Abstract
This paper puts spatial cognition to the test of the social representations paradigm, drawing on insights from the positional and structural approaches of representation, to complement existing findings on social groups pre-constructed on the basis of an approach focused on the social cognition of space. 1 We posit the hypothesis that different relationships to urban space and their underlying spatial representations relate to distinct social positions. To confirm this, we developed a quasi-experimental method based on a questionnaire inducing hierarchized mentions of places in Strasbourg, submitted to employees with different statuses in the same institution, the University of Strasbourg. Five spatial representations are identified using hierarchical agglomerative clustering and described in prototypical analyses. Relationships to urban space are also investigated using an analysis of the functional and/or evaluative dimensions of representations. The sociological characteristics associated with each type of representation support the general hypothesis of a structural homology between spatial representations and social positions. The structure of the representational content (places) of Strasbourg indeed varies according to the socio-occupational status, level of education and age of the agents of the University of Strasbourg. The relationship to space of members of the lower social classes is instrumental, whereas that of the most economically and culturally privileged is symbolic/aesthetic. The salient features of spatial representation and their functional and/or evaluative dimension are the cognitive components of a stance that inseparably relates to the individual’s social position.
Highlights
Starting from Jodelet’s argument (1982) that representations of urban space are social representations, we ask here whether these representations are mainly cultural or social constructs or both cultural and social constructs
We first sought to single out different representations of space, by identifying groups of representations, in order to establish whether they are characterized by social positions
We considered whether the construction of spatial representations reflects a primarily geographical positioning or a double positioning in geographical and social space
Summary
Starting from Jodelet’s argument (1982) that representations of urban space are social representations, we ask here whether these representations are mainly cultural or social constructs or both cultural and social constructs. Representations are reconstructed based on what spatial features are worth to the individuals who mention them, which is an important principle of social cognition (Beauvois et al, 1987), instead of seeing them for what they are (the cathedral, a particular square, street, etc.), as is often done in spatial cognition, as a social group’s ‘mental map’ is very often compared to the topographical map rather than to the mental maps of other groups Another novel aspect in our approach consists, as in the geographical dimension, in refraining from indulging in an intellectualized elaboration of social positions. For instance, we avoid comparing factory workers with the foremen in other factories, employees in public organizations with managers in private companies, etc
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
