Spatial Formats under the Global Condition

Matthias Middell, Steffi Marung

• Publisher: De Gruyter Oldenbourg
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9783110639414
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Modern History
• Index: History

Contributions to this volume summarize and discuss the theoretical foundations of the Collaborative Research Centre at Leipzig University which address the relationship between processes of (re-)spatialization on the one hand and the establishment and characteristics of spatial formats on the other hand. Under the global condition spatial formats are products of collective negotiations on the most effective and widely acceptable balance between the claim for sovereignty and the need for interconnectedness.

Part I: Concepts and Historicity

Category of Spatial Formats: To What End?

Matthias Middell

University of Leipzig, SFB 1199, 6-10, Nikolaistrasse, 04109, Leipzig, Germany

Starting Point: Space as an Indispensable Dimension of Social Relations

Human actions – individual and collective – occur in space and time. Thus, space is a central dimension of social interaction and the resulting social relations.¹ Actors make use of geographic space when representing the spatial dimensions of their actions, when they apply widely accepted categories for framing and structuring these spaces, and when they create spaces through their social relations.

Conversely, one could say that every social interaction has, at least, one spatial dimension and often multiple dimensions. The French sociologist and philosopher Henri Lefebvre developed his memorable spatial triad to capture typologically the various spatial dimensions that can be found in one social interaction: espace perçu (the tangible, materialized, socially-produced space²), espace conçu (the totality of linguistic, visual, and other codifications that actors use to represent space), and espace vécu (lived space). While one may disagree with Lefebvre’s classificatory system, its basic premise is undeniable: the diversity of spatial dimensions that accompany and characterize social relations cannot be reduced to any one dimension nor to the sum of its parts.

Spaces and Spatial Formats

This basic premise helps us comprehend why it is so difficult to develop a systematic understanding of the various spatial dimensions. This, certainly, does not mean that these spatial dimensions are a recent invention of the social sciences, which were overlooked in the past. Earlier theorists understood, for example, that battles took place at specific sites because these sites were of geostrategic significance; they understood that shipping lanes developed along specific routes and to certain destinations because experience had taught that there wind and sea conditions were favourable and a profit could be made. But social action is not determined by only a few geographical characteristics, and the resulting complexity can be perceived as being contingent, rather than accidental, on the location of an event or a geographical frame. The production of space most often is the result of many interfering processes of spatialization, therefore making it difficult to decipher. At times where the world appears as increasingly interconnected, this complexity causes tension since old hierarchies of such spatial frames are dissolving and without necessarily being replaced by new clear-cut hierarchies of important and less important spatial frames of social interaction. It is no wonder that the debate about “globalization” has also brought about a new spatial turn, stretching over many different academic disciplines and problematizing in very different ways the relationship between revised societal theories – or narratives – that take their point of departure from the category of modern globalization and observations of processes of spatialization.

That said, our understanding of experiences of spatiality has evolved over time. Thus, it is valid to enquire into caesuras of our understanding and to investigate the origins of our current categories for describing processes of space-making. This leads to the broad sphere of enquiry addressed by the various lines of geographic history.³ Within these lines, abstract concepts have been developed to capture the spatial dimension of social relations; these concepts have been quickly translated into worldviews, from which multiple distinct cartographic languages and spatial semantics have emerged. But the suitability and usefulness of these representations have been repeatedly called into question and thus have been subject to near constant renewal.⁴ This dissatisfaction has accompanied the development of different cartographic languages and persists today.

The preference for representing spatial relations in visual images went hand in hand with the use of a rich metaphoric language and analogies drawn from the available knowledge, experiences, and ideologies. For example, in describing imperial space, early modern European theorists drew on the experience of the Roman Empire.⁵ This development cannot be explored in depth here, suffice it to say that the cartographic languages and spatial semantics, still available to us today, are the product of various earlier stages of reimagining the world or parts of it.⁶ Yet, spatialization has eluded any conclusive systemization, instead repeatedly being subject to scrutiny. Historically, we have seen periods in which spatial semantics acquired a degree of stability. But these periods were always replaced by less stable ones, in which reflection on new issues precipitated a rapid expansion in spatial semantics and technological advancements as well as produced new forms of map-making and standards of cartographic representation.⁷

The last three decades certainly fall into the latter category; with the intensification of cross-border, transnational, transregional, and even global processes, the spatial dimensions of social relations have become more and more complex. This complexity has led to a devaluation of established spatial relations, along with a growing interest among some actors in reimagining space. As a result, traditional strategies for reducing the (ever-present) complexity of processes of space-making have come under attack, prompting a proliferation of spatial metaphors, in which the word “space” has frequently been combined with other social dimensions to indicate the applicable perspective. A steady stream of books and essays, since the 1990s, have described or posited the emergence or increased relevance of a plethora of “new spaces”, inter alia, social and political spaces, literary spaces, spaces of violence and of peace, border regions and deterritorialized spaces, imperial and transnational spaces, spaces of knowledge, global spaces, geographic spaces, spaces of entanglement, and interstitial spaces.

This is not to say that these metaphors are not expressing a theoretically coherent framework, at which they may imply. Instead, they are occasionally used as categories for theoretical generalizations. They express an often empirically based understanding, in that all social interactions (including those addressed in such studies) involve processes of space-making. That said, studies of such “hyphenated spaces” too often focus on space as a container for a specific type of social relation, thereby failing to consider how spatial relations and representations of those relations continually stabilize, destabilize, and change these spaces.

At the same time, this proliferation signals an increasing understanding among observers that customary patterns of spatiality are being challenged. They are losing their legitimacy and/or relevance and others are gaining currency. The increased presence of metaphors in the spatial semantics points to a change in the way processes of space-making are conceived, ordered, institutionalized, and normalized.

A proliferation of new and metaphorical spatial semantics should not be equated with increased clarity. On the contrary, the amplification of discourse about “space”, we argue, signifies a growing mindfulness to two fundamental issues of our age (the significance of spatial relations and the transformation of traditional forms of spatial relations) – without any corresponding greater insight into fundamental questions about what characterizes these spaces, how they relate to one another, or whether resulting spatial orders are becoming increasingly complex within the context of processes of globalization. In short, simply postulating new “spaces”, we contend, no longer represents a promising strategy for answering the above questions.

The following essay seeks to explore paths to a heuristic approach that is inspired by the various strands of the current debate, but which moves beyond postulating new hyphenated spaces. To this end, we propose two concepts – spatial format and spatial order – which, we think, can help elucidate the co-constitution of processes of space-making and the global condition.

If in every situation involving social interaction, multiple spatial dimensions are brought into play; we must first ask by whom. Spatial dimensions do not exist in the abstract; instead they result from the spatializing actions of individual and collective actors. These actions are multifaceted and fleeting. Field research inspired by ethnographic methods, that is to say a precise and detailed description of the observed, is the closest that we can come to capturing them. Nevertheless, this methodology has its limits, as we are soon confronted with a huge variety of more or less consequential observations. Consequently, attention to scale and societal relevance is critical; only in their standardized form do processes of space-making take on significance for society as a whole and thus are useful in analysing collective processes of space-making.

Accordingly, we can say that processes of space-making, firstly, result in routines that stabilize over time. But, secondly, only some of these stabilized routines become institutionalized; they are defined and validated as well as assume relevance in the public spher...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• The Respatialization of the World as one of the Driving Dialectics under the Global Condition
• Part I: Concepts and Historicity
• Part II: Territories
• Part III: Portals
• Part IV: International Spaces
• Authors
• Index