The urbanism debate in German and French sociology 1950–2000

 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34680/urbis-2024-4(2)-141-153

 

Oleg Leibovich

Perm State Institute of Culture, Perm, Russia
о[email protected]

ORCID: 0000-0001-5191-939X

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

The author’s research approach to the topic of urbanism in continental European sociology is based on two fundamental points: 1) no unified sociology of the city has emerged; the historian of science has to deal with national sociologies, such as German and French; 2) the common ideological or, more broadly, intellectual situations give rise to similar attitudes and research topics in professional sociological communities. The choice of Francophone and German-language texts for analysis is determined by the wide exchange and mutual influence of national sociological schools between 1950 and 2000. In both countries, there was a process of reconstruction of sociology, first on the reception of American sociology and then on its critique. In 50 years, there were three paradigm shifts in the study of urban culture. Initially, the ideological concept of urbanism dominated national sociologies, opposing the German philosophical tradition of the era of O. Spengler and his predecessors. Urbanism was considered a function of urban space, ensuring freedom and personal development for all citizens (H. P. Bahrdt). The new political economy paradigm (M. Castells) initially began with a critique of urbanism as a bourgeois ideology devoid of theoretical content. Subsequently, the new paradigm was constructed in terms of the political economy of “Capital” without any reference to the cultural aspects of urban life. A city is nothing more than infrastructure for the circulation of capital, collective means of consumption necessary for the reproduction of labor, tied to the territory, inelastic, and unprofitable. Citizens were considered agents of the economic process, faceless and deprived of individual features, which was a moment in economic development. In mastering the city's political economy, sociologists have overlooked the analysis of specific social situations, cultural conflicts, the functioning of imagined communities, and the symbolic connection of the citizens with the city. The political economy of the city was replaced by a new school of social urbanism under the brand of critical sociology (W. Siebel, A. Bourdin). Its adherents made an inventory of languages to describe urban culture and lifestyle, emphasized the idea of accessibility of basic subject and institutional tools of urban life, analyzed the possibilities of urbanism for the social integration of citizens, and described the status of urbanism in urban planning, calling it a great social mission (A. Bourdin). In search of an adequate concept of urbanism, sociologists formed their own social identity, proving their necessity and importance in the social and cultural reconstruction of European society.

 

 

KEYWORDS: French and German, urban sociology, urbanism, history of sociology, research paradigms, ideological constructs.

 

 

References

 

Althusser, L. (2006). For Marx. (A. V. Denezhkin, Trans.) Praxis. (In Russian).

 

Artamoshin, S. V. (2002). The ideological sources of national socialism. Bryansk State Uni-versity. (In Russian).

 

Bahrdt, H. P. (1961). Die moderne Grosßstadt: Soziologische Überlegungen zum Städtebau. Rowohlt.

 

Bahrdt, H. P. (1968). Humaner Städtebau. Überlegungen zur Wohnungspolitik und Stadt-planung für eine nahe Zukunft. Christian Wegner Verlag.

 

Bauman, Z. (1999). Culture as Praxis. SAGE Publications.

Berndt, H. (1987). Hygienbewegung des XIX. Jahrhunderts als vergessene Thema von Stadt-Architektursoziologie. Die alte Stadt, 2, 140–163.

 

Binder, B. (2006). Urbanität als «Moving Metaphor». Aspekte der Stadtentwicklungsde-batte in den 1960er/1970er Jahren. In Adelheid von Saldern (Hg.), Stadt und Kommunikation in bundesrepublikanischen Umbruchszeiten (s. 45–66). Franz Steiner Verlag.

 

Boronnikov, A. D. (1987). The city in bourgeois society: Critical analysis of West German non-Marxist sociology of the city, 1945‒1985. Thesis abstract for the degree of Candi-date of Philosophical Sciences. Institute of Sociological Research. (In Russian).

 

Bourdin, A. (2010). L’urbanisme d’après crise. Editions de l’Aube.

 

Castells M. (1983). Changer la ville. Eléments pour une théorie sociologique des mouvements sociaux. Thèse pour le doctorat. Université René-Descartes, 3 tomes.

 

Castells, M. (1968). Y a-t-il une sociologie urbaine? Sociologie du travail, 10(1), 72–90.

 

Castells, M. (1969). Théorie et idéologie en sociologie urbaine. Sociologie et sociétés, 1(2), 171–192.

 

Castells, M. (1972). La question urbaine. François Maspéro.

 

Chombart de Lauwe, P-H. (1965). Paris. Essais de sociologie, 1952–1964. Éditions Ouvrières.

 

Davydov, Yu. N. (2000). Weber’s renaissance in the West (second half of the 70s‒80s). In Yu. N. Davydov (Ed.), History of theoretical sociology. In 4 vol. Vol. 4. (pp. 436–465). RHGI. (In Russian).

 

Drevermann, W. (1977). Intelligenz, Phantasie und Macht für die Planung von Stadt und Land. Selbstverlag – Wasmuth Buchhandlung in Kommission.

 

Durth, W. (1977). Die Inszenierung der Alltagswelt. Zur Kritik der Stadtgestaltung. Ver-lag & Vieweg.

 

Füzesséry, St. (2010, 1 décembre). Réinventer l’urbanisme. Laviedesidees. URL: https://laviedesidees.fr/Reinventer-l-urbanisme.

 

König, R. (Ed.). (1977). Handbuch der empirischen Sozialforschung. Bd. 10: Groß-stadt/Massenkommunikation/Stadt-Land-Beziehungen. Deutscher Taschenbuch Ver-lag.

 

Harloe, M. (Ed.). (1977). Captive cities: Studies in the political economy of cities and regions. John Wiley.

 

Hartard, Ch. (2006). Komm, wir bauen eine Stadt. Wie in den 1960er-Jahren der Traum vom Urbanen am Verfall des öffentlichen Raums scheiterte. Einige Stadtrandbemer-kungen aus München-Neuperlach. Mitteilungen der Geographischen Gesellschaft Mün-chen (Sonderheft), 60–73.

 

Häuβermann, H. Sibel, W. (1987). Neue Urbanität. Suhrkamp Verlag.

 

Knigge, R. (1975). Infrastrukturinvestitionen in Grossstädten. Kohlhammer.

 

König, R. (1973). Definition der Stadt. In W. Pehnt (Ed.), Die Stadt in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Lebensbedingungen, Aufgaben, Planung (s. 11–25). Reclam.

 

Kraus, K. (1986). Aphorismen. Sprǜche und Wiedersprǜche. Pro domo el mundo. Suhrkamp Verlag.

 

Langbehn, A. (1922). Ohne Autor Rembrandt als Erzieher. Von einem Deutschen. Alexander Duncker Verlag.

 

Le Breton, E. (2009). La sociologie urbaine des Trente glorieuses contre l'urbanisme. Premiers éléments d'un chantier en cours. ESO (Espaces et Sociétés) Travaux et Docu-ments, 28, 7–18.

 

Lefebvre, H. (1960). Les nouveaux ensembles urbains (un cas concret: Lacq-Mourenx et les problemes urbains de la nouvelle classe ouvrire). Revue française de sociologie, 1(2), 186–201.

 

Leibovich, O. L., & Kabatskov, A. N. (Eds.). (2006). Urban worlds. Experience of human-itarian research: Collective monograph. Izd-vo RIO PSTU. (In Russian).

 

Martindale, D. (1958). Prefatory remarks. In M. Weber, The City. (pp. 9–62). The Free Press.

 

Mitscherlich, A. (1965). Die Unwirtlichkeit unserer Städte: Anstiftung zum Unfrieden. Suhrkamp.

 

Mitscherlich, A. (1968). Unser aller Versagen. Spiegel, 18, 169–171.

 

Regnier, M. (1973). La guerre lente ou la sterilisation des villes. Esprit, 6, 1263–1274.

 

Richard, L. (1982). Deutscher Faschismus und Kultur: Aus der Sicht eines Franzosen. Akademie Verlag.

 

Saldern von, A. (2015). Gegen Entmischung und Monotonie der Städte. Aleksander Mit-scherlich «Anstiftung zum Unfrieden». Zeithistorische Forschungen / Studies in Con-temporary History, 12, 152–160.

 

Schöller, P. (1967). Die deutschen Städte. Erdkundliches Wissen. Beihefte 17 der Geogra-phischen Zeitschrift. Franz Steiner Verlag.

 

Siebel, W. (1994). Was macht eine Stadt urban? Zur Stadtkultur und Stadtentwicklung. Oldenburger Universitätsreden, 61, 5–22.

 

Sieverts, T. (2009). Rezenzion “Alexander Mitscherlich: Die Unwirtlichkeit unserer Städte. Frankfurt/M, 2008”. Wiedergelesen nach 40 Jahren. The Planning Review, 1, 62–64.

 

Topalov, Ch. (2013, 16 octobre). Trente ans de sociologie urbaine. Un point de vue fran-çais. Métropolitiques, 1–10. URL: http://www.metropolitiques.eu/Trente-ans-de-soci-ologie-urbaine.html.

 

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24.

 

 

Information about the author

Oleg L. Leybovich
Doctor of Sci. (History), Professor
Head of Cultural Science
and Philosophy Department
Perm State Institute of Culture
18, Gazety Zvezda St., Perm, 614000,
Russian Federation
ORCID: 0000-0001-5191-939X
Web of Science ResearcherID: R-4154-2016
Scopus AuthorID: 57191610916
e-mail: о[email protected]

 

 

For citation:
Leibovich, O. L. (2024). The urbanism debate in German and French sociology 1950–2000. Urbis et Orbis. Microhistory and Semiotics of the City, 4(2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.34680/urbis-2024-4(2)-141-153