Space and Social Theory

Andrzej J L Zieleniec

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781473971875
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

The importance of the spatial dimension of the structure, organization and experience of social relations is fundamental for sociological analysis and understanding. Space and Social Theory is an essential primer on the theories of space and inherent spatiality, guiding readers through the contributions of key and influential theorists: Marx, Simmel, Lefebvre, Harvey and Foucault. Giving an essential and accessible overview of social theories of space, this books shows why it matters to understand these theorists spatially. It will be of interest to upper level students and researchers of social theory, urban sociology, urban studies, human geography, and urban politics.

one

---

Karl Marx: the implicit spatiality of historical materialism

As in so much of sociology and the social sciences the obvious place to begin any consideration of social theory is with the contributions of those generally held to be the ‘founding fathers’ [sic] of classical social theory: namely, the works of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. However, with regard to a reflection on space and social theory this is not as straightforward as it appears. Whilst Marx, Weber and Durkheim all produced large bodies of work that have been and continue to be the essential foundation for the development of social and sociological theory, and which covers an enormous range of areas, factors, issues and methodologies, their relative silence on the significance of space is, to say the least, remarkable. Whilst time may have been given a relative prominence by all of them,¹ the space of modern capitalism was also transformed distinguishing it from that of previous eras. However, what received less attention was the new structural arrangements of, and in, space, those new forms, organisations and designs demanded by its delineation and functionalisation. It was as much in and through space as in time that industrial capitalism took form, flourished and was perpetuated. Indeed, space, as well as time it may be said, was the canvas against which Marx, Weber and Durkheim formulated their analyses and critical perspectives of capitalism, modernity and society. However, whilst space is an ever-present backdrop in their work, neither Marx, Weber nor Durkheim provided any clear and sustained analytical consideration of the significance of space as an essential element or concept through and upon which their social, political and economic analyses were founded. That is, the consideration, or lack of it, of space and spatial relations in classical social theory is a ghost at the feast of classical theory’s considerable contribution to the development of our understanding of contemporary capitalism.

A recurrent theme in the works of Marx, Durkheim and Weber is their attempts to make sense of the new social and physical landscapes of modernity and industrial capitalism. Whilst there are noted differences in their approaches, methodologies, epistemological and ontological perspectives, conceptual devices and explanations as well as in their aims and motivations, there are also well-known similarities. This includes a concern with investigating the consequences – both negative and positive – of the new social, political and economic structures and relations that were becoming apparent as the transition from feudalism to capitalism became more developed in the mid- to late nineteenth century. To describe and analyse what characterises this ‘new world’ of predominantly urban capitalism, how it differed from what went before, what its institutional arrangements are, what constitutes its social relations, how they are experienced, etc., requires a need to address those features, factors and elements that relate directly to how modern capitalism organises space as well as the spatiality (how they are produced, structured, limited, experienced, etc. in and through space) of such features and relations.

And yet, despite this, modern capitalism is often portrayed in their works as a new epoch, an era distinct from what went before. However, such ‘new times’² also incurred the radical transformation of the material, physical and social landscape in which and through which the forces, institutions, processes, social forms and divisions etc. that characterise modern capitalism came to be expressed. Such diverse phenomena as the development of the territoriality as well as the functions of the modern nation state; the rapid expansion and importance of towns and cities as the locus for government, art, culture, leisure, education, etc. as well as the site for new forms, modes, means and places of production and consumption; the expansion of the most developed division of labour in industry and in society; the separation of the public and private spheres; the alienation of labour, not only from the product of their labour, their circulation and consumption, but also from nature, etc. all imply a radical transformation of the organisation, conception and use of space.

Although it may be the case that the space of modern capitalism is fundamental for its development and perpetuation, there is an apparent neglect in their works of a detailed consideration of the importance or significance of space as a systematic and developed analysis. This is not to say that there is no spatial element in their analysis only that it is not given the degree of consideration that is accorded to other aspects of the development of modern, urban, industrial capitalism that was for all of them the focus of their analyses. Thus whilst space is implicit it is not explicitly addressed or considered in the detail or depth in which other concepts, forces, elements or factors are addressed.

The aim of this chapter however is somewhat limited. It is not possible here to explore in detail the way in which space and spatial relations are considered, however negligently, in the works of Weber and Durkheim. Durkheim could be said to have recognised that whilst different societies produce different conceptions of space and time there is only a limited reflection of this in regard to his distinctions between mechanical and organic societies (see The Elementary Forms of Religious Life). He does deal somewhat cursorarily with aspects of space in his consideration of material and moral densities as characteristics and causal elements in the development and experience of pathological forms in modern society. Weber may be said to have based his analysis of the development of a Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in the urban as the dominant spatial arena. Similarly, his consideration of The City as an early contribution to urban historical sociology is one that considers various ideal types of the city as having potentially significant spatial and social forms. Likewise, there are elements of space in his understanding of the development of private and public spheres and of the rational organisation and operation of bureaucracies and the modern nation state. However, in both Durkheim and Weber this spatiality is relatively undeveloped and has not been significantly influential in the development of theories of space that will be considered here.

The intention here will be to investigate not the explicit theorising of space and spatial relations as analysed by Marx, but to focus on the implicit spatiality of various relatively familiar aspects and concepts of Marx’s historical materialist approach. It will address the importance of space both for the understanding of Marx’s social theory and also as a foundation for the development of later, more rigorous, theories of space and social theories of space. It thus serves as a foundation for the subsequent chapters and ensuing analyses. It is a preliminary excavation, an archaeology of the role of space and spatial relations in sociological theory that highlights and reflects the implicit if not explicit spatiality in the theoretical and analytical perspectives developed by Marx. It also reflects the importance of returning to the foundations of social theory to cast a new light or hold up a spatial lens to those insights and conceptions that have formed the basis for much of the development of contemporary attempts at understanding the origins, development, structure, meaning and experience of the modern social world. That is, knowledge of space informs not only our understanding of classical social theory and its subsequent development, but also how and why space and spatial relations are an essential element in foundational analyses of capitalism and modernity, and what they can tell us about the development of subsequent theories of space and spatial theories.

---

MARX AND SPACE

Marx’s analysis of the origins, development, character and consequences of modern capitalism is complex and multifaceted involving a detailed consideration of the processes and changes that differentiated modern capitalism from previous epochs. This analysis was the basis for his claim that, amongst other things, the processes by which capitalism had originated and developed was only a necessary stage to a more just, fair and egalitarian future under communism. Whereas some have argued that developments in society and in social theory in the twentieth century means that we have reached the stage where it is time ‘to consign Marx to the dustbin of history’, it is clear that whilst capitalism has evolved considerably and in ways that Marx did not envisage it is unarguably still the mode of production to which the whole world is increasingly subjected and dominated. Now as before, sociology and social theory remain in need of a ‘dialogue with the ghost of Marx’ to ensure that our understanding of the organisation of the means of production and the social relations of production under global capitalism recognises the similarities as well as the differences between our ‘now’ and his ‘then’ Thus new way of reading Marx – such as that proposed here of an interpretation of the space and spatial relations of Marx’s analysis of capitalism – provides a means to reassess and reapply Marx’s insights and analysis in the new millennium, particularly in the current paradigm of the globalisation of capitalism.

There is no question that Marx has had a direct and profound influence on the development of more explicit spatial theories and theories of space that are perhaps more familiar contributions to the development of a contemporary social theory of space. However, in returning to the beginning, it is important to illustrate the ways in which Marx conceptualised the characteristics of and transition to capitalism as the modern mode of production. Through this an appreciation of how space may be viewed as an essential conceptual element for understanding not only Marx’s analysis of the origins and operation of capitalism originated but also how it has developed, perpetuated and survived.

In Marx’s analysis of the mode of production and in the social relations of capitalism, there are a number of concepts in which space and spatial relations are implicitly assumed if not explicitly given a detailed consideration. Thus it is possible to identify space and spatial relations in Marx’s analysis of capitalism through an emphasis on the role of space in a number of key areas that inform his overall critique of capitalism. The following are intended as illustrations of a reevaluation of Marx using spatiality as a heuristic device, to aid and enhance our understanding of the continuing importance of Marx’s analyses for both the development of social theories of space as well as a more comprehensive understanding of the origins, characteristics and promulgation of capitalism.

---

SPACE AS A FORCE OF PRODUCTION

Marx’s analysis of capitalism as a historically specific mode of production is a central focus of his work as a whole. Much of his analysis in Capital, for example, is a detailed exposition of what constitutes the mode of production, how it operates and what consequences there are for its increasing domination over all aspects of life and of our humanity. Marx’s analysis of capitalism as a mode of production contends that the economic basis of capitalist society is composed of two interrelated elements. The first is that of the forces of production: what is required to make and do things. The second, the social relations of production relates to the ways in which social forms are organised to achieve those productive ends. The spatiality of the social relations of production will be considered later, but for the present, an understanding of the ownership and subsequent control of the forces of production is required, in that Marx’s analysis of class under capitalism is, at least at a simplistic level, predicated on the dichotomy of ownership, or not, of the means of production as a characteristic feature of modern capitalism.

Marx’s analysis of what constitutes the forces of production as the combination of raw materials, the organisation (or division) of labour, the instruments of labour (buildings, machinery, technology), energy, knowledge, skill and labour that are required for the production of goods and services allows for the inclusion of space. Space is important because if ownership of the means of production and the organisation of the social relations of production constitute the mode of production then who owns space concomitantly has the power to attempt to organise and control what activities can and should occur within it. Cohen makes the point that there is a need to consider the role of space as a force of production and as such as a fundamental element in how capitalism operates.

Space deserves membership in the set of productive forces. Ownership of space certainly confers a position in the economic structure. Even when a piece of space is contentless, its control may generate economic power, because it can be filled with something productive or because it may need to be traversed by producers. He who owns a hole, even exclusive of its material envelope, is a man to reckon with if you must reach the far side of the hole, and cannot feasibly tunnel beneath it, fly above it, or make your way round it. (Cohen, 1978: 51)

Thus space, its ownership, organisation, control and manipulation become a force in the organisation and operation of capitalism. That space can be conceived or perceived as owned has implications for who has the means, the power, to organise, structure and functionalise the actions and activities that can occur within specific delineated and delimited spaces. Thus an initial analysis of Marx’s critique and analysis of capitalism requires an acknowledgement of space as a fundamental force in and characteristic feature of the mode of production of society and also how it affects or has a causal relationship to the social relations of that mode of production and of the society that is constituted by it. It is important then at this point to distinguish what Marx means by society to elicit some understanding of the spatiality of capitalist society both for its organisation of the structural conditions of commodity production, circulation and consumption, not only for the social relations of production and the reproduction of labour power, but also for the spatialisation of labour and class.

---

SPATIALISING MARX’S CONCEPTIONS OF SOCIETY

It is possible to identify in Marx’s work a number of dimensions of society that are given different emphases in his various writings and that he applies to the analysis of the development of capitalism as distinct from previous modes of production.³ In these various conceptions there is an innate spatial element. First, society can be understood as a set of relations in which Marx rejects the notion of the idea of an abstract individual and with it the distinction between that of society versus the individual. The starting point for Marx is always with social individuals. Marx rejects any idea of the individual as an isolated, fundamental or singular entity who exists or can be considered independently of social and historical contexts. Individuals are always, everywhere, fundamentally social, but social within the context of the relations of production that structure existence and experience. Thus as Marx puts it:

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. (Marx, 1859, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy)

Society as a ‘subject’ or ‘object’ is similarly rejected as a reification that cannot exist over and apart from interacting individuals. Society is then for Marx the product of human reciprocal action, but this does not mean that society cannot be experienced as something external to its participants. Thus whilst it is a simplistic truism to say that such reciprocal actions that Marx constitutes as society must take place in space, the various types of actions that can take place are predicated to some extent on the forms of social action that space allows, permits or encourages. That is, the kind of society that is produced by the actions of a relatively dispersed and small population is different qualitatively and quantitatively from that of a dense and relatively highly populated one. Social relations organised on the basis of a predominantly rural agrarian mode of production in which experience and interaction are limited by and through kinship, fealty to an over-lord, the relative paucity of potential social interactions, etc. versus the numerous possible experiences of those living in populous towns and cities constantly surrounded by relative strangers. Knowledge and consciousness of the possibility as well as the experience of reciprocal actions form a basis from which society as the relations between individuals may appear as both external and alien. New communications and transportation technologies that conquer space and time allow not only new possibilities and opportunities for reciprocal actions, but also the kinds of reciprocity made available are increasingly anonymous. As such, society as reciprocity needs an understanding of the possibilities and consequences that that society’s space secretes. That is, whether space is more or less experienced and emphasised as a barrier or a limit to reciprocity reflects an understanding of Marx’s view of society as a set of relationships that link individuals.

Second, Marx views society as a material intercourse in which some social relations are essential to material life and its continuation. These social relations are definite or specific relations between human beings and nature and between human beings. Such examples would be the need to cooperate or enter into some form of relationship to carry out tasks or activities that require some collective or collaborative labour to ensure that human needs are fulfilled. This reflects Marx’s emphasis in historical materialism on the need to consider the historical development of the social relations of production. Under feudalism, for...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1 Karl Marx: the implicit spatiality of historical materialism
• Chapter 2 Georg Simmel: the space of formal sociology
• Chapter 3 Henri Lefebvre: the production of space
• Chapter 4 David Harvey: the political economy of space
• Chapter 5 Michel Foucault: space, knowledge and power
• Chapter 6 Legacies and prospects: spatialising contemporary modernity
• Bibliography
• Index