Rahman Sharifzadeh
Abstract
Introduction
While there is a wealth of research on smart cities, a significant theoretical and intellectual gap persists, particularly from an urbanism perspective. This gap hinders our full comprehension of the phenomena we encounter or will encounter. Common approaches to smart cities, while beneficial, ...
Read More
Introduction
While there is a wealth of research on smart cities, a significant theoretical and intellectual gap persists, particularly from an urbanism perspective. This gap hinders our full comprehension of the phenomena we encounter or will encounter. Common approaches to smart cities, while beneficial, often consider them in isolation from urbanism trends. A thorough examination of smart cities' conceptual, practical, and socio-ethical aspects must include an understanding of the fundamental nature of cities and their relationship with citizens. Current literature tends to sideline the analysis of the city concept, focusing instead on technological, managerial, and systemic aspects. However, understanding the city and its interaction with citizens is crucial for smart city discourse. This article delves into smart cities within the context of contemporary urbanism, emphasizing Henri Lefebvre's and David Harvey's 'right to the city' as a pivotal concept. We aim to delineate and discuss the 'right to the smart city' within this framework.
Methodology
Our methodology involves a conceptual analysis and argumentation, drawing upon existing literature in contemporary urbanism and smart cities. We seek to reinterpret the smart city concept within contemporary urbanism, particularly through the lens of Lefebvre's and Harvey's 'right to the city,' addressing its core questions and elements.
Findings
The 'right to the city' discourse prompts the question: Do citizens desire a smart city? Harvey interprets this right as the ability to construct, reconstruct, and alter the city's form, suggesting that citizens should have a say in the city's smart transformation. Yet, smart city literature seldom addresses this fundamental query, often assuming the inevitability of smart city development and focusing on mitigating its negative socio-ethical impacts. This presumption may stem from technological determinism, urban elitism, or the tenets of liberalism/capitalism. Lefebvre and Harvey argue for a smart city right that awakens citizens to the dominance of their living spaces. Recognizing the 'right to the city' naturally leads to the question of citizen involvement in smart city development. If affirmative, the subsequent inquiry under the 'right to the city' framework is: What kind of smart city is desired? By extrapolating from Lefebvre's and Harvey's ideas, we identify three components of the 'right to the smart city': the power of citizens to collectively decide and shape the smart city, the necessity of genuine participation in urban governance, that is the ability to oversee major urban processes, and finally the ability to space production. Such participation and oversight are only feasible within the 'production of space' as defined by Lefebvre and others. Without this, not only is urban life experience compromised, but there is also no mechanism to enforce collective will in case of governmental deviation.
Conclusion
Lefebvre's and Harvey's 'right to the city' framework redefines our relationship with the smart city. It challenges the perceived inevitability and taken-for-grantedness of smart city development and aims to heighten citizen awareness of their connection to the smart city. This framework differentiates the city from mere habitat and market. A smart city is not a mere habitat or a data-driven market, and any attempt to reduce the smart city to these two will make this concept meaningless.
Ahmad Biglari; Mohammad Bahrampour
Abstract
Introduction
John Rawls wrote A Theory of Justice in a bipolar environment in political relations between countries. This book is based on the ideas of "human rationality" and the monotony of the rational perception of the concept of good and truth, which is a comprehensive theory of liberalism. ...
Read More
Introduction
John Rawls wrote A Theory of Justice in a bipolar environment in political relations between countries. This book is based on the ideas of "human rationality" and the monotony of the rational perception of the concept of good and truth, which is a comprehensive theory of liberalism. Gradually and with the emergence of doubts in the validity of metanarratives and the wave of postmodernism, Rawls also went towards justifying his desired principles based on new "foundations". He called this new foundation "political liberalism". In the book Political Liberalism, Rawls was looking for an answer to the question of how, over time, a stable and just society of equal and free citizens, who have been completely separated due to rational and of course incompatible religious, philosophical and moral teachings can it exist? Or to put it another way, how is it possible that comprehensive and of course completely opposite reasonable doctrines can coexist and all of them affirm a political conception of a constitutional regime? What is the structure and content of that political perception that can support such an overlapping consensus? Rawls' answer to these questions is "Political Liberalism". Considering the addition of the adjective of "political" to liberalism and Rawls's claim that his new theory is free-standing, as well as the universality of this conception of liberalism, in this article we try to determine the correctness of Rawls's claim by questioning the meaning of "being political" in this theory from an analytical point of view.
Methodology
To consider the thoughts of a political philosopher, several methods can be used. Here we can compare the texts produced by Rawls regarding political liberalism with the thoughts of other thinkers in this field; Or the one who examined his thoughts with other presuppositions. It is also possible to consider his thought by analyzing the frequency of the word "political" in his speech; Or he read between the lines of Rawls' thoughts with Strauss's method (esoteric writing). In our opinion, the best way to deal with the thoughts of a thinker whose writings have become one of the classic texts of political philosophy is the Socratic method. Based on this method, we have to find keywords from within the text and analyze the coherence and meaningfulness of Rawls's thought based on them.
Conclusion
The society resulting from Rawlsian political liberalism is like this: due to ignoring reasonable pluralism, there will be citizens (in the minority or the majority) who are unable to express their opposition to the ideas of political liberalism; Because in this case, they are not considered "cooperating" citizens. They will lose their equality and freedom in this society. This is what Rawls calls acceptance of the consequences of individual decisions. Therefore, the stability that exists in this society is not based on the right reasons but on the false reasons.
According to Rawls' accepted presuppositions, they are put in a no win situation; Because the society is a closed society and they enter it only by birth and they have no other choice; Because it is not possible to get rid of it except by death. This society is also self-sufficient and for that reason it is an efficient society; Because it provides all the tools needed to achieve people's goals. Therefore, the best rational option currently available to people is the society in which they are present. Therefore, the maximum support of the citizens for the political opinion is not based on its modus vivendi, but its modus vivendi is based on three reasons: first, put in a no win situation; Second, having no other solution; Third, the modus operandi of this system. These reasons lead to the acceptance of a superior reason that Rawls sought to avoid; It means that this acceptance is based on accepting the status quo.
We believe that Rawls's theory could not succeed in creating a minimal and universal narrative of liberalism. Paying attention to the idea of basic structure, using ideas such as public reason, overlapping consensus, and historicizing liberalism could not free the theory presented in the book A Theory of Justice from being "comprehensive", even according to Rawlsian criteria. Rather than being "political", John Rawls's Political Liberalism seeks reconciliation between people with comprehensive ideas with current policies in a society that is formed around the theory of liberalism. In the society considered by Rawls, instead of being respected, comprehensive opinions are forced to be criticized and adjusted, and this is the beginning of applying a comprehensive idea of liberalism under the pretext of creating stability in society.
Hajieh Sabbagh Koljahi; Akbar Ashrafi; Mohammad Tawheed Pham
Abstract
Introduction:
The impact of modernity on non-western societies has forced them to redefine their traditions and related institutions. Islamic societies have not been immune to the influence of modernity, and Muslim intellectuals have been deeply involved in the concepts of modernity; Concepts such as: ...
Read More
Introduction:
The impact of modernity on non-western societies has forced them to redefine their traditions and related institutions. Islamic societies have not been immune to the influence of modernity, and Muslim intellectuals have been deeply involved in the concepts of modernity; Concepts such as: rationality, science, progress and secularism, individual freedom, social equality and democracy. Ali Shariati was also in such a field of thought. The main question of the article is what is the relationship between tradition and modernism in Shariati's thought. The hypothesis of the research is that Shariati, like most Islamic intellectuals, was in the confrontation between tradition and modernity. Due to facing the social issues arising from this encounter, he has definitely proposed some ideas regarding these two.
The background of research in this topic is very rich, the most important of which have been reviewed. The article "Analysis of the position of religion in interaction with modernity in the thought of religious intellectuals of the second Pahlavi period" tried to examine the relationship between religion and modernity (case study: Shariati and Bazargan). The article "Shariati, Political Modernity and the Islamic Revolution" tried to "evaluate some modern concepts in Shariati's thought in relation to political modernity and examine its impact on the Islamic Revolution". Also, the article "A reflection on Shariati's political thought; Unsuccessful attempt to combine tradition and modernity" has been searching for an answer to this question: "What is the most important Sharia reason for creating a dialogue between tradition and modernity and what was the result of this attempt?" The article "Meaning of the West and Modernity in Shariati's Thought" tried to explain Shariati's view of the West and modernity. These researches are important works, but they only deal with the political aspect. The innovation of this research is the attention to epistemological dimensions.
Methodology: The methodology of this article is an interpretive approach. This interpretive approach has been textual. But this interpretive approach has been based on a theoretical framework. This theoretical framework has been a critical reading of the relationship between tradition and modernity. This critical reading, by distancing itself from the common theory of the antagonistic conflict between tradition and modernity, has sought to understand the connection between the two. Therefore, the emphasis on the critical reading of Ali Shariati's original texts has been based on that theoretical framework.
Discussion and conclusion:
While Ali Shariati had a deep look at the historical features of the tradition system and was aware of the weight of the heritage of the tradition, at the same time, he also paid attention to the effects of modernity and knew that neither of these two could be ignored. Therefore, he never wanted neither tradition to overcome modernity nor modernity to marginalize tradition. He tried to open a third way by criticizing both modernity and tradition. His third way is a critical reconstruction or in other words a kind of renaissance or religious renaissance. A renaissance that enabled the system of tradition (at the heart of which was the collection of religious teachings) to face modernity and accept it critically. To open such a way, Shariati considers a vital role for intellectuals. Shariati emphatically condemned the fanatical and irrational nature of traditional concepts and expressed his dissatisfaction with modernity based on blind imitation of the West, the spirit of capitalism and modern scientism. With such presuppositions, Shariati criticized the modernity, and by distinguishing between good and bad, he chose what he needed. Then he started the same interaction with the tradition system. Then he puts his selected components together to present a new architecture. Modern building with traditional materials.
Finally, it can be said that Shariati's approach to tradition and modernity was a type of "selective modernity". Shariati saw modernity not as a whole and a unified nature, but as a multifaceted collection that, instead of accepting such a collection at once, should be carefully selected in its parts. It means that Shariati approached the tradition with a critical ruler from the point of view of modernity and its requirements and "selected" the necessary components, and had a "selective" approach to modernity itself. In the end, he passed both of these through the sieve of his critical view, so that instead of "rejecting modernity" (hostility to modernity) or "praising modernity" (immersing in modernity), he chose "selective modernity". In this view, there is neither blind hostility nor unconditional surrender; But a critical and conscious choice!