Distinction of Architectural Privacy Components Affected by Differences in Lifestyle in Eastern and Western Cultures
Subject Areas : Basic concepts in Islamic urban planning and architecture
Hasan Naseri Azghandi
1
,
mohsen tabassi
2
*
,
hassan rezaei
3
1 - Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Torbat heydarieh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Torbat heydarieh, Iran.
2 - Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran.
3 - Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran.
Keywords: Privacy, Lifestyle, Architecture, East Culture, West Culture.,
Abstract :
Common features and differences in the architecture of different regions are the result of sharing and differences in tradition, religion, culture, lifestyle, and other factors in which architecture has grown. One of the most important factors is the cultural factor and the way of life that has caused different forms of architecture. Among these formal distinctions, we can mention how privacy is manifested in architecture, which is manifested in different ways according to culture and beliefs, lifestyle, as well as climatic and natural conditions. Examining the sources shows that there is not much affinity between the concept of privacy in Western culture and the concept of privacy in Eastern culture.
Keywords: Privacy, Lifestyle, Architecture, East Culture, West Culture.
Objectives
In this approach, the eastern region includes societies whose cultural pattern is based on religious and traditional patterns with an emphasis on the Islamic point of view, and geographical boundaries are not established. In this regard, Shahrivar and his colleagues believe that the Islamic city is based on the knowledge of Islamic commands derived from the Qur'an, and environmental, social, and cultural conditions. Therefore, orientalists compare the Islamic city with the Western city (Shahrivar et al., 1400). Therefore, the main research question is what different cultural conditions and lifestyles have caused the architectural privacy components. It will cover the difference between two semantic and physical fields. Based on this, the hypothesis that the researchers are seeking to validate is that changing conditions both in the cultural field and in the way of life lead to different priorities and as a result, the goals and results are different in how to achieve architectural privacy.
Research Methodology
The current research, with the content analysis approach, has used logical reasoning in order to reach the result. Data collection is in accordance with documentary and library studies that describe a phenomenon in two different cultural contexts in order to extract existing distinctions. The research method will be descriptive and analytical. Based on this, in the current research, the culture and lifestyle in the West and the East are the independent variables of the research, and the dependent variable of the research is the perceptual and physical components of privacy.
Results
Privacy in Architecture
Both physical and cognitive components play a role in the formation of privacy. In this connection, in their article, Bemanian and Rastjoo propose two components for privacy as a cultural concept, which are: the perceptual component and the physical component (Bemanian and Rastjoo, 2016). Bemanian and Rastjo believe that having privacy in the physical domain with the aim of shaping spatial security emphasizes hierarchical order, and in the semantic domain based on the formation of types of privacy, it is the characteristics that cause respect and value in the architectural space in such a way that one feels calm.
From the results of the studies, it can be deduced that the hierarchical order guides the formation of privacy in the physical domain, and in the perceptual domain, with the aim of creating peace, emphasis has been placed on the formation of different types of privacy.
Privacy can be examined from two angles: personal privacy and social privacy. With the aim of maintaining human relations, social privacy has taken an Instrumental view on the necessity of forming privacy; However, personal privacy in the pursuit of creating respect and value based on the relationship of a group of people who have a special relationship has caused a valuable view at the issue of privacy.
Privacy in Eastern and Western culture
In the definition of privacy in Western culture, four views or terms can be seen which are: the words "Alone and Free", "Private Information", "Control" and finally a composite view that aims at privacy, loneliness, and anonymity (Shahriari, 2020). Butin the eastern culture, in harmony with Islamic culture, privacy becomes important (Noghrekar et al., 2013).
The comparison of views in Eastern and Western cultures shows that solitude is a characteristic of space that leads to loneliness, but privacy has a human characteristic that is the cause of intimacy and closeness. The set of these factors determines two types of views on privacy: The value view and the instrumental view. The value view emphasizes the perceptual and semantic field of privacy, and the instrumental view seeks its solutions in the physical field. Based on this, the current research is focused on identifying the distinctions between the two cognitive and physical domains that represent the border between East and West.
Differentiating The Perceptual And Physical Aspects Of Privacy In Eastern Culture From Solitude And Territory In Western Culture
Solitude emphasizes the private aspects of a person's life, and confidentiality implies the relationship of a group of people who have a special relationship. Based on the above definitions, the respect and value that exists in privacy and encourages a person to defend it against strangers distinguishes the word privacy from solitude.
According to the difference of views that consider hierarchy as a factor in the formation of spatial territories or as a requirement for access to other levels, hierarchy can be studied in two categories: legal hierarchy and real hierarchy.
Legal Hierarchy: Legal hierarchies are determined based on laws or customs. In this case, various factors such as walls, fences, doors, and even a line define the limits of space and territories. Although these elements are legal or customary obstacles for the human body, they are not an obstacle to the penetration of other human senses such as hearing and sight. For this reason, this type of hierarchy tends to be extroversion. This type of hierarchy is in accordance with the western concept of territoriality.
True Hierarchy: In this type, the levels and spatial volumes are separated from other territories with their own special identity. In this case, the possibility of connecting different territories at once disappears. Such hierarchies play an essential role in giving body to the idea of introversion. This type of hierarchy of secrecy is in accordance with the eastern concept.
The set of factors shows that the components of privacy, after entering the perceptual and physical domain, define the perceptual and physical elements in the architectural domain, that the physical elements define spatial boundaries, and the perceptual elements emphasize the sensory controllers and access to the architectural space.
Conclusion
Privacy as a cultural concept that first appears in the lifestyle and then in the architecture appropriate to the lifestyle, is subject to the type of view and goals that define the culture of the society in question. For this reason, the components of privacy in architecture are different from each other based on the difference in lifestyle, point of view, and goals in Eastern and Western cultures. The components of privacy can be studied in two categories: cognitive and physical components. The perceptual components of privacy are in line with responding to the subjective aspect of the lifestyle, and the physical components of privacy appear in line with the objective aspect of the lifestyle. Although in the contemporary era, due to changes in various objective and preferred aspects of lifestyle, the desire for spatial independence has been manifested in the physical system of houses, but in the Eastern culture, privacy based on customs, beliefs and opinions with the aim of creating dignity and value for human beings, the approach of separating personal privacy has considered to a certain extent by emphasizing the separation of men and women; Therefore, all the perceptual components of privacy with the aim of creating personal privacy follow a value perspective and cause psychological security; But the western culture, with the aim of preserving human relations, seeks privacy as a tool to create social privacy in a relative and variable manner. In the field of the physical components of privacy, which is aimed at creating spatial and functional hierarchies, the eastern view shows a tendency towards introversion by creating real hierarchies, which is in line with the value view of privacy; But in the western view, by creating legal hierarchies based on legal rules or customs, it tends to be extraverted in line with the instrumental view of privacy. Territoriality is the result of this kind of view of privacy; Therefore, based on the type of cultural view of privacy, the amount and manner of using physical and cognitive elements in architecture will be different.
ابوالقاسمي، جواد (1384) طرح مطالعات زمينهاي براي دستيابي به سياستهاي كلان توسعه فرهنگ ديني، موسسه فرهنگي هنري عرش پژوه، تهران.
آلتمن، ايروين (1395) «محيط و رفتار اجتماعي: خلوت، فضاي شخصي، قلمرو و ازدحام»، ترجمه علي نمازيان، تهران، دانشگاه شهيد بهشتي- الوانی، مهدی (1379) «تصمیم گیری وتعیین خط مشی دولتی»، سازمان مطالعه وتدوین کتب علوم انسانی، سمت.
الكساندر، كريستوفر (1389) «معماري و راز جاودانگي، راه بيزمان ساختن»، ترجمه مهرداد قيومي بيدهندي، تهران، دانشگاه شهيد بهشتي.
اميني، ندا و هيربد نوروزيانپور (1393) «خلوت و محرميت: شناخت تفاوتها و شباهتهاي اين دو مفهوم در معماري و شهرسازي»، مطالعات شهر ايراني اسلامي، شماره 15، صص 99-107.
بابازاده اسكوئي، سولماز و سحر طوفان و سيروس جمالي (1398) «ارتقاي بنيانهاي نظري مفهوم حريم در مسكن معاصر از منظر روانشناسي محيطي، نمونه موردي: برج مسكوني ميلاد تبريز»، نشريه باغ نظر، شماره 16، صص 61-72.
بلالي اسكويي، آزيتا و يحيي جمالي و پارسا كاوسي (1401) «تأثيرات فضاهاي تهي و خالي بر حجاب و محرميت در معماري بناهاي مسكوني دوره قاجار در شهر اروميه»، نشريه پژوهش در هنر و علوم انساني، سال هفتم، شماره 4 (پياپي 43) ، صص 13-20.
بمانیان، محمدرضا و مسلم زندي (1396) «مسكن ايراني و سبك زندگي»، تهران، اول و آخر.
بمانیان، محمدرضا و سيده سولماز راستجو (1396) «سیر تحول محرمیّت در ساختار فضایی خانه معاصر (نمونه موردی، خانههای دهههای50 و 60)»، چهارمين كنفرانس ملي دستاوردهاي اخير در مهندسي عمران، معماري و شهرسازي، تهران، صص 1-11.
بمانیان، محمدرضا و نسیم غلامی و جنت رحمت پناه (1389) «عناصر هویت ساز در معماری سنتی خانههای ایرانی؛ نمونه موردی خانه رسولیان یزد»، مطالعات هنر اسلامی، ش 13 (پاییز و زمستان 1389)، صص 55-68.
بهرامي برومند، مرضيه و آفرين ايرانينژاد (1392) «معماري حجاب، الگوي فرهنگي معماري خانههاي تاريخي كاشان»، دومين همايش ملي معماري و شهرسازي اسلامي، دانشكده هنر معماري تبريز.
پاسبان خمری، رضا و حسن رجبعلی و محمد فرخ زاد (1396) «سیر دگرگونی فضای بسته، فضای سرپوشیده و فضای باز در خانههای تاریخی گرگان از دوره قاجاریه به پهلوی اول»، مرمت و معماری ایران، ش 13 (بهار و تابستان 1396) ، صص 91-106.
پرهيزكار، الهه و خسرو دانشجو (1397) «محرميت و حجاب در خانههاي قاجار تهران»، چهارمين همايش ملي معماري و شهر پايدار، دانشگاه شهيد رجايي، تهران.
پورحيدر توچاهي، مريم و محمد مهدي پوراشمنان طالمي (1399) «تأثير مسكن حداقل بر محرميت»، نشريه معماريشناسي، شماره 15، صص 1-7.
پور محمد، شهراد و سیدعلیرضا شجاعی و حسین کلانتری خلیلآباد و مسعود تقوایی (1400) «کاربست تأثیرشناختی «شاخص خاطره» بر ارتقای حس تعلق ساکنان محلات جدید و قدیم شهر شیراز»، مطالعات شهری، شماره 41 ، زمستان 1400، صص 73-84.
پيرنيا، محمدكريم (1381) «شيوههاي معماري ايران»، تدوين غلامحسين معماريان، تهران، موسسه نشر هنر اسلامي.
جمشيدي نظر، فاطمه و عبداله جاسمي و محمدعلي كاظمزاده رائف و صبا ميردريكوندي (1399) «امكانسنجي بهرهمندي از تجارب خانههاي سنتي دزفول براي رعايت حريم سمعي بصري در واحدهاي مسكوني معاصر»، پژوهشهاي مرمت و معماري ايراني و اسلامي، سال سوم، شماره هشتم، صص 32-48.
حيدري، علياكبر و مليحه تقيپور (1397) «تحليل محرميت بر اساس نسبت توده به فضا (نمونه موردي: خانههاي تكحياط در اقليم گرم و خشك)»، نشريه معماري اقليم گرم و خشك، سال ششم، شماره هشتم، صص 77-99.
-------------------------- (1399) «مقايسه روشهاي ايجاد محرميت در مسكن سنتي و معاصر (نمونه مطالعاتي: شهر شيراز»، نشريه مرمت و معماري ايران، سال دهم، شماره بيست و چهار، صص 63-80.
راپاپورت، آموس (1392) «انسانشناسي مسكن»، ترجمه خسرو افضليان، كسري.
راستجو، سيده سولماز و محمدرضا بمانيان (1398) «گونهشناسي ساختار فضايي خانه معاصر ايراني با تكيه بر محرميت و سلسله مراتب»، نشريه هنرهاي زيبا- معماري و شهرسازي، دوره 24، شماره 2، صص 49-58.
رئيسي، محمدمنان (1397) «معماري و شهرسازي متناسب با سبك زندگي اسلامي (از تشريح وضع مطلوب تا تحليل وضع موجود)»، قم، دانشگاه قم.
سيفيان، محمدكاظم و محمدرضا محمودي (1386) «محرميت در معماري سنتي ايران»، هويت شهر، شماره 1، صص 3-14.
شهر شهریور، مهراب و حسین کلانتری خلیلآباد و غلامرضا لطیفی (1400) «مدیریت شهرهای ایرانی- اسلامی با رویکرد شهر دانایی محور (مطالعه موردی: شهر شیراز)»، مطالعات شهر ایرانی اسلامی، سال دوازدهم، شماره 45، صص 47-59.
ضرغامی، اسماعيل و علي خاكي و سيده اشرف سادات (1394) «بازيابي مفهوم محرميت در كالبد سكونتگاههاي ديروز و امروز»، همايش بينالمللي معماري، عمران و شهرسازي در هزاره سوم، تهران.
عراقيزاده، زهرا و سيدهادي قدوسيفر و نيلوفر نيكقدم (1401) «سنجش محرميت بر اساس روش نحو فضا در خانههاي تاريخي بندر كنگ»، فصلنامه جغرافيا و برنامهريزي منطقهاي، سال دوازدهم، شماره 2، صص 129-141.
عليزاده، هوشمند و كيومرث ايران دوست و كيومرث حبيبي و محمد بشير رباطي (1393) «مفهوم محرميت و فضا در شهرهاي دوران اسلامي»، پژوهشهاي معماري اسلامي، شماره 2، صص 65-78.
غفوریان، میترا و مینا پی سخن و الهام حصاری (1396) «گونه شناسی سازمان فضایی و سلسله مراتب ورود در خانههای ایرانی با تأکید بر محرمیت»، برنامه ریزی توسعه کالبدی، ش 7، صص 129-144.
كاظمزاده رائف، محمدعلي و صبا ميردريكوندي (1399) «محرمیّت در خانه سنتی ایرانی با تأکید بر مظاهر حریم خصوصی در عناصر معماری (نمونه موردی: خانه رسولیان یزد)»، نشريه معماريشناسي، سال سوم، شماره 17، صص 1-8.
گروتر، يورگ (1393) «زيبايي شناسي در معماري»، ترجمه جهانشاه پاكزاد، عبدالرضا همايون، تهران، دانشگاه شهيد بهشتي.
گيدنز، آنتوني (1386) «جامعهشناسي»، ترجمه حسن چاوشيان، تهران، نشرني.
مرادينسب، حسين (1399) «تبيين جايگاه محرميت در نسبت با قلمرو و خلوت در مسكن سنتي ايران بر پايه آموزههاي اسلامي»، مسكن و محيط روستا، شماره 172، صص 47-60.
معماريان، غلامحسين و سيدمجيد هاشمي طغرالجردي و حسام كمالي (1389) «تأثير فرهنگ ديني بر شكلگيري خانه: مقايسه تطبيقي خانه در محله مسلمانان، زرتشتيان و يهوديان كرمان»، تحقيقات فرهنگي، شماره 3، صص 1-25.
مؤمني، كوروش و ندا ناصري (1394) «بررسي ابزارها و روشهاي ايجاد محرميت در خانه زينتالملوك شيراز منطبق بر آيات و روايات اسلامي»، پژوهشهاي معماري اسلامي، شماره 9، صص 18-35.
مهدوي كني، محمدسعيد (1393) «دين و سبك زندگي؛ مطالعه موردي شركت كنندگان در جلسات مذهبي»، تهران، دانشگاه امام صادق.
ناري قمي، محمد (1389) «مطالعهاي معناشناختي در باب مفهوم درونگرايي در شهر اسلامي»، نشريه هنرهاي زيبا، معماري و شهرسازي، شماره 43، صص 69-82.
نصراللهپور علمداري، ابراهيم و محمد شبديني و علي كريمي خوشحال و عبدالله حاجي صادقي (1394) «مؤلفهها و شاخصهاي سبك زندگي اسلامي»، پژوهشكده علوم اسلامي امام صادق، زمزمه هدايت.
نقرهكار، عبدالحميد و فرهنگ مظفر و سمانه تقدير (1393) «بررسي قابليتهاي فضاي معماري براي ايجاد بستر پاسخگويي به نيازهاي انسان از منظر اسلام» مجله شهر ايراني اسلامي، شماره 10، صص 21-34.
نیری فلاح، سیامک و اکرم خلیلی و محمد تاجالدین بن محمد رسدی (1392) «لايههاي محرميت در خانههاي سنتي ايران، نماد الگوي ديني در زندگي خانواده»، كنگره بينالمللي فرهنگ و انديشه ديني، صص 1040-1049.
ولیزاده اوغاني، محمدباقر (1393) «اصول و انديشههاي اخلاقي در ساختار فضايي خانههاي سنتي ايران اسلامي، نمونه مورد مطالعه محرميت و حريم خصوصي»، پژوهش هنر، شماره 7، صص 185-203.
هاشمی طغرالجردي، سيدمجيد (1390) «رساله دكتري معماري در دانشكده معماري دانشگاه علم و صنعت با عنوان: اصول حاكم بر حريم خانه در انديشه اسلامي: بازشناسي قاعده «لاضرر» در قوانين و مقررات معماري و شهرسازي مرتبط با حريم بصري خانه».
Abu-Gazzeh, T (1995) “Privacy as the basis of architectural planning in the Islamic culture of Saudi Arabia”، Architecture and Behaviour 11: 93- 112.
AlEnazy, T، H., (2007) The Privacy and Social Needs of Women in Contemporary Kuwaiti Homes، Department of Interior Design، The Florida State University, Florida.
AlHemaidi, W., (1996) The Dilemma of Regulating Privacy: Planning Regulations, Privacy and House Form; the Case Study of Low-Density Single-Family Dwellingsin Saudi Arabia، Development Planning Unit، University College London.
Al-Mohannadi, A، Furlan, R (2021) The syntax of the Qatari traditional house: privacy, gender segregation and hospitality constructing Qatar architectural identity، Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering.
Bahammam, A., (1987) Architectural Patterns of Privacy in Saudi Arabian Housing، School of Architcture، McGill University, Montreal.
Booth, M، and Joseph, S., (2013) Women and Islamic Cultures: Disciplinary Paradigms and Approaches, 2003-2013, Leiden: Boston.
Daneshpour, A., Embi, M، R., and Torabi, M., (2012) Privacy in Housing Design: Effective Variables، In: 2th Inrenotional Conference-Workshop on Sustainable architecture and Urban Design (ICWSAUD2012) Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Eben Saleh, M، A., (1997) Life and death of traditional settlements of southwest Saudi Arabia، Journal of Architectural Education, 51 (3), 177–191.
Hall, E، T., (1990) The hidden dimension / Edward T، Hall، Anchor books، New York: Anchor Books: Doubleday & Company.
Hashim, A، H, Z، A، Rahim, et al (2006) “Visual Privacy and family intimacy: a case study of Malay inhabitants living in two storey low- cost terrace housing”، Environment and Planning B 33(2): 301- 318.
Jameson, M., (2001) Space in the Greek city-state، In: Kent, S., ed، Domestic architecture and the use of space: An interdisciplinary cross-cultural study، Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 92–113.
Mahad Musa, Z، Ravi Abdullah, M.F، Usman, Abur Hamdi، Iskandar, Azwar (2021) Privacy in Islam as a Guide to Housing Development، IJIK 11(2), 67 – 77.
Mahgoub, Y., (2004) Globalization and the built environment in Kuwait، Habitat International, 28, 505–519.
Moghaddasi, A، Moghaddasi, M، Kalantari Khalilabad, H (2020) Mohsen Foroughi (1907–1983): Thoughts and Sustainability in the works of an Iranian modernist architect، Architecture and Engineering, Vol، 5, no، 4, 28 – 34.
Naghizadeh، m (1997) “Title features of Islamic city in Islamic text”، Journal of fine arts (4.5) r.grishman1987-iran-penguing books –New York.
Negoita, A، M., (2012) Domestic spaces and the hierarchy of gender in Islamic society، Romanian review of political sciences and international relations, 11 (2), 10.
Ondia, E، Hengrasmee, S، Chansomsak, S (2019) Addressing the Dilema between Collaboration and Privacy in Coworking Spaces، International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 9 (3), 5- 10.
Othman, Z، Aird, R، & Buys, L (2015) Privacy, Moderation, Hospitality and the design of Muslim homes: a literature review، Frontiers of Architectural Research، 4, (1), 12-23.
Rapoport, Amos، "House Form and Culture" (Prentice-Hall, Inc (1979).
Rapoport, A., (1982) The meaning of the built environment: a nonverbal communication approach / Amos Rapoport، Beverly Hills, Calif.; London: Sage, c1982.
Rapoport, A., (2000) Theory, Culture and Housing، Housing, Theory & Society, 17, 145–165.
Rapoport, A., (2005) Culture, Architecture, and Design، Locke Science Publishing Company.
Schoeman, F.D (1984) ‘Philosophical dimensions of privacy: An anthology’، Combridge University Press.
Shahriari, H (2020) A Critical Study of Four Definitions of Privacy from the Viewpoint of Western Ethics، Philosophical Theological Research, 21 (4), 103- 105.
Zeisel, J (1984) Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-Behaviour Research، Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.$$