Author: Nia Kuchava

The social and cultural construction of urban space remains a significant and timely subject within urban studies, particularly in the fields of social and cultural anthropology. Ethnographic research, especially that gathered through participant observation, deepens our understanding of this expansive topic. Recent advances in urban studies explore the continuous interaction between people, the city, and its architectural elements—such as squares, parks, stations, and bus stops—creating a distinctive social climate, marked by unique patterns of behavior and communication.

This analysis will focus on Kutaisi, offering insight into how urban spaces evoke specific emotions and sensations in individuals. But before delving into this case, it is essential to define key terms and concepts. The formation of social space results from the convergence of economic, political, technological, and social factors, which materialize in physical settings. The social construction of space, meanwhile, is a dynamic process shaped by interactions and tensions between these influences. Imagine, for instance, a city square or a bridge where individuals find themselves embedded in a unique social reality, one defined by distinctive sounds, conversations, and memories tied to specific people, behaviors, and locations.

There are many theories on social constructions. Some emphasize the economic underpinnings of these spaces, giving primary importance to financial factors. Others, such as the philosopher Michel Foucault, connect social constructions to power dynamics and technology, as reflected in the relationship between architecture and the people who inhabit it. In this case, we turn to a specific example: the “Lagidze Waters” cafe in Kutaisi, which anthropologist Paul Manning has framed as a peripheral social construction with its own unique characteristics.

Manning’s theory draws on Alfred Polgar’s “Café Central” concept, a Viennese coffeehouse known for its mix of people and the lively psychological climate it created through interactions like reading newspapers, engaging in idle conversation, and forming fleeting social bonds. Polgar likened this scene to chaos, where individuals experience conflicting emotions simultaneously. Manning adapts this theory to describe the peripheral cafe, referring to Mitrofane Lagidze’s 1900 initiative of creating a lemonade factory that led to the establishment of a café selling non-alcoholic drinks.

At the turn of the 20th century, European urban modernity served as the benchmark for peripheral regions. The introduction of “Lagidze Waters” in Tbilisi, following its founding in Kutaisi, reflects this aspiration. The peripheral cafe continually strives toward the standards set by metropolitan centers, yet it remains acutely aware of its secondary status, creating a sense of tension and anxiety. The early 20th-century European cafe symbolized transformation, dialogue, the exchange of ideas, and self-improvement. Under the influence of European urban modernism, traditional spaces like the dukhan (a small tavern or shop common in the Caucasus) were expected to merge with the revolutionary lifestyle changes of the time.

Lagidze’s idea embodied this evolution of urban space. As recalled by Kolau Nadiradze, the Lagidze cafe, located on Kutaisi’s central boulevard, became a gathering place for the local elite. It was also the first place where gas lamps lit the sidewalk, symbolizing both literal and metaphorical enlightenment through progress and development. Despite these advances, the tsarist regime’s efforts to enforce a sense of provincial inferiority remained palpable. The satirical caricature “Kutaisi Entertainment,” featured in a 1903 satirical supplement, captured this duality: European fashion and café culture juxtaposed with the ongoing lack of urban infrastructure, such as modern sewage systems. The image serves as a bitter reminder that the trappings of European culture could not erase the Orient’s perceived backwardness.

Yet, despite such critiques, “Lagidze Waters” became a hub of modern ideas and poetic rebellion, nurturing a spirit of revolution and resistance. Over time, urban spaces like this evolved from material realities into social constructions, influencing the intellectual life and daily routines of the city’s inhabitants.

In later years, such spaces continued to evoke strong emotional responses. While cafés once symbolized the exchange of knowledge and culture during the European modernist era, they took on different connotations in the post-Soviet period, becoming linked with socialism. Despite rebranding attempts, many urban spaces were still imbued with the historical contexts in which they were created. In Manning’s later work, respondents expressed feelings of sadness, shame, and despair when recalling how “Lagidze Waters” no longer resonated with its original purpose. The complex historical and ideological shifts experienced in the post-Soviet era made it difficult for these spaces to shed their previous identities, often leaving behind a sense of nostalgia and anxiety.

In conclusion, urban spaces are not merely defined by their physical structures or intended purposes. They are complex networks of social connections, shaped by modes of communication, interactions, and, most importantly, the collective memories, emotions, and ideas associated with them.