Space syntax theory and Durkheim’s social morphology: a reassessment

References

• Afifi, W.A., and M.L. Johnson. 2005. The nature and function of tie-signs. In The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words, ed. VL Manusov, 189–98. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, J.C. 2005. The inner development of Durkheim’s sociological theory: From early writings to maturity. In The Cambridge companion to Durkheim, ed. J.C. Alexander and P. Smith, 136–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bafna, S. 2003. The role of corporeal form in architectural thinking. Proceedings of the Fourth Space Syntax Symposium, University College London, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Blumer, H. 1956. Sociological analysis and the ‘variable’. American Sociological Review 21, no. 6: 683–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, R. 1983. Micromethods as a basis for macrosociology. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 12, no. 2: 184–202.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, R. 1993. Emotional energy as the common denominator of rational action. Rationality and Society 5, no. 2: 203–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, R. 1994. Four sociological traditions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, R. 2004. Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, R. 2005. The Durkheimian movement in France and in world sociology. In The Cambridge companion to Durkheim, ed. J.C. Alexander and P. Smith, 101–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dael, N., M. Mortillaro, and K.R. Scherer. 2012. Emotion expression in body action and posture. Emotion 12, no. 5: 1085–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, M. 1970. Natural symbols: Explorations in cosmology. London: The Cresset Press.
   Google Scholar
• Durkheim, É. 1960. Sociology and its scientific field. In Emile Durkheim, 1858–1917: A collection of essays, ed. K.H. Wolff, 355–75. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Durkheim, É. 1964. The division of labor in society. London: Collier-Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Durkheim, É. 1966. The rules of sociological method. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Durkheim, É. 1978. Sociology and the social sciences. In Emile Durkheim on institutional analysis, ed. M Traugott, 71–87. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Durkheim, É. 1984. The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Durkheim, É. 1995. The elementary forms of the religious life. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Durkheim, É. 2005a. On suicide. London: Penguin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Durkheim, É. 2005b. Review of Antonio Labriola, essays on the materialist conception of history. In Readings from Emile Durkheim, ed. K Thompson, 15–17. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Durkheim, É., and M. Mauss. 1963. Primitive classification. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foster, N. 1997. Opening address. Proceedings: Space Syntax First International Symposium III, no. i, London: UCL.
   Google Scholar
• Gans, H.J. 1968. People and plans: Essays on urban problems and solutions. London: Cox & Wyman.
   Google Scholar
• Gans, H.J. 2002. The sociology of space: A use-centered view. City & Community 1, no. 4: 329–39.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1976. Functionalism: Après la lutte. Social Research 43, no. 2: 325–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1956. The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Social Science Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1964. The neglected situation. American Anthropologist 66, no. 6: 133–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1971. Relations in public. Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, S. 2011. Temporality in Hillier and Hanson’s theory of spatial description: Some implications of historical research for space syntax. The Journal of Space Syntax 2, no. 1: 73–96.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, S. 2014. Space syntax as interdisciplinary urban design pedagogy. In Explorations in urban design: An urban design research primer, ed. M Carmona, 158–67. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, S. 2016. Spatial culture, processional culture and the materialities of social memory in nineteenth-century Sheffield. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 17, no. 3: 254–75.
   Google Scholar
• Halbwachs, M. 1960. Population and society. Introduction to social morphology. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, E.T. 1966. The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson, J. 1976. Time and space in two nineteenth century novels. Architectural Association Quarterly 8, no. 4: 32–8.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson, J. 1999. Decoding homes and houses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heinskou, M.B., and L.S. Liebst. 2016. On the elementary neural forms of micro-interactional rituals: Integrating autonomic nervous system functioning into interaction ritual theory. Sociological Forum 31, no. 2: 354–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillier, B. 1985. The nature of the artificial: The contingent and the necessary in spatial form in architecture. Geoforum 16, no. 2: 163–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillier, B. 1989. The architecture of the urban object. Ekistics 56, no. 334/33: 5–21.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B. 1996. Space is the machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B. 1999a. Centrality as a process: Accounting for attraction inequalities in deformed grids. In Proceedings of the Second Space Syntax Symposium. Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo Universidade de Brasília, Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B. 1999b. The hidden geometry of deformed grids: Or, why space syntax works, when it looks as though it shouldn’t. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26, no. 2: 169–91.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B. 2002. A theory of the city as object: Or, how spatial laws mediate the social construction of urban space. Urban Design International 7, no. 3–4: 153–79.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B. 2005. Between social physics and phenomenology. Proceedings of the Fifth space syntax Symposium. Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B. 2008. Space and spatiality: What the built environment needs from social theory. Building Research & Information 36, no. 3: 216–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillier, B. 2010. What do we need to add to a social network to get a society? The Journal of Space Syntax 1, no. 1: 41–58.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., and A. Leaman. 1973a. Structure, system, transformation: Sciences of organisation and sciences of the Artificial. Transactions of the Bartlett Society 9: 36–77.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., and A. Leaman. 1973b. The man-environment paradigm and its paradoxes. Architectural Design 78, no. 8: 507–11.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., and A. Leaman. 1974. How is design possible? Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 3, no. 1: 4–11.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., A. Leaman, P. Stansall, and M. Bedford. 1976. Space syntax. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 3, no. 2: 147–85.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., A. Leaman, P. Stansall, and M. Bedford. 1978. Space syntax. In Social organisation and settlement: contributions from anthropology, archaeology and geography, ed. D. Green, C. Haselgrove, and M. Spriggs. BAR International Series (Supplementary) 47, no. ii: 343–84.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., A. Penn, J. Hanson, T. Grajewski, and J. Xu. 1993. Natural movement: Or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 20, no. 1: 29–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., and J. Hanson. 1984. The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., and N. Raford. 2010. Description and discovery in socio-spatial analysis: The case of space syntax. In The sage handbook of measurement, ed. G Walford, E Tucker, and M Viswanathan, 265–82. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., R. Burdett, J. Peponis, and A. Penn. 1987. Creating life: Or, does architecture determine anything? Architecture et Comportement/Architecture and Behaviour 3, no. 3: 233–50.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., and V. Netto. 2002. Society seen through the prism of space: Outline of a theory of society and space. Urban Design International 7, no. 3–4: 181–203.
   Google Scholar
• Horgan, M. 2012. Strangers and strangership. Journal of Intercultural Studies 33, no. 6: 607–22.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Karimi, K. 2012. A configurational approach to analytical urban design: ‘Space syntax’ methodology. Urban Design International 17: 297–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 1996. On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity 3, no. 4: 228–45.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B., and A. Yaneva. 2008. Give me a gun and I will make all buildings move: An ant’s view of architecture. In Explorations in architecture: Teaching, design, research, ed. R Geiser, 80–9. Basel: Birkhäuser.
   Google Scholar
• Levi-Strauss, C. 1974. Tristes tropiques. New York: Atheneum.
   Google Scholar
• Liebst, L.S. 2015. Phenomenology of the movement economy: A multilevel analysis. The Journal of Space Syntax 6, no. 1: 49–60.
   Google Scholar
• Liebst, L.S. 2016. Reassembling Durkheimian sociology of space. In Spatial cultures: Towards a new social morphology of cities past and present, ed. S Griffiths and A Von Lünen, 214–24. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Liebst, L.S. 2019. Exploring the sources of collective effervescence: A multilevel study. Sociological Science 6: 27–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindemann, G. 2011. On Latour’s social theory and theory of society, and his contribution to saving the world. Human Studies 34, no. 1: 93–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, J.R. 2012. Making a place for space: Spatial thinking in social science. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 507–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löw, M. 2008. The intrinsic logic of cities. Proceedings of the Seventh International space syntax Symposium, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Löw, M. 2016. The sociology of space: Materiality, social structures, and action. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Marcus, L. 2015. Interaction rituals and co-presence–linking humans to humans in Space Syntax Theory. Proceedings of the Tenth Space Syntax Symposium, Space Syntax Laboratory, University College London, United Kingdom.
   Google Scholar
• Massey, D. 2005. For space. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mauss, M. 1979. Seasonal variations of the Eskimo: A study in social morphology. London: Routledge & Kegan Poul.
   Google Scholar
• Mauss, M. 2005. The nature of sociology. New York: Durkheim Press/Berghahn Books.
   Google Scholar
• McPhail, C., and R.T. Wohlstein. 1986. Collective locomotion as collective behavior. American Sociological Review 51, no. 4: 447–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R.K. 1936. The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review 1, no. 6: 894–904.
   Google Scholar
• Mogan, R., R. Fischer, and J.A. Bulbulia. 2017. To be in synchrony or not? A meta-analysis of synchrony’s effects on behavior, perception, cognition and affect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 72: 13–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Netto, V.M. 2016. ‘What is space syntax not?’ Reflections on space syntax as sociospatial theory. Urban Design International 21, no. 1: 25–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’sullivan, D.B. 2000. Graph-based cellular automaton models of urban spatial processes. University College London. PhD diss., University of London.
   Google Scholar
• Palaiologou, G., S. Griffiths, and L. Vaughan. 2016. Reclaiming the virtual community for spatial cultures: Functional generality and cultural specificity at the interface of building and street. Journal of Space Syntax 7, no. 1: 25–54.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, T. 1951. The social system. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Penn, A. 2003. Space syntax and spatial cognition: Or why the axial line? Environment and Behavior 35, no. 1: 30–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pred, A. 1977. The choreography of existence: Comments on Hägerstrand’s time-geography and its usefulness. Economic Geography 53, no. 2: 207–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S.W., and R.J. Sampson. 1999. Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological Methodology 29, no. 1: 1–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiss, A.J., Jr. 1991. The trained incapacities of sociologists. In Sociology and its publics, ed. TC Halliday, and M Janowitz, 297–315. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders, P. 2003. Social theory and the urban question. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schlanger, N. 2006. Introduction. In Techniques, technology and civilization, ed. M. Mauss, 1–29. New York & Oxford: Durkheim Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scoppa, M. D., and J. Peponis. 2015. Distributed attraction: The effects of street network connectivity upon the distribution of retail frontage in the City of Buenos Aires. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 42, no. 2: 354–78.
   Google Scholar
• Seamon, D. 2007. A Lived Hermetic of People and Place: Phenomenology and Space Syntax. Proceedings of the Sixth space syntax Symposium, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
   Google Scholar
• Seibert, J. 2006. Introduction. In Space and spatial analysis on archaeology, ed. EC Robertson, JD Seibert, DC Fernandez, and MU Zender, xiii–xxiv. Calgar: University of Calgary Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sharmin, S., and M. Kamruzzaman. 2018. Meta-analysis of the relationships between space syntax measures and pedestrian movement. Transport Reviews 38, no. 4: 524–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, C. 2015. To flourish or destruct: A personalist theory of human goods, motivations, failure, and evil. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, P. 1999. The elementary forms of place and their transformations: A Durkheimian model. Qualitative Sociology 22: 13–36.
   Google Scholar
• Soja, E. 2001. In Different Spaces: Interpreting the Spatial Organization of Societies. Proceedings of the Third space syntax Symposium, Atlanta Georgia Institute of Technology, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Tonboe, J. 1993. Rummets sociologi. København: Akademisk forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, J.H. 2010. Theoretical principles of sociology Vol. 2. Microdynamics. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, J.H., and A. Maryanski. 1979. Functionalism. Menlo Park: Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, V. 1977. The ritual process. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ulmer, J.T., and M.S. Wilson. 2003. The potential contributions of quantitative research to symbolic interactionism. Symbolic Interaction 26, no. 4: 531–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warf, B., and S. Arias. 2008. The spatial turn: Interdisciplinary perspectives. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Weissenborn, F. 2015. After structure: Expression in built form. The Journal of Space Syntax 6, no 1: 34–48.
   Google Scholar