This is an article of Ukrainian researcher Dr. Oleg Maltsev’s work, “Navigating Violence: The Urban Environment as an Active Agent in High-Risk Zones,” which was published in the December issue of the French journal Dogma. It is symbolic that the article was written under harsh conditions: Maltsev has been in a pre-trial detention center for over a year.
The publication of this article in a thematic issue dedicated to the problem of evil takes on a special meaning. While the editorial raises timeless questions about the nature of evil, Dr. Maltsev’s work offers a radically different perspective—an exploration of one of its most tangible manifestations: urban violence.
Unlike the traditional approach, which focuses on the perpetrator and the victim, he moves violence away from this dualism and suggests considering the urban environment as an active participant in what is happening. In his interpretation, violence is not a failure or an exception to the norm, but rather a part of a complex system where the space itself can either amplify or restrain aggression. The urban environment is no longer just a backdrop; it has become a full-fledged participant, capable of constraining, guiding, accelerating, and sometimes even provoking.
The fact that the study was written in confinement—within the four walls of a cell, where the entire “city” is reduced to a few meters—gives the work a special depth. Dr. Maltsev writes not only as a scientist, but also as someone who has personally experienced what it means to exist in a space where every inch matters.
This study significantly contributes to understanding how spatial structures—such as density, observability, rhythm, and exit accessibility—shape not only the possibilities for movement, but also the very logic of conflict. Perhaps it was the experience of spatial constraint that enabled the author to notice what eludes the gaze of a researcher with complete freedom of movement.
Introduction
For decades, research on urban violence has been structured around the analysis of social actors—individuals and groups—as well as structural factors such as inequality, segregation, and marginalization. Within these approaches, urban space most often appears as a passive container in which events unfold, rather than as an active participant in interaction.
Even in studies situated within environmental criminology and urban studies, the environment is typically treated as a set of conditions—lighting, building density, infrastructure—rather than as a dynamic system that shapes perception, movement, and real-time decision-making. This approach proves insufficient for analyzing high-density urban zones, where spatial constraints operate more rapidly than reflective cognitive processes.
This article proceeds from the assumption that in high-risk areas, violence should be understood primarily as a navigational phenomenon. The urban environment—through density, visibility, movement rhythms, and constrained trajectories—actively shapes subject behavior and determines critical moments of escalation or disengagement.
The aim of the article is to develop and test such a model through a visual-analytical approach and comparative analysis of urban environments.
Figures 1 and 2 introduce the central issues of this study. The first illustrates the urban environment as an active agent exerting continuous pressure on the subject. The second visualizes the methodological limitations of subject-centered models, in which the spatial system becomes analytically “transparent.” Together, they justify the need to adopt a spatiotemporal model for analyzing violence.
Theoretical Foundations
Urban Space Beyond Context
In human geography, space has long been regarded as socially constructed. However, in studies of acute forms of violence, its role is often confined to the macro level—neighborhood planning, transport accessibility, and functional zoning. The microdynamics of spatial interaction during crises remain poorly conceptualized.
Limitations of Subject-Centered Models
Subject-centered models assume that the outcome of violent interaction is determined by participants’ intentions, resources, or numerical advantage. In high-density settings, these assumptions lose explanatory power: limited sightlines, compressed distances, and restricted exits neutralize individual differences.
The Navigational Approach
The navigational approach shifts the analytical focus from actions to the possibilities and constraints of movement. Violence is interpreted not as a linear sequence of steps but as a spatiotemporal rupture occurring within a specific environmental configuration.
Methodology
The Atlas of Environmental Navigation as a Research Tool
The Atlas of Environmental Navigation is a visual-analytical model composed of sequential diagrams capturing recurring behavioral patterns in high-risk urban spaces. Unlike illustrative depictions, the Atlas functions as an analytical instrument, enabling the identification of:
- density gradients,
- movement constraints,
- zones of visibility and blind spots,
- typical exit trajectories,
- critical points of cognitive fixation.
Плакаты 3–7 отражают базовую навигационную цепочку: среда, движение, контакт, близкая дистанция и разрыв взаимодействия.
Logic of Comparative Analysis
The study employs a comparative approach based on functional rather than cultural correspondence between environments. The selected contexts differ morphologically and socially, yet display similar levels of spatial pressure, enabling the identification of stable navigational principles.
Results
Analysis of the Atlas revealed several persistent patterns:
- Cognitive fixation, rather than aggressive intent, constitutes the primary factor in escalation.
- Pauses and delays play a decisive role in shaping the outcome of interaction.
- The form of violence varies, but the navigational logic remains consistent across different environments.
- Exit accessibility, rather than the outcome of confrontation, determines the subject’s safety.
The findings allow violence to be understood as a brief navigational disruption rather than as a fully resolved conflict.
Transferability of the Model
Figure 11 illustrates the application of the navigational model to institutional and semi-public spaces (penal facilities, transport hubs, ports, university campuses). The preservation of the model’s core parameters confirms its universal character and analytical applicability beyond criminal contexts.
Discussion
The integrated environmental map combines spatial, temporal, and cognitive dimensions into a single navigational system. The urban environment emerges as a co-actor, continuously shaping perception and behavior.
This reconceptualization carries implications for urban design, risk analysis, and studies of embodied cognition in the city.
Conclusion
Understanding violence as a navigational process enables moving beyond subject-centered explanations and facilitates the analysis of real urban conditions. The Atlas of Environmental Navigation represents a reproducible visual methodology applicable to diverse types of spaces and forms of social tension.
