گذار از حفاظت عقلانی به حفاظت پراگماتیک؛ روایتی از هنر عمل در حفاظت از میراث جهانی چغازنبیل

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری رشته مرمت و احیای ابنیه و بافتهای تاریخی، گروه مطالعات و حفاظت معماری و شهری، دانشکده معماری، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا،دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشیار گروه مطالعات و حفاظت معماری و شهری، دانشکده معماری، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

جریان غالب حفاظت از میراث در شش دهه‌ی گذشته تمام تلاشش را در راستای هم‌گرایی برای یافتن یک چارچوب نهایی اثرگذار در هر شرایطی، بهترین روش حفاظت، گذاشته و ادعا می‌کند این چارچوب نهایی در قالب دکترین‌های حفاظت قابل ارائه است. در این مقاله استدلال می‌شود که ریشه‌های این روش تلقی وضعیت برنامه‌ریزی برای میراث را می‌توان در عقلانیت ملهم از دکارت‌گرایی و “برنامه‌ریزی عقلانی” جستجو نمود و ترکیب “حفاظت عقلانی“ را برای آن به‌کار گرفت. حفاظت عقلانی ضمن نادیده گرفتن روابط قدرت و سیاست‌زدایی از دانش میراث، نگاهی‌باریک‌بینانه به نحوه‌ی مواجهه‌ی ‌حفاظت‌گران با شرایط عمل، با تبدیل شرایط به شرایطی ساده، قطعی و توافق‌پذیر، به‌وجود آورده است. اما پارادایم رقیب برای این نگاه عقلانی به حفاظت چیست و آیا این پارادایم می‌تواند مسیر بهتری را برای حفاظت از میراث ترسیم کند؟ مقاله‌ی حاضر به‌دنبال یافتن پاسخ این پرسش اساسی، از طریق روش تحقیق کیفی ابتدا به مرور ادبیات موضوع، نقد حفاظت عقلانی و گذار از حفاظت عقلانی به حفاظت پراگماتیک می‌پردازد. سپس با بهره‌گیری از ابزار داستان‌گویی، ضمن روایت مواجهه‌ی یک حرفه‌مند در حفاظت از میراث جهانی چغازنبیل، استدلال می‌شود که درک پراگماتیک می‌تواند به تفسیر بهتر وقایع و گشودن راه‌حل‌های جدید در دانش حفاظت کمک نماید. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

From Rational Conservation to Pragmatic Conservation; The Practical Craft of TCHOGHAZANBIL WHS Conservation

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sadra Moradi 1
  • Somayeh Fadaei Nezhad 2
1 PhD Candidate in Conservation of Historic Buildings and Fabrics, Department of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Over the past sixty years, the mainstream of heritage conservation has been striving to reach a consensus and establish an optimal framework - the most effective approach for conservation - applicable in any scenario. It is alleged that this ultimate framework can be depicted in the form of conservation doctrines. In this article, we argue that the roots of this perspective on planning and  decision-making for heritage can be traced back to the rationality inspired by enlightenment and rational planning, which is termed "Rational conservation planning (RCP)". The RCP simplifies thedecision-making process and proposes universally applicable solutions. As a result, this approach has impeded the ability to effectively address the challenges faced.
The primary aim of this article is to illuminate the stagnant state of the current theories of heritage conservation in terms of understanding theoretical challenges: Their perspective on heritage conservation is limited and narrow-minded. In order to address this fundamental issue, the authors pose the question: What is the competing paradigm for this rational view of conservation, and can it offer a better approach  for urban heritage conservation?
This article reviews the literature, critiques the RCP and suggests a paradigm shift from rational conservation to pragmatic conservation through qualitative research method and abductive reasoning strategy. The proposed pragmatic conceptual model alters the planning context into a complex and uncertain environment. In this scenario, the conservator is not faced with a neutral and non-political backdrop but rather a heavily politicized world characterized by power dynamics.  Pragmatic conservation underscores the shift from viewing conservation as an external and objective concept to recognizing it as an internal and intersubjective realm.
To explain the relationship between the theoretical framework and the practical conditions, a case study research has been employed, utilizing an information-oriented selection strategy. In this article, the authors have selected a significant case at both the national and global levels: the world heritage site of TCHOGHAZANBIL. A storytelling or narrative-based method, which is well-known in qualitative research, has been used to investigatethis site's planning conflicts. Finally, it has been concluded that unlike the technical issues that the RCP has tried to expand over the years and has widely included them in professional and educational programs, heritage conservation is involved in highly political problems in which power relations play a serious role. The story of TCHOGHAZANBIL examplifies resistance within a dependent, complex, controversial and uncertain context. Resistance in this context is formed and operates based on rules and laws, emotions and initiatives and manifests in the form of negotiations, dialogues, coalitions, strategies and tactics.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Conservation
  • planning
  • rational
  • pragmatism
  • practice
  • power

مراجع

  • Allmendinger, P., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2021). Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory. (Aghvami Moghadam, A. Trans.). Goshtasb Pub. (Original work published 2002). [in Persia].
  • - Bandarin, F., & Van oers, R. (2014). Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage. Wiley-Blackwell. - Bernstein, R. J. (2010). The Pragmatic Turn. Polity.
  • - Byrne, D. (2014). Counterheritage: Critical perspectives on heritage conservation in Asia. Routledge.
  • - Brooks, M. (2002). Planning Theory for Practitioners .Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351179454 - Callon, M. Barthe, Y. & Lascoumes, P. (2009). Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. The MIT Press. - Carter, T., Harvey, D., Jones, R., & Robertson, I. J. M. (2020). Creating heritage: Unrecognised pasts and rejected futures. Abingdon, Oxon.
  • - Conaty, F. (2021). Abduction as a Methodological Approach to Case Study Research in Management Accounting — An Illustrative Case. Accounting, Finance & Governance Review, 27. https://doi.org/10.52399/001c.22171.
  • - Flyvbjerg, B. (2019). Planing, Phronsis, Power. (Jahanzad, N. Trans.). Ketabkade-Kasra Pub. [in Persia]. - Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. Journal of The American Planning Association
  • - J AMER PLANN ASSN. 35. 10.1080/01944368208976167.
  • - Forester J (1993a) Practice stories: The priority of practical judgment. In: Fischer F and Forester J (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: Duke University Press.
  • - Forester, J. (1993b). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice. State University of New York Press.
  • - Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. The MIT Press.
  • - Forester, J. (2020). Five generations of theory–practice tensions: enriching socio-ecological practice research. Socio Ecol Pract Res 2, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00033-3.
  • - Forester, J., Verloo, N., & Laws, D. (2023). Creative discretion and the structure of context-responsive improvising. Journal of Urban Affairs, 45(6), 1145–1162. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2021.1901589.
  • - Friedmann, J. (2022). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. (Aghvami Moghadam, A, Trans.). Goshtasb Pub. (Original work published 1987). [in Persia].
  • - Gentry, K., & Smith, L. (2019). Critical heritage studies and the legacies of the late-twentieth century heritage canon. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25(11), 1148–1168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2019.1570964
  • - Glendinning, M. (2013). The Conservation Movement: A History of Architectural Preservation: Antiquity to Modernity. London: Routledge.
  • - Gonçalves, D. Mateus, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; Roders, A.R.P.(2021). Beyond Good Intentions: The Role of the Building Passport for the Sustainable Conservation of Built Heritage to Behavioural Change. Sustainability, 13, 8280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158280.
  • - Harrison, R. (2013). Heritage; Critical Approaches. Routledge.
  • - Harvey, D. C. (2001). Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/13581650120105534.
  • - Hoch, C. (1990). POWER, PLANNING AND CONFLICT. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7(4), 271–283. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43028979
  • - Hoch, C. J. (2002). Evaluating Plans Pragmatically. Planning Theory, 1(1), 53-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100104.
  • - Hoch, C. (2006). Emotions and Planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 7(4), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350600984436.
  • - Hoch, C. (2019). Pragmatic Spatial Planning: Practial Theory for Professionals (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021275.
  • - Healey, P. (2008). The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 28(3), 277-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X08325175.
  • - Healey, P. (2021), Collaborative Planning, Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. (Jahanzad, N. Trans.). Tehran Urban Planning and Research Center of Tehran Municipality. (Original work published 1997). [in Persia].
  • - ICOMOS (1964). International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. Venice, Italy. https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf.
  • - Innes, J.E., & Booher, D.E. (2018). Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147949.
  • - James, W. (1907) Pragmatism and Four Essays from the Meaning of Truth. (Rashidian, A. Trans). Elmifarhani. (Original work published 1907). [in Persia].
  • - Mandelbaum, S. (1991). Telling stories. Journal of Planning Education and Research 10: 209–214.
  • - Mason, R. (2002). Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices. In Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, edited by Marta de la Torre, 5–30.
  • Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute.
  • - Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic Threads in Mixed Method Research in the Social Sciences: The Search for Multiple Modes of Inquiry and the End of the Philosophy of Formalism. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in the Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 51-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • - Moradi S, Faraji F, Fadaei Nezhad Bahramjerdi S. A. (2023) Competent Management Framework for WHS of Maymand Cultural Landscape. CIAUJ 2023; 8 (2) :153-174 URL: http://ciauj-tabriziau.ir/article-1-501-
  • fa.html - Putnam, H. (2006), The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. (Fatemi, F. Trans.). Nashr-e-Markaz. (Original work published 2002). [in Persia].
  • - Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4531523.
  • - Robertson, I.J.M. (Ed.). (2012). Heritage from Below. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315586632.
  • - Rorty, R. (2006). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. (Yazdanjoo, P. Trans.). Nashr-e-Markaz. (Original work published 1989). [in Persia].
  • - Rorty, R. (2013). Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers. (Asghari, M. Trans.) Elham Pub. (Original work published 1998). [in Persia].
  • - Rorty, R. (2017). Philosophy as Cultural Politics: Philosophical Papers. (Taghavian, N. Tahmasbi, B. Trans.). Institute for Cultural, Social and Civilization Studies. (Original work published 2007). [in Persia].
  • - Scheffler, I. (2018). Four Pragmatists: A Critical Introduction to Peirce, James, Mead, and Dewey. (Hakimi, M. Trans.). Nashr-e-Markaz. (Original work published 1974). [in Persia].
  • - Schon, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner. Ashgate Publishing.
  • - Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage. Routledge.
  • - Smith, L. (2020). Emotional Heritage: Visitor Engagement at Museums and Heritage Sites (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315713274.
  • - Throgmorton, JA. (2003). Planning as persuasive storytelling in a global-scale web of relationships. Planning Theory 2(2): 125–151.
  • - UNESCO (2011). Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.
  • - Van Hulst, M. (2012). Storytelling, a model of and a model for planning. Planning Theory. 11(3), 299 318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212440425
  • - Wagenaar, H. (2011). A Beckon to the Makings, Workings and Doings of Human Beings: The Critical Pragmatism of John Forester. Public Administration Review, 71, 293–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02341.x.
  • - Walter, N. (2014). From values to narrative: A new foundation for the conservation of historic buildings. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20(6), 634–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2013.828649 - Waterton, E., & Watson, S. (2015). The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research. Palgrave Macmillan. - Waterton, E. (2007). Rhetoric & 'Reality'
  • - Politics, Policy and the Discourses of Heritage in England. PhD thesis, University of York.
  • - Waterton, E. (2010). Politics, Policy and the Discourses of Heritage in Britain, Palgrave Macmillan London
  • - Wells, J. C. (2007). The plurality of truth in culture, context, and heritage: A (mostly) post-structuralist analysis of urban conservation charters. City and Time, 3.
  • - Willson, R. (2020). Reflective Planning Practice: Theory, Cases, and Methods (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429290275.
  • - Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531.
  • - Witcomb, A., & AM, K. B. (2013). Engaging with the Future of ‘Critical Heritage Studies’: Looking Back in order to Look Forward. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(6), 562-578.
نشریه هنرهای زیبا: معماری و شهرسازی
دوره 28، شماره 4
دی 1402
صفحه 21-37

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار