The Conceptualisation of Space: Theory and Practical Application to the Cities of the Urals

This article explores the potential of employing a spatial approach in the study of the Ural city during the twentieth century. The established tradition of studying the Soviet industrial space with predominant reliance on the theory of modernisation corresponds to the logic of its perception in the categories of the modern era. At the same time, the conceptual framework of modernisation theory proves challenging to implement when attempting to characterise sociocultural processes within a Soviet city. The development of an “anthropocultural paradigm” for studying the Soviet city, a need that was first articulated approximately three decades ago, remains a subject of ongoing discourse. The article analyses the legacy of Soviet and Russian urbanism in the academic study of the Soviet city. The author examines the place of the idea of space in the study of the history of human society. The analysis draws upon the works of theorists of “social space,” the idea of “production of space” by A. Lefebvre, and adherents of the “spatial turn” who have studied Soviet material. The article emphasises the significance of the contributions of A. Lefebvre and E. Soja, who represent the “Chicago School” of urbanism, for the study of the urban spatial environment. The author of the article employs D. Läpple’s scheme, created under the influence of Lefebvre, to characterise the social space of the Ural city in the Soviet period. The scheme identifies the following constituent elements: physical space, social practice in the production, use, and appropriation of the material substrate, rules and norms as a connecting link between the former and the latter, and symbolic encoding and spatial perception. Given Soviet realities, it is necessary to consider the parallel existence and constant interaction of official and unofficial urban space. Almost all elements of official space can be easily reconstructed with the help of conventional sources used to study the Soviet industrial past. For the examination of unofficial space, among others, sources of personal origin are quite applicable, although locating them requires rigorous additional efforts. The most salient issue today is the subject of symbolic ideas about space in the context of “Ural identity” in the logic of the “spatial turn.” The author concludes that interdisciplinarity must be expanded in the study of the Soviet urban spatial environment. The key to successful application of the spatial paradigm to the study of the Soviet city is extensive experience in its implementation for the analysis of urban problems in various countries and regions worldwide.