non-locals” being people who moved to live in the Vilnius area some time ago and cannot relate to material past of the Vilnius area. The cultural boundary is maintained by communicating (among “locals”) narratives about certain differences between “locals” and “non-locals”.
People, who belong to different generations, have a different attitude towards this cultural boundary. This boundary is very important to the oldest generation (born right after W.W.II.). It is of lesser importance for the people born between 1960 and 1990. The youngest generation wants to challenge this division and abolish it.
During my presentation, I would like to discuss in detail this division between “locals” and “non-locals” and the origin of it.
Paper short abstract:
How is the social milieu of a small town involving its communication practice? We will describe specific communication practices in Telč (UNESCO heritage, CZE) and use this empirical data as an example of limitations that may occur in settlements of similar size and importance.
Paper long abstract:
The presentation focuses on the advantages and limits of (not only professionalized) communication in the social milieu of a small town. The paper is based on the research of the communication environment of the city of Telč (5.5 thousand inhabitants). Gained data are interpreted in the context of the theory of local communication supplemented by Bourdieu's theory of capitals and serves us as an example of a community we can describe as Gemeinschaft.
We will follow a simple analytical division, which consists of professional (media) communication on the one hand and informal or semi-formal types of communication within the city on the other. We will provide concrete examples of the limits/advantages of the social environment of a small town in both types of communication: Specifically, we will show (1) how these analytically divided spheres of communication intersect and influence each other, and (2) how this interaction is related to the city/municipality. Furthermore, we will focus on (3) the agenda-setting, and we will show that the city cannot always actively influence the image that is produced about it. Finally (4) we point out the limits of effective communication in the environment of a small town, where the social practice of local actors is often at odds with the expectations of visitors, tourists, or newly immigrants.