Critical Spatiality and the Uses of Theory

Jon L. Berquist

 

AAR/SBL Constructions of Ancient Space Seminar

October 2002

 

 

In this paper, I wish to extend the work of the Constructions of Ancient Space Seminar in the following ways: (1) I will introduce certain new theoretical material to our continuing discussion, including perspectives from within the Lefebvre/Soja tradition as well as others; (2) I will report on my investigations into the possibilities for non-Western and feminist critical geographies; and (3) I will offer an evaluation of Soja\x92s place within the theoretical landscape of critical human geography.\xA0 To begin, let me provide a few comments about the field of human geography as an academic discipline.

\xA0

 

An Overview of Human Geography

For nearly two centuries, philosophers have been commenting that we have been witnessing time\x92s annihilation of space.\xA0 Karl Marx argued in this direction as early as his manifesto.\xA0 In so doing, he reflected the early nineteenth century\x92s preoccupation with changes in communications and transportation technology. Much attention was given to the cultural implications of these technology shifts, but Marx\x92s interest was in the effects of such technology upon capital accumulation (Harvey 2001: 378). By lowering the human and economics costs of transportation, trade made possible the accumulation of capital over a wider space.\xA0 Spatial difference mattered less as a result of this temporal compression.\xA0 Thus, human geography suffered in the wake of this disregard for spatiality.

Through the first half of the twentieth century, geography\x92s chief concerns included areal differentiation and locational analysis.\xA0 In order to resist Marx\x92s critique, geography attempted to show the differences between regions and to demonstrate how locality affected the production of meaning and culture. In the 1960s, the \x93new geography\x94 arose in an attempt to combine geography with quantitative techniques in economics.\xA0 The goal was to turn geography into an empirical science that could persuade through its numerical data. However, by the 1970s, geographers grew more insistent in their questioning of this approach\x92s positivist assumptions (Gregory, Martin, and Smith 1994b: 3).\xA0 Through the 1980s, this postpositivist human geography interacted with Marxism and the various post-Marxisms (and rejections of Marxism) that were occurring in a variety of disciplines.\xA0 Human geography has not reintegrated, in part because most critical human geographers understand the need for geography to be an integrative and interdisciplinary discourse (Dear 2001: 13).\xA0 Thus, the variety of disciplines with which critical human geography now dialogues leads to a great diversity within critical geographical scholarship.\xA0 No Grand Theory has recolonized the field.

At the same time, geography has maintained its role as a form of social theory. Thus, human geography seeks to explain how different elements of social existence interact in order to constitute specific societies that function or fail to function in specific ways, with sensitivity to variation over space (Gregory, Martin, and Smith 1994b: 10).\xA0 Thus, geography is inexorably economic, political, and social (Gregory, Martin, and Smith 1994a).\xA0 All current geographies must be fully conversant with social theory\x92s triad of race, class, and gender (increasingly augmented by the category of age).\xA0 Cultural geography examines rituals, behaviors, symbols, and practices, with a focus on how those combine into sets of shared meanings that are, to some extent, location-specific.\xA0 Thus, the study of cultural geography requires attention to power relations (McDowell 1994: 147-148).

According to Derek Gregory and others, four themes run throughout this present human geography (Gregory, Martin, and Smith 1994b). The first theme is contextualization. Not only is there no regnant Grand Theory, but attempts to construct grand theory have been overshadowed by the attention to smaller scales of geographic production. Second, geography attends to a consistent blurring of boundaries between humanities and social sciences. Thus, geography has increasingly allied itself with the growth of cultural studies, especially dealing with problem of the strategies of representation.\xA0 Third, geography has embraced concepts of spatialization, such as Lefebvre\x92s insistence on materiality.\xA0 Fourth, human geography has employed a rhetoric of difference and of othering.\xA0 This is related to the emphasis on contextualization, with its concerns for situatedness and competing subject-positions, but it also involves postcolonialism\x92s productions and representations of alternative geographies and it empowers the notion of plural geographies.\xA0 Michael Dear would emphasize the themes of spatiality and diversity, and add a focus on the relationship of geographic thought to social action (Dear 2001: 24).

Some critical geographers have asserted that these trends in geography indicate a postmodern phase of critical human geography, beginning perhaps at some point in the mid-1980s.\xA0 Certainly, the interaction of geography and postmodern theory came to the fore with two massive works of 1989: Edward Soja\x92s Postmodern Geographies and David Harvey\x92s The Condition of Postmodernity.\xA0 These two books cannot be said to establish a new school within critical geography, but they certainly opened the dialogue between geographic theory and the wider movements of postmodernism.

Much postmodern geography was oriented to describing postmodern (mostly American) cities.\xA0 At first glance, this appears to be less than helpful for researchers of ancient space.\xA0 But in the postmodern move within geography, two important things occurred that make the new theoretical developments useful for biblical scholars.\xA0 First, there was a shift from the assumption of industrial methods of production to the study of other economic systems, such as the postindustrial and postfordist.\xA0 This is helpful to us because it opens up the questions of economics in interesting ways.\xA0 For instance, the preindustrial may have more connections to the postfordist than to the industrial schemes.\xA0 The relations of production and reproduction are brought once more into question, and issues of consumption also come to the fore.\xA0 Additionally, the role of communication was also problematized once it was removed from the modernist industrial context. By reintroducing such matters as variables in geographic theory, postmodern geography assists the study of ancient cultures as well as current postmodern and/or hypermodern ones\xA0 Second, postmodern geography has explored new relations of the global and the local, and within these new explorations may well be theories more relevant to the study of ancient cultures.

Such a postmodern geography attends much more closely to certain factors of epistemology that are frequent tropes of postmodernism, such as the slippery differences between materiality and representation (especially given the roles of narrativity in the construction of meaning); the undecidability of scale (in Soja 2001b: 285, this is explicitly a strategy to resist binarism); the vital role of conflict, diversity, and multivocality in all human engagements, and the functions of power and privilege in any cultural constructions.\xA0 (See Dear 2001: 16-17 for a more developed list of postmodern concerns in geography.)

Postmodern geography maps the partialities, the fragments, and the differences.\xA0 It examines micro and macro levels, as well as the marginal and the plural. Postmodern geography deconstructs the modernist logic of space in which reality leads to ideology.\xA0 This can lead to the consideration of imagined spaces, such as the utopia, in which imagination leads to reality.\xA0 But note that postmodern geography never allows the discourse to remain on the imagination, but instead to return ever to the material and the spatial. Space consists of \x93socially constructed worlds that are simultaneously material and representational\x94 (Jones 2001:122; cp. Gregory 1984). This simultaneity separates critical spatiality from studies of (pure) ideology.\xA0 We will return to these issues of imagined worlds.

 

The Tradition of Lefebvre and Soja

Lefebvre and Soja agree in their insistence on the materiality of space. Space is not just a metaphor, nor a lack or emptiness.\xA0 Metaphorization of space leads to abstraction; Lefebvre prefers a materialization even of socially defined space. Lefebvre rejected the positivist notion of space and substituted a critical spatiality, by problematizing the fixed notion of space.\xA0 Lefebvre (followed by Soja, Shields, and others) maintained the physical space that the positivists had wished to study quantitatively while overlaying it with space as imagined or space as experienced (Soja\x92s Secondspace and Thirdspace).\xA0 Imagined space and experienced space are not subject to scientific measurement or mathematical objectivity; they cannot be reduced to numerical analysis or statistical tables (McDowell 1994: 153).\xA0 Thus, Lefebvre parallels de Certeau\x92s split between the concept of the city (the orderly, rational image of the city that is the subject of mathematical modeling, cartographical mapping, etc.) and the fact of the city (the city as lived and experienced, thus as always diverse, fragmented, contradictory, and partially known) (de Certeau 1984: 95).

At the same time, Lefebvre writes against the illusion that separates pure form (i.e., empty space, or imagined space) from the impure content (i.e., lived time, everyday practices, etc.) (Lefebvre 1991a: 97; cp. Gregory 1997: 222). Lefebvre\x92s Marxist-inspired scholarly program (as expressed through more than seventy published books, few of which have been translated into English) was in large part an effort to erase this binary split between pure and impure, imagined and real, or theoretical and empirical. While Lefebvre was writing his crucial work of postmodern spatiality, he was simultaneously writing his history of the body, which appeared as Critique of Everyday Practices (Lefebvre 1991a; cp. Gregory 1997: 205).

Edward Soja, whose work appeared in English before Lefebvre\x92s, operates in a different context and in a changed technological setting.\xA0 In Soja in particular, postmodern geography is necessitated by the crisis of modern geography, in which GIS becomes everything and geography falls under the tyranny of the binary.\xA0 Postmodern geography resists this tyranny. Other postmodern geographers have followed in their recognition that humans do not live in the midst of geometrics, but in the midst of meanings (Adams, Hoelscher, and Till 2001b: xx-xxi).

Although Soja is best known for his work as a theoretician of city planning, Soja argues that there is no such thing as a purely postmodern city (Soja 2001a: 38).\xA0 He writes more easily of a postmodern \x93transition\x94 that may lead into something like a postmodern city or a postmetropolis.\xA0 All cities, Soja argues, are hybrid forms with changing realities.\xA0 This provides a good clue for our own work on ancient space, and Soja provides practical help in interpreting such hybridities.\xA0 He suggests six outlines to this postmetropolitan transition: (1) globalization of capital, labor, culture, and information flows; (2) postfordist economic restructuring (such as high-technology manufacturing, craft-based/design-intensive industries, and financial/business services, all of which participate in very complex patterns of concentration and dispersal); (3) restructuring of urban form (no centrality, with a methodological focus on multiple localities instead of the city as a whole); (4) restructuring the social order (older polarities are replaced with fragmentations and intense rise of inequalities); (5) \x93carceral cities\x94 in which regulation is panoptical and pervasive; (6) simcities (Soja 2001a: 40-45).\xA0

In all of these matters, Soja\x92s work is an explicit challenge to and often a reversal of earlier assertions about space, reaching back to Marx\x92s declaration of time\x92s annihilation of space. Soja\x92s emphasis on Thirdspace is a way to break beyond the binaries of GIS and of the material/ideological split, as well as the objectivities of modernism. Thus, Soja allows the introduction of otherness through Thirdspace, and in this way allies himself with postcolonial thinkers (Soja 1997: 246-247).

 

Other Critical Spatialities

Lefebvre and Soja represent a major line of development within postmodern geography and critical spatiality.\xA0 However, they do not represent the only formulations of such theory. Human geography has long studied the processes by which people interact with space, such as mental maps, symbols and icons of landscape, perceptions of the environment, and the everyday use of geography.\xA0 One of the emphases within human geography has always been to examine the politics of place and place-making (Adams, Hoelscher, and Till 2001b: xv-xvi). Experience and identity are part of this, but these exist as corollaries of the imagination that allows the social construction of places.

 

Place and Spatialities of Meaning

Many spatialities draw a distinction between material spaces and mental or imagined spaces. Often, human geographers refer to this as space (the material) and place (the human-constructed meanings attached to specific spaces).\xA0 (Cp. Jones 2001:121, who refers to this notion of place as \x93lifeworld.\x94)\xA0 This is very similar to Soja\x92s distinction between Firstspace and Secondspace.

This notion of \x93place\x94 is an idea, a mental construct, or a meaning.\xA0 Thus, it can be imagined and narrated.\xA0 Place as a social construct is intimately connected to the social construct of identity; geographers with concern for identity often argue that place and identity are simultaneously constructed (Richardson 2001: 267). Thus, critical geographies of place allow for integration of critical spatiality with imagination, narrative, and identity.

Edward S. Casey defines space as \x93the most encompassing reality that allows for things to be located within it,\x94 whereas place is \x93the immediate ambiance of my lived body and its history, including the whole sedimented history of cultural and social influences and personal interests\x94 (Casey 2001: 404).

Robert David Sack uses \x93place\x94 to discuss \x93the countless areas of space that have bounded and controlled,\x94 that is, those \x93humanly constructed and maintained places\x94 (Sack 2001: 232). \x93Arguments about spatiality and the social construction of space are really about the effects that places have on creating and sustaining projects\x94 (Sack 2001: 233). From this, Sack wishes to construct a moral geographical theory, in which \x93good\x94 places help us \x93see through to the real\x94 and have a high level of variety and complexity (Sack 2001: 238).

Steven Hoelscher discusses popular geographies\x97\x93an image of place created outside academic and scientific discourse that is available for mass public consumption\x94 (Hoelscher 2001: 378).

Thus, the theories of \x93place\x94 offer an important set of launching points for further critical spatial exploration.\xA0 Since Seminar members have specific interests in spatialities of identity, narrative, and imagination, the work of Casey, Sack, Hoelscher, and others may well be of interest, as well as the extensive human geographic work of Yi-Fu Tuan (for an evaluation, see Entrikin 2001, as well as Olwig 2001: 93).\xA0

 

 

Non-Western Spatialities

Tuan represents an interesting case as a geographer.\xA0 He clearly has developed as one of the key thinkers of place and its meaning(s).\xA0 In this way, he falls directly within one of the mainstreams of critical geography. But is Tuan also an example of a non-Western spatiality?\xA0 Although all of his academic career has been performed in the United States, his biography begins in China, and many of his spatial perceptions reflect his early Asian experiences. Perhaps in this way, Tuan forms a border figure for critical spatialities.

Other than Tuan, non-Western contributions to critical spatiality derive not from geography per se, but from areas such as postcolonial theory.\xA0 This is not surprising, because of the particular history of geography within the West as a science of colonization. In this sense, the work of Edward Said has performed the key linkage between the fields.\xA0 By considering orientalism (and its foundation in mappings and in imperializing geographies), Said deconstructed the imperial geographic project and substituted postcolonial theory.\xA0 Does this mean that critical spatiality is only possible in the West (i.e., in the empire)?\xA0 Or are there possibilities for critical spatialities that are fully non-Western and deimperializing?\xA0 I believe the latter, but at present one must look not among the geographers but among postcolonialists.

As an example of a Third World postcolonial spatiality, consider Arjun Appadurai, who suggests five scapes: ethnoscape, technoscape, finanscape, mediascape, and ideoscape.\xA0 Each describes movements or flows through global culture, on the basis of power. Each scape can function as the building block of imaginary worlds, which may be able to be used in constructing real worlds. One most helpfully studies the disjunctures between these scapes as their rate of flow shifts (Appadurai 1990; Grossberg, 1996: 174-176). Such spatialities are fully conversant with the critical spatialities of Soja, Lefebvre, and others, but are not reducible to these European and American theorists, nor do they derive from them.

 

Feminist Spatialities

As Claudia Camp has noted, Gillian Rose provides one of the relatively few examples of feminist geographies.\xA0 However, this situation is changing; the connections between geography and gender are becoming much more nuanced and contested.\xA0 Linda McDowell\x92s work, in particular, is extensive and is worthy of close attention (McDowell 1999 provides a guide to her work).\xA0 Most feminist geographers share many of the interests in place and meaning, while also integrating the classic questions of social theory: gender, race, and class. Identity is often foregrounded (see Veness 2001 for one example).\xA0 Questions of performativity of space, as well as the potentials for space (and the space of potential) are also vital (Gibson-Graham 1997).

 

 

The Uses of Theory

Thus, the possibilities within critical spatialities are varied and extensive. As a Seminar, we confront both the vastness of the theoretical possibilities and the risks of eclecticism.\xA0 In this situation, I would argue that Soja\x92s work provides an important basis for moving forward in expanding critical spatialities.

Although some have interpreted Soja\x92s theoretical contributions as providing a new and tripartite ontology of space, Soja\x92s work argues against any such ontology.\xA0 The three spaces of Firstspace, Secondspace, and Thirdspace are not different realities of space or even different modes of spatiality.\xA0 Rather, they represent what the interpreter sees when examining space in different ways.\xA0 In this, Soja\x92s work is very close to Foucault\x92s notion of heterotopia (Soja 2001b: 285). Past representations of space are constructs and thus are products of power relationships.\xA0 To interrogate those representations is to investigate the power relations that produced the constructs.\xA0 In other words, the three spaces are new ways of seeing space, just as a heterotopia is a new way of seeing (as well as what one finds when one sees differently).\xA0 These new visions of space (critical spatialities) are themselves products of power relations of course, but they strive toward a self-awareness (and thus self-critique) and toward a diversity of voices (and thus a plurality of spatialities).

One could speak, therefore, of Soja\x92s work not as an ontology of space but as a deconstructive method for spatial discourse.\xA0 One uses Soja\x92s theory not by parsing space into its constituent parts but by altering the power relations involved in seeing space, in variations that are not random but are certainly kaleidoscopic.

Within Soja\x92s ways of seeing, there is room for concentrations on the meaning(s) of space; what Soja terms Secondspace and what others have preferred to call place.\xA0 I do not find one terminology more compelling than another; I would suggest that Soja\x92s theoretical framework allows an appropriate integration of meaning-space while continuing critical human geography\x92s clarion call toward materiality.\xA0 Critical spatiality examines theories and ideologies about space, but it is much more than that, because such ideologies are always brought into connection with the materiality of space.\xA0 Space is more than ideology or metaphor for Soja, even though it is (as Secondspace both ideology and metaphor).\xA0 Whereas others can define space as a lack (Natter and Jones 1997: 149 state that space is \x93a lack to be filled, contested, and reconfigured through contingent and partially determined social relations, practices, and meanings\x94), Soja insists that space is not infinitely plastic nor empty (following Lefebvre\x92s refusal to separate pure empty imagined space from the lived times, everyday practices, and so forth that are meaningful).

Soja also makes way for a connection between Western theoretical constructions of space and non-Western spatialities of postcolonialism.\xA0 Soja does this precisely through the assertion of Thirdspace, which allows for the imagination and enactment of lived alternatives to dominant spaces.\xA0 Despite the monolithic nature of a Secondspace such as imperialism, it remains possible to form and live Thirdspaces that resist, challenge, and subvert the Secondspace.\xA0 This is not to say that Thirdspace and Secondspace are ontologically different, but instead to engage in the imaginative and active work of seeing and living differently, involved in alternative power relations.\xA0 Such Thirdspace is not a different ontology but rather a strategy for constructing alternates that have impact on imagination, perception, meaning, and materiality.\xA0 In this sense, Soja also connects the feminist spatialities\x92 concern with identity as well as with performance and potentiality.

Of course, Soja\x92s own writing does not deal with the full range of possibilities that erupt from his theories. His work has remained focused on the issues of planning, especially around postmodernizing cities. The other theoretical contributions are vital for performing the alternative seeings and spatialities for which Soja argues. But Soja\x92s three-space model remains helpful for calling us ever back to materiality and pushing us ever forward into actions of creating new spaces.

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Adams, Paul C., Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till, eds.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001a\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Adams, Paul C., Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001b\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Place in Context.\x94 Pp. xiii-xxxiii in Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Ed. Paul C. Adams, Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Appadurai, Arjun

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1990\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy.\x94\xA0 Public Culture 2/2:1-32.

 

Benko, Georges, and Ulf Strohmayer, eds.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1997\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity. The Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers Special Publications 33.\xA0 Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Buttimer, Anne

2001                \x93Introduction: Moralities and Imagination.\x94 Pp. 223-231 in Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Ed. Paul C. Adams, Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Casey, Edward S.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Body, Self, and Landscape: A Geophilosophical Inquiry into the Place-World.\x94 Pp. 403-425 in Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Ed. Paul C. Adams, Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Crang, Mike

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Rhythms of the City: Temporalised Space and Motion.\x94 Pp. 187-207 in Timespace: Geographies of Temporality. Ed. Jon May and Nigel Thrift. London: Routledge.

 

de Certeau, Michel

1984                The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

 

Dear, Michael

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93The Postmodern Turn.\x94 Pp. 1-34 in Postmodern Geography: Theory and Praxis. Ed. Claudio Minca. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Entrikin, J. Nicholas

2001                \x93Geographer as Humanist.\x94 Pp. 426-440 in Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Ed. Paul C. Adams, Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Gibson-Graham, Julie Kathy

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1997\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Postmodern Becomings: From the Space of Form to the Space of Potentiality.\x94\xA0 Pp. 306-323 161 in Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity. The Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers Special Publications 33. Ed. Georges Benko and Ulf Strohmayer. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Gregory, Derek

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1984\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 Geographical Imaginations. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1997\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Lacan and Geography: The Production of Space Revisited.\x94 Pp. 203-231 in Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity. The Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers Special Publications 33. Ed. Georges Benko and Ulf Strohmayer. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Gregory, Derek, Ron Martin, and Graham Smith, ed.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1994a\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 Human Geography: Society, Space, and Social Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Gregory, Derek, Ron Martin, and Graham Smith

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1994b\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Introduction: Human Geography, Social Change and Social Science.\x94 Pp. 1-18 in Human Geography: Society, Space, and Social Science. Ed. Derek Gregory, Ron Martin, and Graham Smith. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Grossberg, Lawrence

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1996\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93The Space of Culture, the Power of Space.\x94 Pp. 169-186 in The Post-Colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons. Ed. Iain Chambers and Lidia Curti, London: Routledge.

 

Harvey, David

1989                The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography. New York: Routledge.

 

Hoelscher, Steven

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Conversing Diversity: Provincial Cosmopolitanism and America\x92s Multicultural Heritage.\x94 Pp. 375-402\xA0 in Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Ed. Paul C. Adams, Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Jones, John Paul, III

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Introduction: Segmented Worlds and Selves.\x94 Pp. 121-128 in Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Ed. Paul C. Adams, Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Lefebvre, Henri

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1991a\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 Critique of Everyday Life. Volume 1. Introduction. London: Verso.

 

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1991b\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 The Production of Space.\xA0 Oxford: Blackwell.

 

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1992\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 Elements de Rhythmanalyse: Introduction \xE0 la Connaissance des Rhythmes. Paris: Editions Syllepie.

 

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1995\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Elements of Rhythmanalysis.\x94 Pp. In Henri Lefebvre: Writings on Cities. Ed. E. Kofman and E. Lebas. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

May, Jon, and Nigel Thrift, eds.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001a\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 Timespace: Geographies of Temporality. London: Routledge

 

May, Jon, and Nigel Thrift

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001b\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Introduction.\x94 Pp. 1-46 in Timespace: Geographies of Temporality. Ed. Jon May and Nigel Thrift. London: Routledge.

 

McDowell, Linda

1994                \x93The Transformation of Cultural Geography.\x94\xA0 Pp. 146-173 in Human Geography: Society, Space, and Social Science. Ed. Derek Gregory, Ron Martin, and Graham Smith. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1999\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 Gender, Identity, and Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Minca, Claudio, ed.

2001                Postmodern Geography: Theory and Praxis. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Natter, Wolfgang, and John Paul Jones III

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1997\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Identity, Space, and Other Uncertainties.\x94 Pp. 141-161 in Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity. The Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers Special Publications 33. Ed. Georges Benko and Ulf Strohmayer. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Olwig, Kenneth R.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Landscape as a Contested Topos of Place, Community, and Self.\x94 Pp. 93-117 in Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Ed. Paul C. Adams, Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Relph, Edward

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93The Critical Description of Confused Geographies.\x94 Pp. 150-166 in Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Ed. Paul C. Adams, Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Richardson, Miles

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93The Gift of Presence: The Act of Leaving Artifacts at Shrines, Memorial, and Other Tragedies.\x94 Pp. 257-272 in Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Ed. Paul C. Adams, Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Sack, Robert D.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Place, Power, and the Good.\x94 Pp. 232-245 in Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Ed. Paul C. Adams, Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Shields, Rob

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1997\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Spatial Stress and Resistance: Social Meanings of Spatialization.\x94 Pp. 186-202 161 in Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity. The Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers Special Publications 33. Ed. Georges Benko and Ulf Strohmayer. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Soja, Edward W.

1989                Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London: Verso.

 

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1997\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Planning in/for Postmodernity.\x94 Pp. 236-249 161 in Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity. The Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers Special Publications 33. Ed. Georges Benko and Ulf Strohmayer. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001a\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Exploring the Postmetropolis.\x94 Pp. 37-56 in Postmodern Geography: Theory and Praxis. Ed. Claudio Minca. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001b\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Afterword.\x94 Pp. 282-294 in Postmodern Geography: Theory and Praxis. Ed. Claudio Minca. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Strohmayer, Ulf

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 1997\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93Belonging: Spaces of Meandering Desire.\x94 Pp. 162-185 161 in Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity. The Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers Special Publications 33. Ed. Georges Benko and Ulf Strohmayer. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Veness, April R.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 2001\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 \x93But It\x92s (Not) Supposed to Feel Like Home.\x94 Pp. 355-374 in Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Ed. Paul C. Adams, Steven Hoelscher, and Karen E. Till. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.