Reply to the "Scientific Critique and the Critique of Structural-Functional Dynamic Approach"

Document Type : Article Review

Author

Department of Geography, Humanities, and Social Sciences Campus, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

Abstract

A B S T R A C T
Different approaches to spatial planning are a way to make our surrounding world meaningful. The Structural-Functional Dynamic approach (SFDA) has recently been articulated within the context of Iranian geographers to provide an alternative meaning for spatial planning concerning the socio-spatial context of Iran. We have interpreted some methodological aspects of this approach in Structural-Functional Dynamics Approach to Spatial Planning ("planning") published in Spatial Planning journal in 2016. The main argument was that the conceptualization of the two essential concepts of space and man in SFDA needs to be revised based on consistent assumptions. Although SFDA, following humanism, has rejected objectivism, an elitist top-down spatial planning, the idea of threshold in the neoclassical economy, and universal laws of human behavior, it reproduced them due to its tendency to positivism and the paradigm of geography as a spatial science. In 2018, the author of SFDA in scientific critique and the critique of the Structural-Functional dynamic approach ("Scientific Critique") criticized the way of interpretation presented in planning because of the incorrect translation and misinterpretation of scientific texts, the secondary referencing; and the misunderstanding of the concepts articulated in SFDA. The present article aimed to clarify arguments and interpretations presented in the planning to reply to the Scientific Critique
Extended abstract
Introduction
Different approaches to spatial planning seek to make meaningful our surrounding world. The Structural-Functional Dynamic approach ("SFDA") has been recently articulated within the context of Iranian geographers to provide an alternative meaning to spatial planning concerning Iranian social and spatial context. Because of the various social and economic effects of spatial planning on different groups, individuals, and spaces, it is always necessary to interpret and analyze the theoretical assumptions and practical implications of multiple alternatives of spatial planning. Accordingly, the interpretation of the methodological dimensions of SFDA in the paper Structural-Functional Dynamics Approach to Spatial Planning ("planning") published in Spatial Planning journal in 2016 showed that the conceptualization of space and man as essential concepts of spatial planning in SFDA is based on inconsistent assumptions. Although SFDA, following humanism, has rejected objectivism, an elitist top-down spatial planning, the idea of threshold in the neoclassical economy, and universal laws of human behavior, it reproduced them due to its tendency to positivism and the paradigm of geography as a spatial science. In 2018, the author of SFDA criticized in his scientific critique and the critique of Structural-Functional dynamic ("scientific critique") the way of interpretation presented in planning because of the incorrect translation and misinterpretation of scientific texts; the secondary referencing; and the misunderstanding of the concepts articulated in SFDA. The present article aimed to clarify arguments and interpretations presented in the planning to reply to the Scientific Critique. 
 
Methodology
In order to make clear responses, the study will first quote a statement or a paragraph from the Scientific Critique, and then related responses to that critique follow.
  
Results and discussion
The present article reconsidering the texts used in planning, has shown that the translation and interpretation of scientific texts correspond with the view of their authors, and the critiques of misinterpretation and mistranslation of them discussed in the scientific critique need to be corrected. In contrast, it is the scientific critique at the exposure of critiques due to misunderstanding and mistranslating English-language scientific texts and concepts such as plastic space, soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and postmodern spatial planning. Surprisingly, according to SFDA, plastic space is unreal and unmeasurable. For example, SFDA, contrary to original texts, has argued that soft spaces refer to new human settlements, and hard spaces refer to old or existing human settlements. As presented by Allmendinger and Haughton, soft spaces and fuzzy boundaries refer to informal and indicative spaces of spatial planning. While plastic space, according to Forer, is a natural, measurable, and metric space, SFDA has argued that Forer's plastic space is ideal and non-measurable to conclude that the translation and interpretation of Forer's plastic space are false. We agree with the scientific critique on the critique of secondary referencing in some cases in planning. It is better to refer to original scientific texts as far as possible. 
In addition, the present article, through the explanation of the logical structure of arguments presented in planning, has shown that the critique of misunderstanding the basic assumptions and concepts of SFDA needs to be more precise. In contrast, the application of SFDA is difficult because of the inconsistent notions articulated in SFDA.  For example, SFDA, following Hegel and German idealism, has argued in favor of change-oriented spatial planning. However, it has accepted positivist assumptions that space governed by universal laws is fixed, predictable and unchangeable. It is still being determined how we can predict changing phenomena as precisely as assumed in SFDA. The exact prediction is only possible for unchangeable situations and spaces. 
 
Conclusion
The internal consistency of concepts is an essential criterion for the validity of any scientific approach. Internal consistency refers to the logical coordination between ideas and concepts articulated in a specific approach. In the case of conceptual contradiction and inconsistency, it can be argued that a theory is not valid and coherent. The main argument developed in planning and the present article is that SFDA needs conceptual consistency. The conceptual inconsistency is not in itself a problem. It may be the reflection of contradictions and inconsistencies in the real world. However, as Lefebvre pointed out, Hegel did not discover the contradiction. He discovered a third moment that is produced when the contradiction has been transcended due to the enrichment of determination by its negation. The logical contradictions make an approach difficult to understand and apply. For this, SFDA should explain in the coming papers how it can remove the conceptual contradictions and inconsistencies in theory and practice to provide a comprehensive and integrated network of concepts to deal with spatial planning issues.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahamer, G. (2012). Human geography trains diverse perspectives on global development. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 6, 312-333.
  2. Allmendinger, P. (2002). Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning theory, 1, 77-99.
  3. Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2009). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A, 41, 617-633.
  4. Barnes, TJ. (2011). From region to space. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to human geography.
  5. Barnes, TJ. (2012). Reopke lecture in economic geography: notes from the underground: why the history of economic geography matters: the case of central place theory. Economic Geography, 88, 1-26.
  6. Bobek, H. (1927). Grundfragen der stadtgeographie. Geographische Anzeiger, 28, 213-224.
  7. Bobek, H. (1959). Die Hauptstufen der gesellschafts-und wirtschaftsentfaltung in geographischer sicht. Die Erde, 90, 259-298.
  8. Bobek, H. (1974), Zum konzept des rentenkapitalismus. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 65, 73-78.
  9. Bobek, H., & Fesl, M. (1978). Das system der zentralen orte österreichs. Eine empirische Untersuchung: Böhlau.
  10. Bobek, H., & Fesl, M. (1980). Zentrale orte österreichs II. Ergänzungen zur Unteren Stufe.
  11. Cavasin, N. (2014). Christaller, Walter (1893-1969). Encyclopedia of world geography. Infobase Publishing.
  12. Christaller, W. (1964). Some considerations of tourism location in Europe: The peripheral regions-under-developed countries-recreation areas. Papers in Regional Science, 12, 95-105.
  13. Christaller, W. (1966). Central places in Southern Germany. Prentic-Hall.
  14. Copleston, F. (1999). A History of philosophy. Vol. VI, Wolff to Kant: Burns & Oates.
  15. Cresswell, T. (2006). On the move: Mobility in the modern western world. Taylor & Francis.
  16. Cresswell, T. (2010). Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28, 17-31.
  17. Deleuze, G. (1988). Bergsonism. MIT Press.
  18. Deleuze, G. (2006). Nietzsche and philosophy. Columbia University Press.
  19. Deleuze, G. (2008). Kant's critical philosophy. The doctrine of the faculties (Hugh Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.): A&C Black.
  20. Douglass, M. (1998). A regional network strategy for reciprocal rural-urban linkages: an agenda for policy research with reference to Indonesia. Third World Planning Review, 20, 1-20.
  21. Forer, P. (1978). A place for plastic space?. Progress in Geography, 2, 230-267.
  22. Giddens, A. (1985). Time, space and regionalization, 265-295. Social relations and spatial structures. Macmillan, London.
  23. Golledge, RG., Church, R., & Dozier, J. (1982). Commentary on The highest form of the geographer's art. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 72 (4), 557-558.
  24. Gregory, D. (1984). Recollections of a revolution: geography as spatial science. Macmillan International Higher Education.
  25. Gregory, D., Johnston. R., & Pratt, G. (2011) The dictionary of human geography. John Wiley & Sons.
  26. Hart, JF. (1982). The highest form of the geographer's art. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 72, 1-29.
  27. Hartshorne, R. (1939). The nature of geography: A critical survey of current thought in the light of the past. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 29, 173-412.
  28. Hartshorne, R. (1969). Perspective on the Nature of Geography. Literary Licensing.
  29. Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., & Counsell, D. (2009). The new spatial planning: Territorial management with soft spaces and fuzzy boundaries. Routledge.
  30. Hegel, GWF. (2018). The Phenomenology of spirit. Oxford University Press.
  31. Hegel, WHGW. (2008). Philosophy of mind. New York: Cosimo, Inc.
  32. Johnston, R. (1997). W(h)ither spatial science and spatial analysis. Futures, 29, 323-336.
  33. Johnston, RJ. (1986). The neighbourhood effect revisited: spatial science or political regionalism?. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 4, 41-55.
  34. Kant, I. (1996). Critique of pure reason. (Werner S. Pluhar & P. Kitcher, Trans.): Hackett Publishing Company.
  35. Kant, I. (2012a). Critique of judgment. (J. H. Bernard, Trans.): Dover Publications.
  36. Kant, I. (2012b). Critique of practical reason. (T. K. Abbott, Trans.): Dover Publications
  37. Lefebvre, H. (2009). Dialectical materialism. University of Minnesota Press.
  38. Nietzsche, F. (1896). The Case of Wagner. Nietzsche contra Wagner; The Twilight of the Idols; The Antichrist: H. Henry.
  39. Nietzsche, F. (1989). On the genealogy of morals. On the genealogy of morals and ecce homo. Trans. Walter Kaufmann and RJ Hollingdale, New York: Vintage.
  40. Rahimi, H. (2016). Structural-Functional Dynamics Approach to spatial planning: Toward linking spatial determinism with humanism. Spatial Planning, 20 (4), 91-114. [in Persian].
  41. Rohlf, M. (2010). Immanuel Kant. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.
  42. Saidi, A. & Taleshi, M. (2004). Unsustainability of small rural settlements in
    Aladagh region of North of Khorasan. Geography and Regional
    Development, 3    , 1-29. [in Persian].
  43. Saidi, A. (1965). What Is urban geography?. Literary Studies, 1, 89-102. [in Persian].
  44. Saidi, A. (1975). Thinking about man as a geographical phenomenon. Literary
    Studies, 42,     204-215. [in Persian].
  45. Saidi, A. (2005). Structural and functional inefficiency of regional and spatial
    systems: The case of Bagheh Malek Region (East of Khoozesstan). Geography and Regional Development, 5, 43-60. [in Persian].
  46. Saidi, A. (2011). Structural-Functional Dynamism: A systematic approach in
    spatial studies. Geography, 9, 7-16. [in Persian].
  47. Saidi, A. (2012). Structural-Functional Dynamism: An alternative approach to
    spatial planning, Economy. Space and Rural Development, 1, 1-18. [in Persian].
  48. Saidi, A. (2013). Scientific critique and the critique of Structural-Functional Dynamics approach. Physical-Spatial Planning, 4, 11-20. [in Persian].
  49. Saidi, A. (2018). Rural-Urban integrity in the form of rural constellations.
    Geography, 58, 5-20. [in Persian].
  50. Saidi, A., & Fatahpour Maryaki, D. (2002). Spatial planning implications for small
    nomadic villages. Housing and Rural Environment, 98, 32-41. [in Persian].
  51. Solomon, RC. (1985). In the spirit of Hegel. Oxford University Press.
  52. Taylor, M. & Thrift, N. (2013). The Geography of multinationals (RLE International Business). Studies in the Spatial Development and Economic Consequences of Multinational Corporations: Routledge.
  53. Taylor, PJ. & Derudder, B. (2015). World city network: a global urban analysis: Routledge.
  54. Thrift, N. (2003). Space: the fundamental stuff of geography. Key concepts in geography, 2, 95-107.
  55. Vienna, Uo. (2017). Hans Bobek. Available at: https://geschichte.univie.ac.at/en/persons/hans-bobek-prof-dr.
  56. Werlen, B. (2003). Society, action and space.Routledge.
  57. Werlen, B. (2007). region und regionalisierung, Franz Steiner Verlag.
Sustainable city
Volume 5, Issue 4
April 2023
Pages 1-26

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics