Implikationen der kirchenräumlichen Interaktionsarchitektur: Das Beispiel Alpha-Gottesdienst

R. Schmitt; A. Petrova

R. Schmitt Institute of the German Language, Mannheim, Germany
A. Petrova Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Russia

Keywords: architecture-for-interaction, social topography, multimodality, multimodal interaction analysis, space as a resource for interaction, space as a symbolisation of incidence, modern protestant church service, “horizontalisation” of the church interior, democratisation of the sanctuary, rearrangement of the sanctuary, interactivity of the church service

Abstract

The paper starts with general considerations concerning the relevance of space for the constitution of social events. In doing so, we refer to theoretical concepts developed within the field of multimodal interaction analysis in the past few years. For multimodal interaction analysis, two concepts are of central relevance: “architecture-for-interaction“, and “social topography“. The starting point of the notion of “architecture-for-interaction” is the motivated relationship between the architecture of a given space und possible forms of interactions taking place in this space. We interpret the architecture of a given space as ‘built answers’ to recurrent problems of social interaction, aiming to support the interaction. The concept focusses on possibilities of spatial use prior to interaction, offered by the architecture only (such as walk-ability, observe-ability, hear-ability, linger-ability, touch-ability). Social topography in contrast points to the social knowledge of the users of space. Here the focus does not lie on the potential of spatial use prior to interaction. What is relevant for the notion instead is the precise and situated use of space. This use of space is analysed in relation to socially based normative expectations. Both participants and analysts interpret uses of space that obviously ignores or varies these normative expectations as a case of a motivated choice or a wilful alternation. While – for example – architecture-for-interaction ‘offers’ the sanctuary as a possible walk-able territory, it is the social topography that triggers the choice of church attendants not to walk there during church service. After a short remark on functional spaces developed in a given society, we present the history of the so-called Alpha church service, celebrated in Rimbach/South Hesse since 2001. The church interior, specifically arranged for Alpha church services, functions as a visually perceivable expression of this modern church service format. The architectural arrangement of the church interior will be the subject of our further considerations. We start by comparing the traditional church interior with the Alpha interior in Rimbach. We then reconstruct in detail the specific structure of the Alpha interior, focussing primarily on the sanctuary. In doing so, we also pay attention to the modifications which are carried out in reaction to certain situational requests. These requests lead to a modification of the key concepts of the Alpha-specific architecture-for-interaction. We finish our paper by reflecting on the arrangement of the church interior in the Alpha service as a visible expression of key aspects of this modern church service. We point out the following aspects as crucial: the “horizontalisation“ of the architecture-for-interaction, the democratisation of the church interior, the visibility of the ones who perform the church service, the transparency of the format’s enforcement, and the interactivity of the church service.

Author Biography

R. Schmitt, Institute of the German Language, Mannheim, Germany

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34680/vistheo-2019-1-89-114

Reinhold Schmitt
Institute of the German Language, Mannheim, Germany
reinhold.schmitt@ids-mannheim.de
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0981-8039

Anna Petrova
Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Russia
petrova16@mail.ru
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4322-1324

Abstract
The paper starts with general considerations concerning the relevance of space for the constitution of social events. In doing so, we refer to theoretical concepts developed within the field of multimodal interaction analysis in the past few years. For multimodal interaction analysis, two concepts are of central relevance: “architecture-for-interaction“, and “social topography“. The starting point of the notion of “architecture-for-interaction” is the motivated relationship between the architecture of a given space und possible forms of interactions taking place in this space. We interpret the architecture of a given space as ‘built answers’ to recurrent problems of social interaction, aiming to support the interaction. The concept focusses on possibilities of spatial use prior to interaction, offered by the architecture only (such as walk-ability, observe-ability, hear-ability, linger-ability, touch-ability). Social topography in contrast points to the social knowledge of the users of space. Here the focus does not lie on the potential of spatial use prior to interaction. What is relevant for the notion instead is the precise and situated use of space. This use of space is analysed in relation to socially based normative expectations. Both participants and analysts interpret uses of space that obviously ignores or varies these normative expectations as a case of a motivated choice or a wilful alternation. While – for example – architecture-for-interaction ‘offers’ the sanctuary as a possible walk-able territory, it is the social topography that triggers the choice of church attendants not to walk there during church service. After a short remark on functional spaces developed in a given society, we present the history of the so-called Alpha church service, celebrated in Rimbach/South Hesse since 2001. The church interior, specifically arranged for Alpha church services, functions as a visually perceivable expression of this modern church service format. The architectural arrangement of the church interior will be the subject of our further considerations. We start by comparing the traditional church interior with the Alpha interior in Rimbach. We then reconstruct in detail the specific structure of the Alpha interior, focussing primarily on the sanctuary. In doing so, we also pay attention to the modifications which are carried out in reaction to certain situational requests. These requests lead to a modification of the key concepts of the Alpha-specific architecture-for-interaction. We finish our paper by reflecting on the arrangement of the church interior in the Alpha service as a visible expression of key aspects of this modern church service. We point out the following aspects as crucial: the “horizontalisation“ of the architecture-for-interaction, the democratisation of the church interior, the visibility of the ones who perform the church service, the transparency of the format’s enforcement, and the interactivity of the church service.

Keywords: architecture-for-interaction, social topography, multimodality, multimodal interaction analysis, space as a resource for interaction, space as a symbolisation of incidence, modern protestant church service, “horizontalisation” of the church interior, democratisation of the sanctuary, rearrangement of the sanctuary, interactivity of the church service

References

Cicourel 1975 – Cicourel A. V. Sprache in der sozialen Interaktion. München, 1975.

Fischer, Delitz 2009 – Die Architektur der Gesellschaft. Theorien für die Architektursoziologie. Herausgegeben von H. Delitz, J. Fischer. Bielefeld, 2009.

Garfinkel, Wieder 1992 – Garfinkel H., Wieder D. L. Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. Text in context. Contributions to ethnomethodology. Ed. by G. Watson, R. M. Seiler. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi, 1992. P. 175–206.

Hausendorf 2012 – Hausendorf H. Über Tische und Bänke. Eine Fallstudie zur interaktiven Aneignung mobiliarer Benutzbarkeitshinweise an der Universität. Raum als interaktive Ressource. Herausgegeben von H. Hausendorf, L. Mondada und R. Schmitt. Tübingen, 2012. S. 139–186.

Hausendorf, Kesselheim 2016 – Hausendorf H., Kesselheim W. Die Lesbarkeit des Textes und die Benutzung der Architektur. Text- und Interaktionslinguistische Überlegungen zur Raumanalyse. Interaktionsarchitektur, Sozialtopographie und Interaktionsraum. Herausgegeben von H. Hausendorf, R. Schmitt und W. Kesselheim. Tübingen, 2016. S. 55–85.

Hausendorf, Mondada, Schmitt 2012 – Raum als interaktive Ressource. Herausgegeben von H. Hausendorf, L. Mondada und R. Schmitt. Tübingen, 2012.

Hausendorf, Schmitt 2013 – Hausendorf H., Schmitt R. Interaktionsarchitektur und Sozialtopografie. Umrisse einer raumlinguistischen Programmatik. Arbeitspapiere des UFSP Sprache und Raum (SpuR). 2013. 01. URL: bit.ly/2F8R1HK

Hausendorf, Schmitt 2016 a – Hausendorf H., Schmitt R. Interaktionsarchitektur und Sozialtopografie. Eine Konzeptklärung. Interaktionsarchitektur, Sozialtopografie und Interaktionsraum. Herausgegeben von H. Hausendorf, R. Schmitt und W. Kesselheim. Tübingen, 2016. S. 27–54.

Hausendorf, Schmitt 2016 b – Hausendorf H., Schmitt R. Vier Stühle vor dem Altar. Interaktionsarchitektur, Sozialtopografie und Interaktionsraum in einem “Alpha”-Gottesdienst. Interaktionsarchitektur, Sozialtopographie und Interaktionsraum. Herausgegeben von H. Hausendorf, R. Schmitt und W. Kesselheim. Tübingen, 2016. S. 227–262.

Hausendorf, Schmitt 2017 – Hausendorf H., Schmitt R. Räume besetzen im Gottesdienst. Interaktionsanalytische Argumente für ein Konzept sozial-räumlicher Positionierung. Arbeitspapiere des UFSP Sprache und Raum (SpuR). 2017. 06. URL: http://www.spur.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:bbd30fd8-5228-43c7-85fc-abebe54ce1fb/SpuR_Arbeitspapier_Nr06.pdf

Hausendorf, Schmitt, Kesselheim 2016 – Interaktionsarchitektur, Sozialtopographie und Interaktionsraum. Herausgegeben von H. Hausendorf, R. Schmitt und W. Kesselheim. Tübingen, 2016.

Kendon 1990 – Kendon A. Spatial organization in social encounters: The F-formation system. Kendon A. Conducting interaction. Patterns of Behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge, 1990. P. 209–238.

Luckmann 1986 – Luckmann T. Grundformen der gesellschaftlichen Vermittlung des Wissens: Kommunikative Gattungen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. 1986. 27. S. 191–211.

Mondada 2007 – Mondada L. Interaktionsraum und Koordinierung. Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion. Herausgegeben von R. Schmitt. Tübingen, 2007. S. 55–93.

Mondada 2013 – Mondada L. Interactional space and the study of embodied talk-in-interaction. Space in language and linguistics: Geographical, interactional and cognitive perspectives. Herausgegeben von P. Auer, M. Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock und B. Szmrezcsanyi. Berlin, Boston, 2013. P. 247–275.

Mondada, Schmitt 2010 – Situationseröffnungen: Zur multimodalen Herstellung fokussierter Interaktion. Herausgegeben von L. Mondada, R. Schmitt. Tübingen, 2010.

Schmitt 2007 – Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion. Herausgegeben von R. Schmitt. Tübingen, 2007.

Schmitt 2012 a – Schmitt R. Gehen als situierte Praktik: „Gemeinsam gehen“ und „hinter jemandem herlaufen“. Gesprächsforschung Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion. 2012. 13. S. 1–44.

Schmitt 2012 b – Schmitt R. Störung und Reparatur eines religiösen Ritus: Die erloschene Osterkerze. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik. Vol. 42. 4 (Sonderheft „Dinge und Maschinen in der Kommunikation“). Herausgegeben von Wolfgang Klein und Stephan Habscheid. Stuttgart, Weimar, 2012. S. 62–91.

Schmitt 2013 – Schmitt R. Körperlich-räumliche Aspekte der Interaktion. Tübingen, 2013.

Schmitt 2016 – Schmitt R. Der „Frame-Comic“ als Dokument multimodaler Interaktionsanalysen. Interaktionsarchitektur, Sozialtopographie und Interaktionsraum. Herausgegeben von H. Hausendorf, R. Schmitt und W. Kesselheim. Tübingen, 2016. S. 189–224.

Schmitt 2017 – Schmitt R. Multimodale Objektkonstitution: Wie eine Kirchenbesichtigung funktioniert. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2017. Vol. 16. 1. S. 163–183.

Schmitt, Deppermann 2007 – Schmitt R., Deppermann A. Monitoring und Koordination als Voraussetzungen der multimodalen Konstitution von Interaktionsräumen. Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion. Herausgegeben von R. Schmitt. Tübingen, 2007. S. 95–128.

Schmitt, Fiehler, Öndüc 2018 – Schmitt R., Fiehler R., Öndüc S. Exothese als Erhebungsverfahren und empirische Analysegrundlage. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2018. Vol. 17. 2. S. 151–169.

Schmitt, Hausendorf 2016 – Schmitt R., Hausendorf H. Sprache und Raum: Eine neue Forschungsperspektive, ihre Ursprünge und ihr aktueller Entwicklungsstand. Interaktionsarchitektur, Sozialtopografie und Interaktionsraum. Herausgegeben von H. Hausendorf, R. Schmitt und W. Kesselheim. Tübingen, 2016. S. 9–23.

Schmitt, Petrova 2018 a – Schmitt R., Petrova A. Das lutherisch-protestantische Abendmahl als Koordinationsproblem und Positionierungsanforderung: Beispiele aus Russland und Deutschland. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2018. Vol. 23. 4. S. 75–94.

Schmitt, Petrova 2018 b – Schmitt R., Petrova A. Implikationen der Analyse kommunikativer Minimalformen: Augenblicks-Kommunikation am Fenster. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (LiLi). 2018. 4. S. 1–32.

Stefani, Gazin, Ticca 2012 – Stefani E. de, Gazin A.-D., Ticca A. C. Space in social interaction. An introduction. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée (Bulletin VALS/ASLA). 2012. 96. P. 1–14.

About authors

Reinhold Schmitt
Dr. Sci. (Sociology),
Member of the Department of Pragmatics.
Institute of the German Language, Mannheim, Germany
E-mail: reinhold.schmitt@ids-mannheim.de

Anna A. Petrova
Dr. Sci. (Philology), Associate Professor,
Senior Researcher of Research Laboratory “Intellectual Technologies of Text Management”.
Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Russia
E-mail: petrova16@mail.ru

For citation:
Schmitt R., Petrova A. Implikationen der kirchenräumlichen Interaktionsarchitektur: Das Beispiel Alpha-Gottesdienst. Journal of Visual Theology. 2019. 1. P. 89–114.
https://doi.org/10.34680/vistheo-2019-1-89-114