David Harvey, Space as Keyword, 2006
David Harvey, Space as Keyword, 2006, en: D. Harvey, Spaces of Global Capitalism. Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development, Verso, Londres, pp. 119-148
[119] Diversity, richness and ambiguity of the idea of space:
Material, metaphorical, liminal, personal, social, psychic spaces...
Spaces of fear, play, cosmology, dreams, anger, particle physics, capital, geopolitical tension, hope, memory, ecological interaction...
[121] Quote 1973, Social Justice and the City, p. 13
Absolute / relative / relational (01)
if we regard space as absolute it becomes a “thing in itself” with an existence independent of matter. It then possesses a structure which we can to pigeon-hole or individuate phenomena. The view of relative space proposes that it be understood as a relationship between objects which exists [space, relationships] only because objects exist and relate to each other. There is another sense in which space can be viewed as relative and I choose to call this relational space – space regarded as in the manner of Leibniz, as being contained in objects in the sense that an object can be said to exist only insofar as it contains and represents within itself relationships to other objects.
Comment: Hmmmm, not so clear in this definition the differences between relative and relational. I think this gets much clearer later on with the examples... Particularly the call to Leibniz's definition doesn't really contribute to make it clearer :)
Elaboration [121...]
Absolute space is fixed and we record or plan events within its frame. This is the space of Newton and Descartes and it is usually represented as a pre-existing and immoveable gird amenable to standardized measurement and open to calculation. Geometrically is the space of Euclid [and maybe others too] and therefore the space of all manner of cadastral mapping and engineering practices. It is a primary space of individuation [?] - res extensa es Descartes put it [?] - and this applies to all discrete and bounded [from boundary] phenomena [?] including me and you as individual persons. Socially this is the space of private property and other bounded territorial designations (such as states, administrative units, city plans and urban grids). When Descartes' engineer looked at the world with a sense of mastery, it was a world of absolute space (and time) from which all uncertainties and ambiguities could in principle be banished and in which human calculation could uninhibitedly flourish.
The relative notion of space is mainly associated with the name of Einstein [hmm] and the non-Euclidian geometries that began to be constructed most systematically in the 19th century [??? / local – curvilinear coordinates???]. Space is relative in the double sense: that there are multiple geometries from which to choose [???] and that the spatial frame depends upon what is being relativized and by whom... Einstein... all forms of measurement depended upon the frame of reference of the observer... It is impossible to understand space independent of time under this formulation and this mandates an important shift of language from space and time to space-time or spatio-temporality... At the more mundane level of geographical work, we know that the space of transportation relations looks very different from the spaces of property. The uniqueness of a location of a location and individuation defined by bounded territories in absolute space gives way to a multiplicity of locations that are equidistant from, say, some central city location. We can create completely different maps of relative locations by differentiating between distances measured in terms of cost, time, modal split (car, bicycle or skateboard) and even disrupt spatial continuities by looking at networks, topological relations (the optimal route for the for the postman delivering mail), and the like. We know, given the differentials of friction given on the earth's surface, that the shortest distance (measured in terms of time, cost, energy expended) between two points is not necessarily given by the way the legendary crow flies [in a straight line?]. Furthermore, the standpoint of the observer plays a critical role. The typical New Yorker's map of the world, as the famous Steinberg cartoon suggests, fades very fast as one thinks about the lands to the west of the Hudson River or East Long Island.
[space of mobility, flows... metabolic flows / cycles, change???]
All this relativization, it is important to note, does not necessarily reduce or eliminate the capacity for calculability or control, but it does indicate that special rules and laws are required for the particular phenomenon and processes under consideration. Difficulties do arise, however, as we seek to integrate understandings from different fields into some more unified endeavor. The spatio-temporality required to represent energy flows through ecological systems accurately, for example, may not be compatible with that of financial flows through global markets. Understanding the spatio-temporal rhythms of capital accumulation requires a quite different framework to that required to understand global climate change. Such disjunctions, though extremely difficult to work across, are not necessarily a disadvantage provided we recognize them for what they are. Comparison between different spatio-temporal frameworks can illuminate problems of political choice (do we favor the spatio-temporality of financial flows or that of ecological processes they typically disrupt, for example).
The relational concept of space is most often associated with the name of Leibniz... the relational view of space holds there is no such thing as space or time outside of the processes that define them... Processes do not occur in space but define their own spatial frame. The concept of space is embedded in or internal to process. This very formulation implies that, as in the case of relatiev space, it is impossible to disentangel space from time. We must therefore focus on the relationality of space-time rather than of space in isolation. The relational notion of space-time implies the idea of internal relations; external relations get internalized in specific processes or things through time (much as my mind absorbs all manner of external information and stimuli to yield strange patterns of thought including dreams and fantasies as well as attempts at rational calculation). An event or thing at a point in space cannot be understood by appeal of what exists only at that point. It depends upon everything else going on around it (much as all those who enter a room to discuss bring with them a vast array of experiential data accumulated from the world). A wide variety of disparate influences swirling over space in the past, present and future concentrate and congeal at a certain point... to define the nature of that point. Identity, in this argument, means something quite different from the sense we have from it from absolute space...
Measurement becomes more and more problematic the closer we move towards a world a relational space-time. Buy why would it be presumed that time-space only exists if its is measurable and quantifiable in certain traditional ways?... But the relational terrain is an extremely challenging and difficult terrain upon which to work... Alfred North Whitehead... Deleuze...
But why and how would I, as a working geographer, find the relational mode of approaching spavce-time useful? The answer is quite simply that there are certain topics, such as the political role of collective memories in urban processes [weak example here...], that can only be approachez in this way. I cannot box political and collective memories in some absolute space (clearly situate them on a grid or a map) nor can I understand their circulation according the the rules, however sophisticated of space-time. If I ask the question: what does Tiananmen Square or “Ground Zero” mean, the the only way I can seek an answer is to think in relational terms...
So is space (space-time) absolute, relative or relational? … In my work of think of it as being all three...
[…] space is neither absolute, relative or relational in itself, but it can become one or all simultaneously depending on the circumstances. The problem of the proper conceptualization of space is resolved through human practice with respect to it... The question of “what is space?” is therefore replaced by the question “how is that different human practices create and make use of different conceptualizations of space?”. The property relationship, for example, creates absolute space within which monopoly control can operate. The movement of people, goods, services, and information takes place in a relative space because it takes money, time, energy, and the like to overcome the friction of distance. Parcels of land also capture benefits because they contain relationships with other parcels of land... in the form of rent relational space comes into its own important aspect of human social practice... [p. 126]
///
Other views of space: Cassirer, Langer, Lefebvre (Soja)
[129] Fortunately of unfortunately, there are other equally cogent ways to address the problem...
- Esta siguiente clasificación tiene que ver con la experiencia del espacio, mientras que la anterior me parece que no... tanto...
Ernst Cassirer [1874, 1945], for example sets up a tripartite division of modes of human spatial experience, distinguishing between organic, perceptual and symbolic spaces.
Under the first, – organic -, he arranges all those forms of spatial experience given biologically (hence materially and registered through particular characteristics of our senses.
Perceptual space refers to the ways we process physical and biological experience of space neurologically and register it in the world of thought.
Symbolic space, on the other hand, is abstract (and may entail the development of an abstract symbolic language like geometry or the construction of architectural or pictorial forms). Symbolic space generates distinctive meanings through readings and interpretations. The question of aesthetic practices here comes to the fore.
In this domain (aesthetics), Langer, distinguishes between “real” and “virtual” space. The latter, in her view, amounts to a “created space built out of forms, colors, and so on” so as to produce intangible images and illusions that constitute the heart of the aesthetic practices [???]. Architecture, she argues, “is plastic art, and its first achievement is always, unconsciously and inevitably, and illusion [???]: something purely imaginary or conceptual translated into visual impression”. [!!!???] What exists in the real space can be described easily enough but I order to understand the affect that comes with exposure to the work of art we have to explore the very different world of virtual space. [some good intuition, but I don't think the right words even explanation have been chosen to present the argument...] And this, she holds, always projects us into a distinctively ethnic domain...
Lefebvre
It is out of this tradition of spatialized thought that Lefebvre (1901, 1991, Crítica de la vida cotidiana, La producción del espacio, Ritmanálisis...) … constructs his own distinctive tripartite division of material space (the space of experience and of perception open to physical touch and sensation); the representation of space (space as conceived and represented); and spaces of representation (the lived space of sensation, the imagination, emotions, and meanings into how we live day by day).
wikipedia.en [excellent entry] dice: Lefebvre analyses each historical mode as a three-part dialectic between everyday practices and perceptions (le perçu), representations or theories of space (le conçu) and the spatial imaginary of the time (le vécu) [lo experimentado, dice el diccionario]. It looks like it is rather controversial the way different authors interpret Lefebvre's categories...
- Further notes from the wikipedia.en entry: Lefebvre dedicated a great deal of his philosophical writings to understanding the importance of (the production of) space in what he called the reproduction of social relations of production. Lefebvre contends that there are different modes of production of space (i.e. spatialization) from natural space ('absolute space') to more complex spatialities whose significance is socially produced (i.e. social space)... Lefebvre's argument in The Production of Space is that space is a social product, or a complex social construction (based on values, and the social production of meanings) which affects spatial practices and perceptions. This argument implies the shift of the research perspective from space to processes of its production; the embrace of the multiplicity of spaces that are socially produced and made productive in social practices; and the focus on the contradictory, conflictual, and, ultimately, political character of the processes of production of space. As a Marxist theorist (but highly critical of the economic structuralism that dominated the academic discourse in his period), Lefebvre argues that this social production of urban space is fundamental to the reproduction of society, hence of capitalism itself. The social production of space is commanded by a hegemonic class as a tool to reproduce its dominance (see Gramsci). (Social) space is a (social) product [...] the space thus produced also serves as a tool of thought and of action [...] in addition to being a means of production it is also a means of control, and hence of domination, of power." Lefebvre argued that every society - and therefore every mode of production - produces a certain space, its own space...
Comment: No me parece que Lefebvre brille como literato / escritor, aunque fuera un enorme pensador... Siempre me fastidió su elección de nombres, en particular los de “representación del espacio” y “espacios de representación” que más que ayudar a la comprensión de lo que pretenden contar, en mi opinión, la dificultan... En este sentido me parece mejor la nomenclatura de Soja (en Thirdspace): (1) espacios reales, (2) espacios imaginados, y (3) espacios reales-e-imaginados o espacios vividos.
Continúa Harvey [p.131] I find more convenient to work with Lefebvre's categories... Material space is, for us humans, the world of tactile and sensual interaction with matter, it is the space of experience. The elements, moments and events in that world are constituted out of a materiality of certain qualities (and what about light, sound...). How we represent this world [spaces of representation] is an entirely different matter, but here too we don not conceive of or represent space in arbitrary ways [???], but seek some appropriate if not accurate reflection of the material realities that surround us through abstract representations (words, graphs, maps, diagrams, pictures, etc) [yep we know about maps]. But Lefebvre, like Benjamin [reference to The Arcades Project, 1999], insists that we do not live as material atoms floating around in a materialist [my italics] world; we also have imaginations, fears, emotions, psychologies, fantasies and dreams... [representations of space]. These spaces of representation are part and pardel of the way we live in the world. We may also seek to represent the way this space is emotively and affectively...
… it seems to be more appropriate to keep the three categories in dialectical tension...
[133] I propose... a speculative leap in which we place the threefold division of absolute, relative and relational space-time up against the tripartite division of experienced, conceptualized and lived space identified by Lefebvre... a three-by-three matrix within which points of intersection suggest different modalities of understanding the meanings [my italics] of space and space-time. [see tables, p. 135 & 143]
[134-136] Imagine for example... an affluent gated community in New Jersey... [good example, that we could try to reproduce, and map, in class with multiple local examples]
