Social Construal Maps to Study Territories within Home Space

  • Cătălina-Ionela REZEANU Transilvania University of Braşov, Romania
Keywords: Sociology of space, ecology, human territoriality, cognitive maps, intimacy


Although space is ubiquitous in social life, for more than a century scholars are trying to establish a sociology of space field. In social sciences, the research of space focused on physical maps borrowed from geography, mental or cognitive maps from psychology, and, recently, deep maps from anthropology. From a socio-spatial perspective, geographical maps are representations of space (re)producing dominant politico-economic ideologies, while mental maps are representational spaces (re)producing cultural hegemony, both being disconnected from daily life spatial practices. The interconnection among the three dimensions of space might be reflected through deep maps, but they are too broadly defined and difficult to apply. Human ecologists from Chicago School theorized the patterns of urban residential zoning as a result of human territoriality. Later on, sociologists and anthropologists have been trying to persuade that space is not only a container of social interactions but also an active agent, influencing and being influenced by them. Also, the new ecologists theorized human territories as a social construct, with fluid borders, produced, contested, and negotiated in interactions. A decade ago, emotion maps were developed to study family affective territories within home, but they lacked the social construction of reality dimension. This discussion paper aims to nuance the knowledge of deep maps by arguing for introducing the concept of `social construal maps` as a research instrument derived from construal level theory from social psychology. It builds on my doctoral project, in which I used social construal maps to study the social construction of territories of couple intimacy within home space.


[1] Gieryn T. F. A space for place in sociology. Annu Rev of Sociol. 2000;26(1): 463-96. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.463.
[2] Simmel G. The Sociology of Space. In: Frisby D, Featherstone M, editors. Simmel on Culture: Selected Writings. London: Sage; 1997 [1903]. p. 137-70.
[3] Simmel G. The metropolis and mental life. In: Frisby D, ibidem. p. 174-85.
[4] Perry WE, Abbott JR, Hutter M. The Symbolic Interactionism Paradigm and Urban Sociology. Research in Urban Sociology: New Directions in Urban Sociology. 1997;4: 59-92.
[5] de Certeau M. The Practice of Every Day Life. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1984
[6] Glaeser A. Placed selves: the spatial hermeneutics of self and other in the postunification Berlin Police. Soc Ident. 1998. 4(1). pp. 7-38. doi:10.1080/13504639851870
[7] Faist T. Social space. In: Ritzer G, editor. Encyclopedia of social theory. London: Sage Publications. 2005. p. 760-763
[8] Löw M. The Sociology of Space. Materiality, Social Structures, and Action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2016
[9] Gans HJ. The sociology of space: a use–centered view. City Community. 2002; 1(4):329-39. doi:10.1111/1540-6040.00027.
[10] Kasinitz P. Toward a Sociology of Home. Sociol Forum. 2013; 28(4). pp. 881-884. doi:10.1111/socf.12062
[11] Lefebvre H. The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell. 1991
[12] Zieleniec AJ. Space and Social Theory. London: Sage. 2007
[13] Lyman SM, Scott MB. Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension. Soc Probl. 1967. 15(2). pp. 236-249. doi:10.2307/799516
[14] Trope YL. Construal Level Theory. In: van Lange PK, editor. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Washington DC: Sage Publications. 2012. pp. 118-134
[15] Lynch K. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1960
[16] Gould P, White R. Mental maps. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1974
[17] Downs R, Stea, D. Maps in Minds. Reflections on Cognitive mapping. New York: Harper and Row. 1977
[18] Richardson T. Walking inside out: Contemporary British psychogeography. London: Rowman and Littlefield International. 2015
[19] Park R. The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human Behavior in an Urban Environment. Am J Sociol. 1915; 20(5):577–612. doi:10.1086/212433.
[20] Burgess E. The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research Project. In: Park R, Burgess E, McKenzie R, editors. The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1925. p. 47–62
[21] Hoyt H. The structure and growth of residential neighborhoods in American cities. Prog Human Geogr. 1939. 29(3). pp. 321-25 doi:10.1191/0309132505ph552xx
[22] Harris C. D., & Ullman E. L. The nature of cities. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 1945. 242(1). pp. 7-17. doi:10.1177/000271624524200103.
[23] Gottdiener M, Hutchison R. The new urban sociology, 4th, Ed. Boulder: Westview Press. 2011
[24] Gubert R. Territorial belonging. In: Borgatta EF, Montgomery RJV, editors. Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Refrrence; 2000. vol. 5, p. 3128-3700
[25] Roberts L. Deep Mapping and Spatial Anthropology. Humanities [Internet]. 2016; 5(1). doi:10.3390/h5010005
[26] Gabb J. Researching Intimacy in Families. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan- 2008
How to Cite
REZEANU, C.-I. (2018). Social Construal Maps to Study Territories within Home Space. LUMEN Proceedings, 3, 404-416.