Keywords

Cultural Practice, Quarantine, City, Smart City, Organizational Potential.

Introduction

Quarantine was first organized in Europe, in particular in Venice, as a practice of restricting the ship's moving t in order to identify its epidemiological safety when the one enters the port. Hence the Italian etymology of this word is being formed: quaranta giorni, which means 40 days. There is a large number of historical works devoted to the study of the quarantine phenomenon (Chase-Levenson, 2020; Seth, 2018; Speziale, 2006). A special place in this range holds the work of the great French researcher Foucault (1995), who defined quarantine as a disciplinary practice in the logic of panopticism. However, there were other practices to limit epidemiological hazards. Our research is indeed devoted to the problem of understanding the quarantine place in the organizing of cultural practices of architecture and discipline, as well as the logic of their relationship in the transformations of digital environment of “smart city” (Alexander & Smith, 2004).

Literature Review

City is not only an internal element of the state and civilization, but it also a space in which those crucial practices are formed. Transformations of cultural practices of the city most clearly show the differences between civilizations. In the context of defining the cultural role of cities, Chicago School of Urban studies formulated the terms: primary and secondary urbanization (Redfield & Singer, 1969). From the perspective of this classification, we will try to determine the current situation and the specifics of its cultural practices, in particular the cultural practices of quarantine. The abstract infers the largest scale of abstraction and approximation. The city is a place of concentration not only of the population, but also of the coexistence of heterogeneous cultural practices. Originating in the folk community, any city came from its "little tradition." But the city was the foundation of a "great tradition". Representatives of Chicago school believe that primary urbanization, despite all the changes, continues the order of the little tradition of “folk society”, while the heterogeneous transformation of the second urbanization destroys it (Redfield, 1969). Technical order becomes dominant here. According to Chicago researchers: “in both these roles the city is a place in which cultural change takes place. The roles differ as to the character of the change. Insofar as the city has an orthogenetic role, it is non to maintain culture as it was; the orthogenetic city is not static; it is the place where religious, philosophical and literary specialist reflect, synthesize and create out of the traditional material new arrangements and developments that are felt by the people to be outgrowths of the old. What is changed is a further statement of what was before. Insofar as the city has a heterogenetic role, it is a place of differing traditions, a center of heresy, heterodoxy and dissent, of interruption and destruction of ancient tradition, of rootlessness and anomie” (Redfield & Singer, 1969). Primary urbanization combined little and great traditions. The first was aimed at the reproduction of the community, in particular in terms of domestication of animals and with that the microbes. Animals brought wealth and benefits to human life, including even the goods of immunity, which was of great importance for the civilization status and other benefits of the Eurasia peoples, including military victories, as Diamond (2005) made obviously in his work “Guns, Germs, and Steel”. However, it took notable organizational effort to have these benefits. They were already occupied at the level of rural community practices, in particular in the construction of rural estates. Pre-cities of Trypillia culture on the territory of Ukraine and the early Neolithic culture of Yanshao placed cattle outside human houses, that is, exterior. Already classy Ukrainian estates housed animals inside, but separately from humans. It was precisely the regulation of the dangers of animals, including epidemiological and property ones that have targeted these space segmentation practices. In cities it was especially important. As the concentration of both people and their environment, it became even more dangerous. Animals were inadmissible, forbidden in the city cult centers under circumstances of primary urbanization. So Max Weber described pig grazing at the Forum as one of the evident symptom of the decline of Rome for the late empire. But the practice of incorporating animals into everyday life is a sign of little traditions of primary urbanization. Technical nature of heterogenic order in secondary urbanization gradually displaced farm animals outside the city. Also, the fight against animals left in the city was no longer so successful. So in the 17th century London Corporation had ordered cats and dogs to be killed, but this only made matters worse as they helped to control the number of rats that carried the infections. Even concentration of people became dangerous under certain circumstances. Disciplinary practices were an important element of the secondary urbanization. Foucault (1995) described that the emergence of the basic form of discipline, formed as a control of consciousness over the body had most clearly manifested in quarantine practices. The main purpose of the latter was to eliminate physical contact between citizens. For this purpose the city itself was locked, divided into sectors. This differentiation of space allowed people to control each other and each one by themselves (Pavlova, 2018). As a result, the disciplinary practice of suspicion and total supervision was formed: “A strict partitioning: the closing of the town and its outlying districts, a prohibition to leave the town on pain of death, the killing of all stray animals; the division of the town into distinct quarters, each governed by intendant. Each street is placed under the authority of syndic, who keeps it under surveillance; if he leaves the street, he will be commanded to death. On the appointed day, everyone is ordered to stay indoors: it is forbidden to leave on pain of death” Foucault (1995). The combining of bodies symbolized death order. It did not mean that there was no architectural order at all, but it was a derivative, minor, additional one to the social forms of discipline control. These were various control practices, and their hierarchical relationship was provided. The monumental architecture of modern cities also embodied the symbolic practices of plague columns. Therefore, Modernity was a model of the public space, where the market vanity or the cathedral throng was displaced by the emptiness of urban squares, where observation and gazing were forms of “being-at-a-distance” (Merleau-Ponty, 1969). “The medieval and Renaissance squares were free zones in Paris, as opposed to the controlled zone of house. The monumental squares of the early 18th century, in restricting the massing of population in the city, restricted the function of the crowed as well, for it changed the freedom with which people might congregate. The assemblage of crowd become a specialized activity; it occurs in three places – the café, the pedestrian park, and the theater” (Sennett, 2002). After all, the Modern public space showed its order not only in the segment of intensive communication, which continued to include the market, parliament and university, but also the in lack of physical and speech communication in general (including elevators). Modern quarantine practices identified the primacy of community self-organization through online practices. After all, before the state regulation of quarantine, mayor's offices (in particular in Kyiv) initiated the practice of population isolation and even the formulation of quarantine diminution requirements was also carried out in Ukraine for the first time by the mayor of Cherkasy. Under Internet-community pressure, government orders acted, even where leaders of states did not initially express the need for legal formulation of isolation. Therefore, social forms of control here are not absent at all, but they are derivative to the self-organization of the community through Internet communication. Internet messages have overcome even national borders and highlighted the status of humanity as a single biomass. The architectural design of quarantine isolation certainly exists, but it shares a derivative role with social control. The technology of the Internet is becoming not only self-control of the community, but also the facilitation of its experience. It combines compulsion and fun at the same time. Therefore, it is not perceived as a form of external control. Both the architectural body of the city and disciplinary practices are reacting with information technologies and are being reorganized under their influence. So, let's concentrate on these processes more attentively. Public transport in the city is the main place of the most massive and physical communication, and therefore it requires special attention from the organization of isolation practices. The organization of a quarantine regime in Kyiv, as in other parts of the world, has revealed the impact of social control through restrictions on private and public transport stops. Another form of social control was police patrolling the streets. Their sanctions were warnings and fines. The organization of the quarantine regime in Kyiv, as in other parts of the world, has shown the effectiveness of social control through restrictions on private transport and bringing to a stop public one. Urban strategies of control over the population also fell back not only on social practices of regulating the citizen’s isolation, but also on digital technologies. We rely on the materials of the BBC, which prepared an article with a detailed analysis of the organizing practice in Moscow as a "smart city" and the specifics of its use during the 2020 quarantine (Zakharov, 2020). As noted, the greatest attention was also paid in Russian capital to traffic control. And if the order of the authorities was enough to stop public transport, the situation was more complicated with private transport. That's why digital technologies were useful here, especially those that had entered the environment of a smart city. It turned out that much of the digital data used to regulate traffic could be used for other types of control (Zakharov, 2020). Thus, data from surveillance cameras of public transport and other public places can be coregulated against each other for traffic load identification, but not for the regulation of the latter, to understand the limits of deviation from the norms of movement in quarantine isolation. Big data with their micro-targeting capabilities have great organizational effect. Thus, digital control technologies are not, in principle, about sanctions and disciplinary practices. The same situation also arose in different cities of the world with smart parking and until the time of quarantine. They allowed police around the world to detect violations of parking rules, but did not provide an opportunity to identify violators. The fines were addressed to anonymous people. Therefore, digital technology in general raises the question of a new relationship between public and private domains. And although the “the fall of public man" has been proclaimed by sociologists repeatedly, the basic trend is not in the elimination of one element of the opposition (publicity in this case), but their de-differentiation. The processing of smart city technology materials in this case is related to cookie data (Sennett, 2002). Therefore, digital environs do not operate through the system of punishment and reflection on it, which becomes the basis for the formation of disciplinary practices. And, therefore, digital technologies act like any artificial environment, as architectural complexes: they organize control not through prohibition and sanctions, but direction (orientation). Although it should be noted that the types of direction (orientation) in architectural and digital practices are different. If the “symbolic architecture” was the result of the self-organization of the tribal community, which was non-differentiated enough to have an external object of power that would commit violence and coercion, the digital environment deals with net of individualized subjects, devices and things, however the adequate practice of regulating the interaction of all three types of nets (physical, human and digital) does not allow imposing sanctions on individual cases without violating the tempo (Hegel, 1975). Punishment functions are delegated to the legal system and its agents. The latter act as forms of external control, but it is derived as we have seen in these cases. However, it is more productive to inform the participants themselves (in the quarantine situation and outside it) so that people can correct their behavior. Self-control is more productive in a flexible and soft way of power, not outside, but from inside of the system. And also the inclusion of quarantine security parameters requires the improvement of the functions of artificial environment of the "smart city" and the experience of analyzing its data during quarantine. Such self-control, which provides evidence of the danger not only for the government officials, but for everybody to correct their behavior, is a form of public de-differentiation and private practices. In general, smart city environment with its video surveillance system, which focuses mainly on utilities and traffic management, and is equipped with face and car number recognition, as well as emergency notification, has great organizational potential for digital control of various cultural practices, including quarantine. In addition, it is possible to adjust the information data themselves and build them in different perspectives, for example, the data of applications on the use of taxis and car sharing can be compared with video surveillance data from urban transport. In general, it creates an opportunity for cooperation between different services of the city order. The danger of an epidemic has certainly highlighted the cooperation of the Department of Information with the Department of Health. But the most adequate form of functioning of the digital environment would be the ability to provide broader access to such kind of data. In general, despite the non-necessity of cultural practices of post-industrial cities, they remain an attractive place for conspicuous consumption and services, living at all, although not the production of things (as it was in the industrial age). Therefore, the practice of presence is carried out in the city most intensively, in particular, more comfortably equipped infrastructures that are important for the implementation of Internet practices. The latter serve not only as the means of isolation, but also as to facilitate its transfer. After all, virtual entertainment from social networks to TV series is a form of saturation of free time of self-organization. This indicates the de-differentiation of control and pleasure practices. Through cyberspace, animals return to our communication. After all, no intellectual can compete with the number of views of a cute cat. In addition, it turned out that taking pets for a walk is a legitimate reason for infraction of even the most stringent isolation requirements. And, therefore, the city remains a space of regulated relations with animals. The reorganization of urban life practices, which differ not only from the primary urbanization, but also from the secondary one, is being carried out.

Methodology

Sets of questions which were important for this research represented by strong program in cultural sociology (Alexander & Smith, 2004) and its interpretations in works of (Boehm, 2011) and (Lash & Picon, 2007). This analysis is based on the fact that the city itself is a space for the formation of cultural practices of quarantine. Thus, the logic of the transformation of cultural role of the city and its connection with the basic type of civilization is also an important methodological guideline of our study. In this context, there will be an appeal to the formulations of Chicago School of Urbanism, in particular to the works of (Redfield & Singer, 1969), as well as famous American sociologist Sennett (1990).

Results and Discussion

Thus, the control in the logic of primary urbanization is not carried out as social (action of urban self-organization of control), but as cultural practice of architectural spaces separation (inseparability from material infrastructure). The city as a practice of primary urbanization functions as a ville and a city that is an architectural ensemble with its cult center). In secondary urbanization according to Foucault (1995), plague was met by order. It was the order of the Modern discipline, that was, social control of people the one over the other, consciousness over the body, the social delimitation was more important in the middle of the city, not as much as with animals by the architectural environment. Social discipline is the external power of one person over another. So the supervisory power manifested itself. Postmodern community self-isolation practices are based on control over social networks that are most successfully implemented through city infrastructure. They represent a return from the Modern social practices to the power of artificial infrastructure networks. They are formed around human relations with the artificial environment more than the relations between the people themselves.

Conclusion & Recommendations

Contemporary city is the carrier of the most intensive digital communications. After all, family turned out to be the most viable form of off-line communication. After that, communication ties are most fruitful through the help of self-organization of the city and its forms of implementation of bio-power. In online mode, constant monitoring of the digital city is a non-differentiation of control and services, supervision and security, the unity of the process of self-production and self-consumption of the community. Thus, it is a form of not only community self-transparency, but also of facilitating its experience of the complexities of quarantine isolation. Digital technology combines coercion and entertainment at the same time. Therefore, they are not perceived as a form of external control. Internet control technologies are not only a response to the dangers of the epidemiological situation, but also a way to balance the situation. In the logic of digital reorganization, the city continues to be a center of concentration of cultural heterogeneity and a medium between the family, the nation state and humanity as a whole. Therefore, understanding the organizational resource of the city in the logic of the functioning of cultural practices of quarantine should become a priority for further scientific study. Such research should focus on anticipating and correcting epidemiological hazards, but not just reacting on them (Zhappassova et al., 2021).

References

1. Alexander, J.C., &amli; Smith, li. (2004). Strong lirogram in cultural sociology.
2. Boehm, G. (2012). Reliresentation, liresentation, liresence: Tracing the homo liictor. In Iconic liower, 15-23. lialgrave Macmillan, New York.
3. Chase-Levenson, A. (2020). The Yellow Flag: Quarantine and the British Mediterranean World, 1780?1860. Cambridge University liress.
4. Diamond,