Call for papers

Spatial representations are often considered as cognitive images guiding people’s travels or, from an interactionist perspective, as images being structured by their daily mobility practice. Yet when the focus is no more on practical dimensions, it is then the environmental surroundings which are placed in the very centre of individual’s experience in/of the geographical space. While this environmental aspect allows to combine the social dimensions of the environment with its physical characteristics, these approaches conceptualize the spatial representations from a bio-physicalist perspective, namely through the adaptation in the environment and the orientation in the space. Thus, social features of the space are considered in the same way as its physical features. And the knowledge activated by the cognitive mapping process is consequently considered as rational, because anchored in the lived experience and constructed at the individual level. Also, evaluating a place, especially assessing its spatial configuration, is rarely considered as a social construction rooted in the development of knowledge and its diffusion, nor as shared perceptions of space within a social group.

Studies on spatial representations (Jodelet & Milgram, 1976; Jodelet, 1982) have proliferated since the extension of the Social Representations paradigm (Moscovici, 1961/1976) into the geographical space. Through the lens of social representations theory, the existence of social features in the process of interlocutors’ identification OF places and WITHIN places become evident (de Alba, 2017). Moreover, this theoretical approach outlines the symbolic dimensions associated to places during the the cognitive mapping process. We can refer to the pioneer studies on the relations between collective memory and geographical spaces (Hass, 2002, 2004; Jodelet, 2015; de Alba, M. &s; Dargentas, M, 2022).

Moreover, it is also the individual’s social trajectory (Clementi, in press), or even his/her social position (Dias and Ramadier, 2018) which make representations of spatial spaces becoming social representations. Here the focus is on the differences between social groups. In other words, the process of cognitive mapping echoes the social structure (Ramadier, 2022).

These two approaches for studying the social representations of the urban space – one centred on the objectification of historical, symbolic and imaginary dimensions implicated in the content of spatial representations; the other focused on the anchoring of symbolic values in the process of social distinction, –both focus on the relationship between the individual and the geographical space, without the need of further investigation on details or of particular attention paid to the impact of explicit and topical social relations of people. Therefore, to what extent do social groups, which share between them a sense of closeness, share also similar spatial representations of their living space? How does this play out in their common practices? How may collective remembering or forgetting play a role? How are social distance and social conflicts inscribed into the spatial representations?

The fifth call for papers from the International Conference of the Cartotête network intends to bring together researchers interested in the impact of the relationship with others in the process of cognitive mapping.

Our biannual conference, this time organised by the Groupe de Recherche en Psychologie Sociétale (GRePS, University Lumière Lyon 2 - France) will be devoted to themes which aim to better understand to which extent the relationship with others affects the social representations of geographical space, so as for broadening the horizon of research works carried out on the collective memory and the social space. Relevance will be granted to the alterity, especially in its contemporary and concrete reality without excluding its symbolic dimensions. How may spatial representations inform us when it comes to our relationship with others? The level of analysis might be that of individuals (interindividual) or between social groups (intergroup). The explanation level can also be mixed when it is the relationship of an individual with a group that is analysed (identity, belongingness, attachment, etc.).

Three themes are proposed:

1. Spatial representations and the social network through time and space

This theme is specifically dedicated to the relationship between practice and spatial representations, by laying particular emphasis on the effects engendered from the spatially distributed social network on the representation of geographical space. If the current social network is certainly of importance, we may also investigate its evolutions in time and space, in order to better understand the footprints of (personal or collective) history left on the present spatial representations. This will provide an opportunity to address the question of how cognitive representations of space are constructed in relation to the spatio-temporal distribution of an individual's social network(s).

2. Social cohesion and spatial representations

Do spatial representations contribute to maintain the social cohesiveness of a group? What is the relationship between the spatial representations and the feelings of belonging to the same group, the social identity within a group or the collective memory of a group? How do spatial representations participate in the social dynamics? What do these dynamics elucidate us about the social construction of spatial representations?

3. Social distances, conflicts, struggles and spatial representations

Here, the objective is to better understand the role(s) played by the spatial representations in conflicts or struggles between social groups. The geographer Y. Lacoste (1976) declared that geography, first of all, is used for warfare, then what about cognitive maps? Yet, what do these social situations inspire us about the elaboration of spatial representations?

CALENDAR

The summary of proposal must be written in French or in English and must include the problematics dealt with, the method used and the main results. An acceptable proposal shall include title, name of the author(s), correspondent mail address and one of the three themes proposed. It should be no more than 40,000 characters (space included, without bibliography). PDF will be systematically refused in order to guarantee the anonymous review. The summary should also be formatted in "Times new roman" font, size 12, line spacing 1.15 (a template will be available).

Summaries must be uploaded no later than February 6, 2023, to the website of the Conference: Menu on the left “Submit your proposal”.

ORGANISING COMMITTEE

INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE COMMITEE

REFERENCES